A Memory of Light - Possible Senario Part 1 - SPOILERs!!

[Wanderer]

You "would like" to forget something, but reality seldom care about what we like.

 

Give me some proof that the door inside finnland has been destroyed pls.

You simply assume that you can predict what the Finn do or do not. That's all very well...but you can't state your theories as facts.

 

This matters because any theory about anything involving Moiraine (pre-rescue) and Lanfear (pre-Cyndane) involves cooperation on the part of the Eelfinn. There simply is no reason to believe that either of them got any. And there IS reason to believe that they did not.

 

No reason !? Everyone who went to the Finn got something, since the trade agreement said so from the beginning of that trade.<-----proven, as much as we know. More reason than this?

 

On the contrary we have no proof that this trade agreement doesn't apply to Moiraine and Lanfear. You say that they destroyed the door, but as I said that is not proven. You say that they have been "held", that's true, but there are a lot of other explanations for that; for example they could have been tricked in the trade agreement details, like what happened to Mat.

 

Speaking of connections, do you say that that door was the only connection to their lands?Obviously no. The connection with Randland still stands.

 

So, for the Eelfinn to make a bargain with someone, and then HOLD THEM CAPTIVE, makes no sense whatsoever.

 

This is a good point, but as Arath said the Eelfinn still got something even if they keep them captive; this is important.

 

I'm very afraid that I will go on a highly childish "SEE I TOLD YOU" rampage after AMoL is published .... -sigh-

 

That may be, but the point is, now you can't state your theories as facts the way you did. Facts and proof ARE important.

[wvlr]

I would talk here about assumptions' date=' but that horse is a bloody spot on my carpet.[/quote']

 

I sure HOPE so, because if it is not, I will volunteer to come over and plug it a few extra times with my water UZI. Just to make sure it stays dead. Because I sure see a lot of assumptions in your posts below:

 

 

 

People act like the Eelfinn are somehow required to deal with Moiraine and Lanfear the same way they dealt with Mat' date=' because of some magical requirement. That requirement does not exist.[/quote']

 

 

I never ever said that there was and "magical requirement". I have ALWAYS said CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENT. And yes we do know that a CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENT does exist.

 

To say that you know that the contract is written in a way that would let the Finn deny Moiraine and Lanfear to negotiate a three item bargain is an entirely unfounded assumption on your part.

 

 

Please don't let that horse get up again!

 

 

 

 

What do the Eelfinn get out of their bargains? According to the only person we know that they've dealt with' date=' they get access to the future experiences of the people they made bargains with. Mat in KoD)[/quote']

 

 

Yet they attempted to KILL Mat when they put him OUT. How could they "Collect" any future memories from him after his "bargain" if he was dead! Your own argument is blatantly working against you. You are making assumptions that you understand a completely Alien mind! You are assuming that you know a contract that you have not read! You are assuming that you Know that the doorway is destroyed on their side! You assume that that doorway is the only access to Finnland. You assume that that the destruction of the doorway on Rand's side caused a fire and light on their side! You assume that that doorway is the only one in Randland. You assume that the Finn would not be dependent on Moiraine's and Lanfear's help in replacing the doorway.

 

These are absolutely ludicrous assumptions. Some may well be true, but it is ridiculous to Assume that they are.

At least when I make my statements I say that it could go either way. Talk about Wishful Thinking!

 

 

Quick! Shoot that Damn horse again before it tries to get up AGAIN.

 

 

 

 

Then there is the fact that the creation of the doorways was the basis for the creation of the treaty. Yes' date=' I know that’s not explicitly stated. It doesn't have to be. Doorways are connections, and trade doesn't exist without connections. Jordan doesn't feel the need to expound the blindingly obvious. Destruction of the [i']connection[/i] has to void the treaty, because it inherently destroys the reason for the treaty. Anything else is ... dare I say it ... wishful thinking.

 

 

Well now that is just plain silly. Entity A (Randland) has commerce with Entity B (Finnland). We know of at LEAST 2 “Roads / means” for said commerce. The Doorway at Ruigen and the Tower of G. There might well be others but we Know of those two. Now just because one road/doorway is temporarily disabled – or even permanently disabled would Entity A stop commerce with Entity B? Would they cancel all Contracts? Maybe so, I’ll give you that, BUT I DOUBT IT! The BEST I can give you is a MAYBE, because I have not seen the Contract. If you have seen the contract please FAX me a copy so I can be as convinced as you. Otherwise it is just unfounded Wishful Thinking on your part. Pure assumption!

 

 

Would SOMEBODY PLEASSEEE BALEFIRE that Damn Horse!!

 

 

 

 

 

That’s great' date=' but if you still treat it like a magical transaction, then it doesn't really change anything. The Eelfinn simply have no reason to deal with either Moiraine or Lanfear under the terms of the treaty, and it seems that they have not, judging by the results (or lack thereof) that we have seen. [/quote']

 

 

Actually NO! I treat it like a Contract and for all we know the Contract may Require that all the Finn roll over and die if the Doorway stops working or maybe strip naked and dance on tables. The thing that you do not seem to accept is that we do not know what the contract with this completely Alien species REQUIRES!

 

 

 

Does anyone out there have a Nuc? I am SURE that that Damn horse is going to try to get up AGAIN!

 

 

Please Robert and you too Luckers, I really LIKE your imput.

 

I'm not upset that you don't like this. Everyone has their own view. I'm just concerned about the way you are stating things as facts - without providing any basis for those supposed facts.

Opinion is just fine - as long as it is addressed as such. Mostly I rate your views as some of the BEST out there. I really REALLY hate both your views on Rand's death and live again..... Especially the body swap one. Trouble is, I think you are going to be right!

[RobertAlexWillis]

Give me some proof that the door inside finnland has been destroyed pls.

 

OK. Here is a definition of the word "door".

 

door: (n) a usually swinging or sliding barrier by which an entry is closed and opened, a means of access or participation

 

Source: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/door

 

A door that doesn't open on both ends has ceased to be a door. Since the Randland end of the door no longer exists (we saw it burn, remember? TFoH chapter 53) then whatever may or may not remain in Eelfinn land, it is no longer a door.

 

Hence, the door, the "means of access" has been destroyed, whether the archway in 'finn-land is still intact or not.

 

Everyone who went to the Finn got something, since the trade agreement said so from the beginning of that trade.

 

No one else destroyed the door on the way in. If a hundred people go into a store and make purchases, and all of them follow the rules, does that mean that the 101st person, who breaks the door on the way in, will be treated the same?

 

No.

 

You say that they destroyed the door, but as I said that is not proven.

 

See above. The rest of the argument hangs on that.

 

This is a good point, but as Arath said the Eelfinn still got something even if they keep them captive; this is important.

 

No, Arath made a highly speculative guess about something we haven't seen. All of Mat's memories are of people who got back out. We have exactly ZERO examples of people who we know made bargains, but did not get released.

 

Speaking of connections, do you say that that door was the only connection to their lands?

 

No. Two connections still exist. The Tower of Ghenjei, which predates and is unrelated to the treaty, and the doorway in Tear, which is for the Aelfinn, not the Eelfinn.

 

However, neither of those connections is the basis of the treaty with the Eelfinn. The doorway which was destroyed was that. Without the connection for which the treaty was established, there is no treaty.

 

I have ALWAYS said CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENT. And yes we do know that a CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENT does exist.

 

First, you didn't ALWAYS say that. You changed your posts to say that.

 

Second, if you change the words, but still use the same intent, it doesn't matter. We do NOT know that the Eelfinn are contractually obligated to deal with people who burn down the door on their way in.

 

Unless you have a copy of the treaty?

 

Yet they attempted to KILL Mat when they put him OUT.

 

Nope. They played a mean joke on him. They hung him at a time and place where there was someone to save him. Big scar, raw throat. No death.

 

Look, if they did plan to kill him, why would they bother making a connection with his mind? No, they knew he would live. That world is twisted in ways that let the 'finns see possible futures. They deliberately put him out in a place and time where he would come close to death, but not die.

 

Which satisfies their established desire for voyeurism. They get to share his near-death experience.

 

You are assuming that you Know that the doorway is destroyed on their side!

 

Yes, see reasons above.

 

You assume that that doorway is the only access to Finnland.

 

No, I assume that doorway is the basis of the treaty.

 

You assume that that doorway is the only access to Finnland.

 

No, I assume that doorway is the basis of the treaty. I stated above that there are still connections to 'finn-land.

 

You assume that that the destruction of the doorway on Rand's side caused a fire and light on their side!

 

No I didn't. I never said that. Other people have, but not me. Its possible, but we don't know.

 

You assume that that doorway is the only one in Randland.

 

Now you're just repeating yourself. See my response above.

 

You assume that the Finn would not be dependent on Moiraine's and Lanfear's help in replacing the doorway.

 

That, I do assume. I also assume that Moiraine is unable to help them restore the doorway even if she wanted to, and they don't have Lanfear anymore, making that a moot point.

 

The Doorway at Ruigen and the Tower of G.

 

The Doorway at "Ruigen" is part of the specific treaty. The Tower of Ghenjei predates the treaty, and is not subject to it. Your "two roads" could be compared to a customs checkpoint and a smuggler's route. The redstone doorframe ter'angreal is the customs checkpoint. Regulated by laws, formed in a treaty. If you burn down a customs checkpoint, they're not going to let you trade through it anymore. The Tower of Ghenjei is the smuggler's route. No rules, potential for good profit, but also potential for getting your hide made into clothing. The continued existence of the Tower of Ghenjei in no way continues the treaty.

 

The vast majority of trade treaties regulate how AND WHERE traders may enter, exit, and trade. Pretending that the destruction of one of those authorized trade routes doesn't violate the most basic nature of any trade agreement is ... wishful thinking.

 

Would they cancel all Contracts?

 

I never said they "cancelled all Contracts". You're making assumptions again. I said the specific treaty for that doorway would be gone. The Aelfinn answer doorway is still open. You can still strike new bargains through the Tower of Ghenjei. But the treaty with the Eelfinn, under which Mat got his presents? THAT one is gone. And the perps were taken into custody.

 

The thing that you do not seem to accept is that we do not know what the contract with this completely Alien species REQUIRES!

 

The contract is also with humans, and the Eelfinn are not alien to the same degree that the Dark One is (I assume that you have been trying to use the argument I expressed to Luckers about the Dark One in other threads against me here). Human trade agreements follow patterns.

 

I'm just concerned about the way you are stating things as facts - without providing any basis for those supposed facts.

 

As I demonstrated above, several of the things you thought I was expressing as "fact" I was not even expressing as likely.

 

We have not seen Moiraine yet, or gotten her story. Until that happens, I cannot say that it is "proven fact" that she did not get to deal with the Eelfinn. However, for the many reasons I have stated, the likelihood is so low that I feel comfortable moving my statements from "probably" to "I personally feel certain that this is the way it is."

 

Could I be wrong? Sure.

 

Wanna put some money on it? :twisted:

[Wanderer]

The door problem: as I said above, have you ever seen "stargate" film or series? it's a good example,but aside from that...we don't know if the door in Finnland connects only to the ter'angrel destroyed in TFoH...there are other connections to Finnland, this is proven, maybe even more ter'angreal, but this is speculation.

 

No one else destroyed the door on the way in. If a hundred people go into a store and make purchases, and all of them follow the rules, does that mean that the 101st person, who breaks the door on the way in, will be treated the same?

 

No.

 

This is not proven:it's a logical theory you make out of a trade agreement we know, the modern commerce, but you don't know what the trade agreement with the Finn was. But if you like so much a modern analogy, calling the police means a fair judgement, maybe the one who broke the door had his reasons, so maybe he can still make a purchase becouse he's not guilty. Have you seen a lot of maybes? yes it's becouse all of this is speculation, like what you did before.

 

No, Arath made a highly speculative guess about something we haven't seen. All of Mat's memories are of people who got back out. We have exactly ZERO examples of people who we know made bargains, but did not get released.

 

The Finns chose the memories they gave to Mat...They gave him things related to battles.

 

No. Two connections still exist. The Tower of Ghenjei, which predates and is unrelated to the treaty, and the doorway in Tear, which is for the Aelfinn, not the Eelfinn.

 

You could make a point here^^ but how do you know that the Tower of Ghenjei is unrelated to some treaty? or that the ter'angreal destroyed was the only one to grant access to the Eelfinn...

 

You said that human trade agreements follow patterns, well that's true, but you try to apply only the parts good for your theory...

I think your reasoning is good, it has a good % of being true, what I addressed was the certainity of the previous posts becouse proof lacks.

 

One final comment on the "door", you quoted a definition, that's good I like arguments based on knowledge, proven knowledge and references.

But what I said from my first post in this topic is that the books aren't clear, it is not a normal door, we don't know how it works.

For example, if a trade route is based on several paths that all lead to a final point, this final point can't know if one of the others has been destroyed in the starting location if they are far away.

About the "door, in the books":You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

We'll "hear" which theory will die and which live.

[cloglord]

I'm very afraid that I will go on a highly childish "SEE I TOLD YOU" rampage after AMoL is published .... -sigh-

Wanna put some money on it?

 

That's why I started that thread. :) I feel ya' RAW.

[RobertAlexWillis]

I think your reasoning is good, it has a good % of being true, what I addressed was the certainity of the previous posts becouse proof lacks.

 

Since that seems to be the basis for your statements, let me repeat the paragraph of my last post that addresses it.

 

I said:

 

"We have not seen Moiraine yet, or gotten her story. Until that happens, I cannot say that it is "proven fact" that she did not get to deal with the Eelfinn. However, for the many reasons I have stated, the likelihood is so low that I feel comfortable moving my statements from 'probably' to 'I personally feel certain that this is the way it is.' "

 

Did you see that? I said I don't have incontrovertible proof. But, I also said that the things we do have are so indicative, that, even lacking what would be considered "incontrovertible proof", I am still personally certain that I am right (along with the other people who think the same way).

 

Its the same as the Graendal killed Asmodean bit. No, we don't have incontrovertible proof. I could not convict her in a court of law, and neither could I demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Moiraine and Lanfear did not get to deal with the Eelfinn.

 

That doesn't mean that that is not the most likely condition by far however. In this case, to me, the margin of other possibilities is so small that I am PERSONALLY sure of my position.

 

Let me now repeat the next line from my post:

 

"Could I be wrong? Sure."

 

I'm not infallible. But that doesn't mean I'm always wrong either. So, we wait and see. If it turns out they did get to make a deal, then I'm a moron, and you can all come back and laugh at me.

[Wanderer]

Your theory's lack of proof was one important point of my posts becouse you addressed other theories as children fancies.

I did say the certainity of your previous posts, I've noticed your "concessions" in your last post on page2 and I appreciate them, without need to re-read them .

 

The thing is this:you can't say other people's theories are "absurd", "ludicrious" and that the things in support of your theory which Jordan didn't clarify are "blindingly obvious", with that lightness of proof.

 

And last but not least, the proof lack point is not the only thing I've said, I've also tried to make you see(alongside all the other people who think the same as you; personally I call to the numbers only when they are really great and still they aren't surety of truth) that there are other possibilities, as I did.

 

You don't believe in these other possibilities, so we disagree.

 

Wanna put some money on it? :twisted:

 

"Always glad to take your coin" lol

[Mr Ares]

People act like the Eelfinn are somehow required to deal with Moiraine and Lanfear the same way they dealt with Mat' date=' because of some magical requirement. That requirement does not exist.[/quote']

I never ever said that there was and "magical requirement". I have ALWAYS said CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENT. And yes we do know that a CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENT does exist. To say that you know that the contract is written in a way that would let the Finn deny Moiraine and Lanfear to negotiate a three item bargain is an entirely unfounded assumption on your part.

How do weknow that there is a contractual requirement

for Lanfear and Moiraine to be treated the same as Mat? They certainly entered in slightly different way

and IF there was fire/light/etc. on the other side they wouldn't be too happy. Likewise, if the door was destroyed on both sides, why would there be a requirement for the people who destroyed the door to be allowed to bargain? Also, it is a totally unfounded assumption on your part that there is a requirement for the Finn to negotiate a bargain - and even if there were, they could simply set the price for anything unreasonably high. If the parties can't agree on a price, what then? No agreement= no contract= no obligation.

 

 

Then there is the fact that the creation of the doorways was the basis for the creation of the treaty. Yes' date=' I know that’s not explicitly stated. It doesn't have to be. Doorways are connections, and trade doesn't exist without connections. Jordan doesn't feel the need to expound the blindingly obvious. Destruction of the [i']connection[/i] has to void the treaty, because it inherently destroys the reason for the treaty. Anything else is ... dare I say it ... wishful thinking.

 

 

Well now that is just plain silly. Entity A (Randland) has commerce with Entity B (Finnland). We know of only 2 “Roads / means” for said commerce. The Doorway at Rhuidean and the Tower of Genjei. There might well be others but we Know of those two. Now just because one road/doorway is temporarily disabled – or even permanently disabled would Entity A stop commerce with Entity B? Would they cancel all Contracts? Maybe so, I’ll give you that, BUT I DOUBT IT! The BEST I can give you is a MAYBE, because I have not seen the Contract. If you have seen the contract please FAX me a copy so I can be as convinced as you. Otherwise it is just unfounded Wishful Thinking on your part. Pure assumption!

I see no reason for them to stop commerce or cancel any contracts, but why would there be a requirement for them to set up new contracts, especially with a party who has just destroyed a valuable trade route. You show me where it says that the Finn are obligated, by the terms of the treaty to form a new contract with any and all comers, regardless of what they have done, despite the fact that this is not the normal way that contracts and trade agreements work

 

 

That’s great' date=' but if you still treat it like a magical transaction, then it doesn't really change anything. The Eelfinn simply have no reason to deal with either Moiraine or Lanfear under the terms of the treaty, and it seems that they have not, judging by the results (or lack thereof) that we have seen. [/quote']

 

 

Actually NO! I treat it like a Contract and for all we know the Contract may Require that all the Finn roll over and die if the Doorway stops working or maybe strip naked and dance on tables. The thing that you do not seem to accept is that we do not know what the contract with this completely Alien species REQUIRES!

You Don't treat it like a contract. You keep using that word. I don't it means what you think it means. Both parties must agree to a contract, right? Both parties must get something out of it, right? So Moiraine goes through and Lanfear goes through, Right? So the Finn can make a contract with either, neither, or both. You show me where it says that the Finn, acording to the treaty, have to form a contract with any and all parties,or at the very least negotiate with them. Offer and Acceptance is the foundation of contract law, and are you really trying to say that the Finn have basically given an acceptance to anyone, and basically given up the right to say no? That they have no right to refuse trade with any party for any reason?

 

The door problem: as I said above' date=' have you ever seen "stargate" film or series? it's a good example,but aside from that...we don't know if the door in Finnland connects only to the ter'angrel destroyed in TFoH...there are other connections to Finnland, this is proven, maybe even more ter'angreal, but this is speculation.[/quote']Be careful with examples like this - RJ isn't writing Stargate. There are, of course, many differences between the two. In Stargate, it takes time to travel between Stargates, much like travelling through a tunnel, but in WoT, it's more like stepping trough a doorway, with one world on one side and another on the other. We have no reason to beleive that the Rhuidean door connects with any door other thant the other side, as we saw (and given the foxhead markings on the doorframe it seems likely that it does only connect the two places

 

Quote:

No one else destroyed the door on the way in. If a hundred people go into a store and make purchases, and all of them follow the rules, does that mean that the 101st person, who breaks the door on the way in, will be treated the same?

 

No.

 

 

This is not proven:it's a logical theory you make out of a trade agreement we know, the modern commerce, but you don't know what the trade agreement with the Finn was. But if you like so much a modern analogy, calling the police means a fair judgement, maybe the one who broke the door had his reasons, so maybe he can still make a purchase becouse he's not guilty. Have you seen a lot of maybes? yes it's becouse all of this is speculation, like what you did before.

If someone smashes down your door to get into your shop, Reasons or no, guilty or not, the shop owner has no obligation to sell you anything. In fact he doesn't even need the excuse of a smashed door, maybe he just doesn't like the look of you or whatever. Both parties must agree to negotiate, and to form a contract

 

One final comment on the "door", you quoted a definition, that's good I like arguments based on knowledge, proven knowledge and references.

But what I said from my first post in this topic is that the books aren't clear, it is not a normal door, we don't know how it works.

For example, if a trade route is based on several paths that all lead to a final point, this final point can't know if one of the others has been destroyed in the starting location if they are far away.

About the "door, in the books":You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

 

We'll "hear" which theory will die and which live.

Of course, with the start point destroyed, the trade treaty would be ended, if, of course, that is enough to end the treaty, even if the other party don't know - and seeing as it's just on the other side of the doorway, I see no reason why they shouldn't know. they may have other treaties with other worlds through other doors, but if the only Eelfinn/ Human trade route covered by the treaty was the Rhuidean door then the destruction of said door destroyed the trade route and so made the treaty irrelevant. If, of course the ToG is also covered then the Eelfinn could still be upset abou the loss of a valuable trde route. Either way, they still have little reason to bargain with M and L. And the idea that they can't figure out what happened on the other side of a doorway is slightly ridiculous, isn't it - especially when the effects were as dramatic as on the Randland side.

[Cuchulainn]

but the eelfinn dogrant wishes. it may not be with magic or the power or anything like that but from a certin perspective they do. think about it, mat was wishingfor a way to get away from AS and he may not have said the words 'i wish'. the eelfinn granted the wish by giving him the fox head medallion. say that you wish for a glass of water and someone gives it to you by getting up and filling a glass with water and giving it to you, but you have to give them something in return. you got the water but not through magical means thus your wish is fullfilled but you still have to give up something for it. that is how the eelfinn work. and the wish thing is all just how the situation is looked at

[Mr Ares]

but the eelfinn do grant wishes. it may not be with magic or the power or anything like that but from a certin perspective they do. think about it' date=' mat was [i']wishing[/i]for a way to get away from AS and he may not have said the words 'i wish'. the eelfinn granted the wish by giving him the fox head medallion. say that you wish for a glass of water and someone gives it to you by getting up and filling a glass with water and giving it to you, but you have to give them something in return. you got the water but not through magical means thus your wish is fullfilled but you still have to give up something for it. that is how the eelfinn work. and the wish thing is all just how the situation is looked at

You could say that. But if you went into a shop and said "I'm really thirsty, I wish I had a drink of water" and the reply was "certainly sir, £1.99" you probably are more likely to look at it as buying something rather than your wishes being granted. You're also likely to think that bottled water is pretty pricey in this shop, but that's beside the point. On a side note, you could also look at it as a contract, in case people are still having trouble with the concept - you get something in return for something else, and the shopkeeper doesn't have to sell to you if s/he didn't want to.

[RobertAlexWillis]

Your theory's lack of proof was one important point of my posts becouse you addressed other theories as children fancies.

I did say the certainity of your previous posts, I've noticed your "concessions" in your last post on page2 and I appreciate them, without need to re-read them

 

The fact that I don't have incontrovertible proof doesn't mean that the other theories make sense. They dont. I didn't make any "concessions" in my last few posts, I just explained what was in the first ones that you apparently didn't grasp.

 

The thing is this:you can't say other people's theories are "absurd", "ludicrious" and that the things in support of your theory which Jordan didn't clarify are "blindingly obvious", with that lightness of proof.

 

Well ... yes, actually, I can. Thats what will make me a moron if I'm wrong. But I won't be.

 

You don't believe in these other possibilities, so we disagree.

 

Amen to that.

 

But what I said from my first post in this topic is that the books aren't clear, it is not a normal door, we don't know how it works.

 

Um ... we know exactly how it works, on a functional level. You walk through the arch in Randland, and you come out through the arch in 'finn-land. With the arch in Randland demonstrably destroyed, that process is no longer valid. So it doesn't matter what the specific metaphysical details of the connection are. It no longer functions.

 

The word "door" in the books was used to describe that connection. Jordan chose the word "door" because thats what the word means: a means of access or participation. If he meant something else, he would have used a different word. Since the connection no longer exists, the "door", the method of access, as used in the books, is no longer there.

 

In other words: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[SvetSedi]

Interesting Story.

 

I'm not sure about M & L getting "trades", but the rest is interesting. Even if they do not, I don't see why Thom and Noal would not. I think that Mat will just take Firewoks and matches in and force them to do these things, but it all amounts to about the same thing. I don't see why everyone is debating so much about unimportant details that could be achieved by these or other means.

[Wanderer]

"Now that killed the goat"

 

Quote:

Your theory's lack of proof was one important point of my posts becouse you addressed other theories as children fancies.

I did say the certainity of your previous posts, I've noticed your "concessions" in your last post on page2 and I appreciate them, without need to re-read them

 

The fact that I don't have incontrovertible proof doesn't mean that the other theories make sense. They dont. I didn't make any "concessions" in my last few posts

 

 

I'm sure the ironic use of "concessions" was clear, I even used the "" to underline it, but if you don't want to see it I'm not going to weep.

You started in this topic stating things like scientific laws, that's why I started writing enumerating reasons and possibilities which negate them. If they were so clear maybe people would not keep saying that the Finn grant wishes(which I don't believe, but that's it). You see, no one has a Truth given by some sort of god.

Now you say that from the beginning you didn't have this behavior, I'm not going to continue spaking of this, people will judge on their own. As for other theories making sense, people will judge.

 

Quote:

The thing is this:you can't say other people's theories are "absurd", "ludicrious" and that the things in support of your theory which Jordan didn't clarify are "blindingly obvious", with that lightness of proof.

 

Well ... yes, actually, I can. Thats what will make me a moron if I'm wrong. But I won't be.

 

But of course you can, we have freedom of speech^^ but since no one can prove you or others right or wrong, "yet", you shouldn't treat other theories that way,it's a demeanor related issue, maybe I'm too polite(ironic moment) and I think that in a discussion about fantasy,no one should arrogate himself the right to be the spokesman of Truth.

 

Last point the amazing door problem lol.

You are right, we know how it works on a functional level, but circumscribed to the door that was destroyed. How do we know that the ones in Finn-land doesn't connect to other ter-angreal in Randland, or that it isn't the point in which people arrive from the ToG?

RJ uses the word door, maybe becouse it's the most close ones to that kind of ter-angreal, becouse it's a strange mysterious ter-angreal isn't it? Well maybe not mysterious, you know exactly how it works "Oh.I am sorry.I forgot".

 

To answer to SvetSedi: I'm debating on demeanor in a discussion about fantasy, but I grant you this, I'm not going to go on here, as I said people will judge, I've said enough to explain my position and so did other people. It is turning into a sterile debate.

I will let the spiral of silence do its work.

 

P.s. It seems that I've created some sort of find the quote game lol.

[RobertAlexWillis]

How do we know that the ones in Finn-land doesn't connect to other ter-angreal in Randland, or that it isn't the point in which people arrive from the ToG?

 

Well, the fact that no one had apparently used the one in Rhuidean, even on the Eelfinn's end, for as long as the city had been hidden, is indicative, although not proof.

 

But hey, we'll see in AMoL, won't we?

 

Well maybe not mysterious, you know exactly how it works "Oh.I am sorry.I forgot".

 

Uh, yes. On a FUNCTIONAL level, we all do.

 

1) Step in here.

 

2) Come out there.

 

It's pretty simple. Which means that if the part where you "Step in here." is gone, then you can no longer "Come out there.", using that connection ... or "door".

 

I would add, in the interest of covering all the bases, that if you support an idea that includes entrances that we have not seen, the burden of proof is on you to find some indication ... ANY indication that they exist. So far there is none, which is why I regard ideas based on the idea that there ARE some as wishful thinking. There don't need to be any to explain all the things we've seen in the book. There only need to be some to support a convoluted set of ideas leading to Moiraine getting a chance to bargain for things we haven't seen in a place where she is being held captive.

 

I can sit here and say "I bet theres an army of trained channelers who have been waiting in the steddings in the Land of the Madmen, and they come out once a year to test the Source, and train, to see if the taint is cleansed because they have a prophecy that it will be one day and then they will serve the Dragon so in the next book about 2000 loyal well trained male channelers are gonna show up and help Rand beat the Dark One."

 

There is nothing in the books that disproves that. But there is nothing that INDICATES it either. And it is ludicrous. The idea that there are these other doors scattered around Randland, or that the Eelfinn felt obligated to bargain with Moiraine and Lanfear under the same terms as they did with Mat, is not completely disproven. But there is nothing that INDICATES it either. And it is absurd.

 

As far as "demeanor" is concerned, I have not said anything that I regard as personally insulting. Calling an idea "absurd" is not the same as insulting the person who espoused it. We all come up with "ludicrous" ideas from time to time. I've characterized my own thoughts that way on occasion, after further reflection or reading good points made by others.

 

I'm sorry if you feel that I was insulting you or anyone else. That is not and never was my purpose. I usually (and I'm not perfect at it, but I try) deal with ideas separately from people. I think Luckers is a very intelligent person, but I vehemently disagree with his ideas at times. As a counterexample, I think most of what Bob T Dwarf says is just flat out wrong, but when he puts forth an idea which is not, I don't hesitate to address that idea according to its merit.

 

In short, I'm trying to deal with ideas here, not personalities. I'll try to be more aware of your sensibilities in the future.

[Luckers]

I'm sorry.

 

Tell me, those of you who disagree with Robert. Would you, as a shop merchant, grant your services to somone who broke your door coming in? who you imprisoned, and were able to simple take from them everything you wanted?

 

What an absurdity.

[SvetSedi]

If you want to define this as a "normal" door in the normal world then I think that opens up a whole new can of worms. Just as the "Windows" on my PC is not the same as the windows on my house.

 

The "doorway" is only an easy name for its function. Much easier than "Transdeminsional Access Facillitator".

 

But to use the modern analogy of a doorway being broken, in this day and age. The customer who did this would likely walk out of the store with everything he wanted and without paying for it. That is because the shop owner would be afraid of being sued for his faulty door - Uuless he could prove it was a delibrate act on part of the customer. Otherwise he would be doing everything in his power to "Placate" the customer.

 

Just my thoughts.

[cloglord]

And I thought that I could take a simple metaphor and stretch it too far.

 

Well, what if the shopkeeper had a gun for sale, but instead of selling it, he took it off the shelf and shot the guy who broke the door? Would he be sued? Would the man's friends come in the same broken door from other parking lots and avenge their dead friend? Could the door be fixed with that material available for sale?

 

Man I wish that the Finns were here so I could wish that this discussion were clearer. I'd probably wish that it be resolved conclusively beyond a doubt as well. For my 3rd wish, I'd probably wish for a pony, a super fast miracle pony that could carry Lan to Tarwin's Gap in the twinkle of an eye........

[RobertAlexWillis]

The "doorway" is only an easy name for its function. Much easier than "Transdeminsional Access Facillitator".

 

OK. Fine. But with one end broken, it STILL DOESN'T FUNCTION!!!!

 

How hard IS this?

 

The customer who did this would likely walk out of the store with everything he wanted and without paying for it.

 

Yeah ... unless the store has ... I don't know ... security? That does their job?

 

Man I wish that the Finns were here so I could wish that this discussion were clearer. I'd probably wish that it be resolved conclusively beyond a doubt as well. For my 3rd wish, I'd probably wish for a pony, a super fast miracle pony that could carry Lan to Tarwin's Gap in the twinkle of an eye........

 

Nice. :D

[DemandredFO]

I'm pretty sure RAW IS speaking when he says the door is broken on the Randland side. For those that have imaginations we saw it burn and since, other than the ToG, that seems to be the only door that goes to the Eilfinn, it IS BROKEN. How hard is that to understand. The treaty was made for persons that come in THE NORMAL WAY and Lanfear and moirane did not only not come in the normal way, falling through is not normal, they broke the f*ing thing falling through. For Cloglord, I second RAW last. Hopefully I can divert a dead end so, will the Ogeir come for Tarmon Gaidon. Have fun

P.S. RAW I tried but if they aren't discussing ogeir or anything but moiraine and Lafear next time you drop by this thread, my advice is put a biohazard sign on this particular thread. That's what I gonna do anyway.

[RobertAlexWillis]

 

 

There we go.

[SvetSedi]

The customer who did this would likely walk out of the store with everything he wanted and without paying for it.

 

Yeah ... unless the store has ... I don't know ... security? That does their job?

 

What does Security have to do with the store owner trying to "Pay off" a customer to avoid a lawsuit from his door falling apart when the customer enters?

[wvlr]

 

I have ALWAYS said CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENT. And yes we do know that a CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENT does exist.

 

First' date=' you didn't ALWAYS say that. You changed your posts to say that.

 

Second, if you change the words, but still use the same intent, it doesn't matter. We do NOT know that the Eelfinn are contractually obligated to deal with people who burn down the door on their way in.

 

No actually I did not. I edited the original post to eliminate “Wishes” and substitute things like “Trade & Bargain”. I did that because I was conceding that the term “Wishes” could easily be misconstrued as some kind of “magical requirement” which you had stated.

 

I never used the term “Magical Requirement” and never changed it to Contractual. I have always used “ Contract or Contractual” references to indicate the “Treaty” between Randland and Finnland.

 

Individual trades, I do not consider to be “Contracts” but are instead “Trades/Bargains/Deals/Swaps or if you desire Wishes”

 

 

 

 

Yet they attempted to KILL Mat when they put him OUT.

 

Nope. They played a mean joke on him. They hung him at a time and place where there was someone to save him. Big scar, raw throat. No death.

 

Look, if they did plan to kill him, why would they bother making a connection with his mind? No, they knew he would live. That world is twisted in ways that let the 'finns see possible futures. They deliberately put him out in a place and time where he would come close to death, but not die.

 

 

That is only one “possible future”. Another possible future would be that Matt would die.

 

 

 

Yet they attempted to KILL Mat when they put him OUT.

 

Nope. They played a mean joke on him. They hung him at a time and place where there was someone to save him. Big scar, raw throat. No death.

 

Look, if they did plan to kill him, why would they bother making a connection with his mind? No, they knew he would live. That world is twisted in ways that let the 'finns see possible futures. They deliberately put him out in a place and time where he would come close to death, but not die.

 

Which satisfies their established desire for voyeurism. They get to share his near-death experience.

 

 

 

I must admit that your argument is pretty strong though on this point and mine is pretty weak. The Finns seem to know which of the possible futures will come true.

 

 

 

 

No, I assume that doorway is the basis of the treaty.

 

Unless you have proof, I do not see why you would state this as Fact. Have you seen an inventory of all the Seanchan ter'angreal that no one else has seen? Have you seen an inventory of all the ter'angreal lost beneath the oceans that may reappear with the new breaking? Have you seen an list of all the ter'angreal in the WT? Have you even seen a statement from any Aes Sedai that said “Gee we don’t have one of those at the WT.”?

 

I do not accept that unfounded assumption.

The thing is that we just do not know until RJ tells us.

 

You assume that the Finn would not be dependent on Moiraine's and Lanfear's help in replacing the doorway.

 

That, I do assume. I also assume that Moiraine is unable to help them restore the doorway even if she wanted to, and they don't have Lanfear anymore, making that a moot point.

 

 

I do not accept that unfounded assumption.

The thing is that we just do not know until RJ tells us.

 

 

 

 

The Tower of Ghenjei predates the treaty, and is not subject to it. Your "two roads" could be compared to a customs checkpoint and a smuggler's route. The redstone doorframe ter'angreal is the customs checkpoint. Regulated by laws, formed in a treaty. If you burn down a customs checkpoint, they're not going to let you trade through it anymore. The Tower of Ghenjei is the smuggler's route. No rules, potential for good profit, but also potential for getting your hide made into clothing. The continued existence of the Tower of Ghenjei in no way continues the treaty.

 

I do not accept that unfounded assumption.

The thing is that we just do not know until RJ tells us.

 

 

 

 

 

The thing that you do not seem to accept is that we do not know what the contract with this completely Alien species REQUIRES!

 

The contract is also with humans, and the Eelfinn are not alien to the same degree that the Dark One is (I assume that you have been trying to use the argument I expressed to Luckers about the Dark One in other threads against me here). Human trade agreements follow patterns.

 

I don’t thing that I have seen that thread. Give me a link and I will see if it applies. Otherwise, the amount of Alienness of the DO has nothing to do with this. The Finns are plenty Alien enough.

 

 

 

[quote="RobertAlexWillis

Did you see that? I said I don't have incontrovertible proof. But, I also said that the things we do have are so indicative, that, even lacking what would be considered "incontrovertible proof", I am still personally certain that I am right (along with the other people who think the same way).

 

 

Thanks. That was all we really wanted was some small statement that this is only your opinion. So until we get something solid, we will just have to take a “wait and see” approach.

 

 

 

 

 

NOW THAT SAID. I really think that you are getting hung up on unimportant details.

 

 

In this scenario the same results can also be achieved by Thom and Noal making 3 good trades each (6 Total) when they enter the Tower of G.

 

OR by Mat going in with those “Bombs” and matches and using force to accomplish the same task. Once they are “Forced” to submit, Mat can make all kinds of “Demands” from them.

 

OR Maybe Thom will sing and play a tune for them.

 

 

 

 

 

The only reason I am a little partial to the First version is because it would be very enjoyable reading about Lanfear demanding to be returned to Randland, but not stating “Alive” and so she is killed. Or some such variation. Other than that – we know that the three ARE going in and they will be bringing Moiraine out.

 

To me though, it is much more interesting to see the Tricksters being Tricked by Mat.

[RobertAlexWillis]

Thanks. That was all we really wanted was some small statement that this is only your opinion. So until we get something solid, we will just have to take a “wait and see” approach.

 

Yeah ... that would be great, except that you're basing theories on you OWN assumptions. Then telling me not to. See the inconsistency?

 

I've admitted my assumptions, and said that while there are other possibilities, in the mathematical sense, they are not LIKELY. In fact, they are so UNLIKELY, that to espouse them is "ludicrous".

 

I have also already admitted that, as you say, we do ultimately have to "wait and see". The difference is that after "waiting and seeing" I'll be able to lean back in my chair and go "yep, thats what I thought."

 

In this scenario the same results can also be achieved by Thom and Noal making 3 good trades each (6 Total) when they enter the Tower of G.

 

I would say that is unlikely because of all the emphasis that has been put on cheating when dealing with the 'finns. Also, there is no evidence that the treaty applies to entrance through the Tower of Ghenjei.

 

OR by Mat going in with those “Bombs” and matches and using force to accomplish the same task. Once they are “Forced” to submit, Mat can make all kinds of “Demands” from them.

 

OR Maybe Thom will sing and play a tune for them.

 

I would say both of those are much more likely, and probably in comination. Any successful jailbreak will involve "Courage to strengthen, fire to blind, music to dazzle, iron to bind."

 

What does Security have to do with the store owner trying to "Pay off" a customer to avoid a lawsuit from his door falling apart when the customer enters?

 

The ter'angreal was destroyed because of the way Lanfear and Moiraine were channeling was affected by the different geometry of 'finn-land. It didn't just "fall apart". They broke it. So the Eelfinn have no need to "pay them off".

[wvlr]

Now a TOUGH test question for you Robert or anyone else that can come up with a really good answer.

 

What caused the ter'angreal doorway to break?

 

Was it because they were Channeling when they entered? If that is the answer, then why was Rand able to Exit the one in Tear with his "Sword of Flame"?

[RobertAlexWillis]

What caused the ter'angreal doorway to break?

 

According to an unsourced booksigning quote (here: http://www.wotmania.com/faqtopic.asp?ID=25 ) the doorway broke as a reaction between the way that they were channeling and the different geometry of 'finn-land. The idea is supported by Moiraine descriptions in TSR, ch 15. She says: "That world is . . . folded . . . in strange ways. I cannot be clearer."

 

Lanfear and Moiraine together were handling using much more of the Power than Rand was when he made his fire-sword. Theoretically (very theoretically), opposing sets of physical laws could withstand limited contact-stress, but not too much. This was why Moiraine was concerned about more than one ta'veren entering the doorway in Tear. Says she: "One of you would have been bad enough, but two ta’veren at once - you might have torn the connection entirely and been trapped there." (TSR ch. 15) Ta'verenness is probably (and yes, this is highly speculative) an extension of the Pattern's metaphysical geometry in and around a person. So, much like channeling (a very geometrically analogous function, formed by creating shaped "weaves" of strands of the Power) the intrusion of Randland geometry into 'finn-land geometry creates stress, which, when it reached the breaking point, caused the connection to rupture with a massive energy discharge (on the Randland side ... there really is no way to know what form the destruction took on the 'finn-land side until we get an interview with Moiraine ... it could have been radically different).

 

The simple presence of two ta'veren and Rand channeling a small amount apparently stressed the connection in Tear. The much more massive amount of the Power (and the way it was being used ... Lanfear probably knew some very intricate weaves, and the higher goemetric complexity of those may have added to the stress) was apparently enough to break this one.

 

This whole line of reasoning is highly speculative, but the basics of it are indicated in the text.