Woman Dead and Gone

[callandor]

AHEM.

 

Min made a sound in her throat,, and the bond carried sadness so bleak it almost overwhelmed the burst of love that came with it. So. It must have been death she saw. but she had been wrong about Moiraine. Maybe this viewing could be changed by a ta'averen.

From KoD, Within the Stone.

 

IT WAS ABOUT MOIRAINE. END OF STORY.

[luftstark]

I hate when ppl say "That's it. End of story"? To me is like the person is asking me to reply.

 

She was indeed wrong about moiraine, or they think so... but the viewing about rand failure was not shared with Rand, so we can't assume that he is talking about it from his PoV. Also rand does not think "she was only wrong about moiraine" ... so this quote is quite useless in the discussion.

[mb]

Min made a sound in her throat,, and the bond carried sadness so bleak it almost overwhelmed the burst of love that came with it. So. It must have been death she saw. but she had been wrong about Moiraine. Maybe this viewing could be changed by a ta'averen.

From KoD, Within the Stone.

From the Encyclopaedia site, the death seems to apply to Com & Doni.

 

[callandor]

YES OMIGOSH THE DEATH IS ABOUT COM AND DONI. THATS NOT THE POINT.

 

when it says "but she had been wrong about moiraine" it is implying that he hopes she can be wrong about com and doni's deathas well. Somehow, he (Rand) found out that min had a "failed viewing about someone" and since that was her only "failed" viewing, and rand say's she was wrong about moiraine, SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT MOIRAINE when she said that stuff about a women dead and gone.

 

gosh, how is this so hard to understand? ???

 

 

[Roxinos]

mb is very literal minded. Anything more complex than A = B goes right over his/her head.

[callandor]

yeah i guess unless we get min saying "my failed viewing was of moiraine" he/she won't be able to get it.

[water_seeker]

2 things Rox:

 

1)  I laugh when you refer to mb as him/her and I'm waiting to see if he/she responds to that, and

 

2)  Did you end up crying when you read mb's next post after saying you would?

[Roxinos]

1) mb is a troll. What's sad is that I'm growing to believe he/she's an unintentional troll. I hold to the hope that it is intentional for my own sanity's sake. So I deny any claims made by mb about his/herself.

 

2) Very nearly. Very nearly.

[Majsju]

1) mb is a troll. What's sad is that I'm growing to believe he/she's an unintentional troll. I hold to the hope that it is intentional for my own sanity's sake. So I deny any claims made by mb about his/herself.

 

 

 

Hmm, is not the very definition of a troll someone who does it intentionally, because they enjoy the reactions? So how can someone be an unintentional troll?

 

Mbs problem here, and in most threads, seems to be that he takes everything literal, and thus completely miss what is written between the lines. It also does not help that he views the Encyclopedia as it was written by RJ himself.

 

It can be annoying, yes (though sometimes it can be quite amusing), but not really any reason to yell at him.

[Gentled Ben]

He can be frustrating at times, but I think he adds something to the community. He asks questions from some interesting angles; for example, I thought some of his posts in the Various Issues thread were thought-provoking. He tries to be helpful with his encyclopedia posts, and he remains civil even when he's being flamed. Of course, I'm not sure that he recognizes it as flaming; he seems to take most of that literally, too.  :-\

[Mr Ares]

So I deny any claims made by mb about his/herself.

Including his(/her) claim to be a guy.

[Roxinos]

Hmm, is not the very definition of a troll someone who does it intentionally, because they enjoy the reactions? So how can someone be an unintentional troll?

 

So long as a person's very presence annoys everyone, and they are completely oblivious to that fact, they behave as a troll would without actually being a troll. Hence, unintentional troll.

 

He can be frustrating at times, but I think he adds something to the community.

 

A blight, yes.

 

Including his(/her) claim to be a guy.

 

That was the general idea, yes.

[Majsju]

Ok, my attempt at being subtle appears to have failed...

 

Lets take a more blunt approach then. Talk about the topic, not about the people posting. If you find Mb so annoying that you can not help yourself, try hanging out in other threads, there are lots of them.

There is after all no rule here that says that hyou must post in every single thread, or even read them ;)

 

Now, carry on.

[Roxinos]

The topic is dead. The thread will die eventually. And if that was an attempt at subtlety, then I'm afraid you're worse off than mb, Maj.

[mb]

when it says "but she had been wrong about moiraine" it is implying that he hopes she can be wrong about com and doni's deathas well. Somehow, he (Rand) found out that min had a "failed viewing about someone" and since that was her only "failed" viewing, and rand say's she was wrong about moiraine, SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT MOIRAINE when she said that stuff about a women dead and gone.

 

The failed viewing and this viewing seems not the same.

 

Like I posted earlier, descriptions do not substitute known identities in the rest of Min's Viewings; this also applies to Dreams, maybe also Foretellings.

 

Did Robert Jordan comment about this viewing and say something other than Read-And-Find-Out?  If not, only the paragraph itself I would count relevant until the books bring up this viewing again.

 

[Majsju]

The failed viewing and this viewing seems not the same.

 

Eh, if Min was wrong about Moiraine, how is that not a failed viewing?

[callandor]

(sigh)

 

lets try this again. :P

 

-we know Min has had one (ONE 1 UNO) "failed" viewing.

-we know Min says that Rand would almost certainly fail without the help of a women dead and gone. (was a viewing)

-we know that she considers this viewing to be wrong

-we know Moiraine is "dead" (or at least is to everyone but Thom and later Mat and Noal)

-we know that later she says her only failed viewing was about Moiraine after she saw Caroline Damodred.

-we know that Rand says that if Min could be wrong about Moiraine, maybe she could be wrong about likely (we don't know for sure it was death, but it is strongly implied) seeing death around the two little boy's (Com and Doni) in Tear.

 

HE (RAND) SAYS SHE WAS WRONG ABOUT MOIRIANE. Min has only had one "failed" viewing, and Rand says she was wrong about Moiraine. Her one failed viewing was of Moiraine. FACT.

 

So, the viewing about "a women dead and gone", which she considers to be wrong (it is mentioned a couple times insome of her POV's, but i don't have the quotes, and i won't look them up, this is ridiculous) is about Moiraine.

 

:( ok now deny the obvious so i can waste time trying to explain this again.

[Mr Ares]

So, the viewing about "a women dead and gone", which she considers to be wrong (it is mentioned a couple times insome of her POV's, but i don't have the quotes, and i won't look them up, this is ridiculous) is about Moiraine.

 

:( ok now deny the obvious so i can waste time trying to explain this again.

There is an art to talking to mb, and I don't think you've mastered it. See, you do need to look up those quotes. If Min considers the woman dead and gone to be a failed Viewing, and her only failed Viewings were of Moiraine, that would prove it. Otherwise, what you are saying is that her failed Viewings were of Moiraine, and that she had a Viewing of a woman dead and gone. This woman is not identified by name and, to mb's way of thinking, she would be if Min knew who it was - Rand would almost certainly fail without Moiraine. If you can prove that Min considers the Viewing of a woman dead and gone to be failed, coupled with her only failures being around Moiraine, then it is settled. That is the only way you can get him to accept it, so either find the quotes of woman dead and gone being a failed Viewing, or stop trying to argue.

[kamros]

(sigh)

 

lets try this again. :P

 

-we know Min has had one (ONE 1 UNO) "failed" viewing.

-we know Min says that Rand would almost certainly fail without the help of a women dead and gone. (was a viewing)

-we know that she considers this viewing to be wrong

-we know Moiraine is "dead" (or at least is to everyone but Thom and later Mat and Noal)

-we know that later she says her only failed viewing was about Moiraine after she saw Caroline Damodred.

-we know that Rand says that if Min could be wrong about Moiraine, maybe she could be wrong about likely (we don't know for sure it was death, but it is strongly implied) seeing death around the two little boy's (Com and Doni) in Tear.

 

HE (RAND) SAYS SHE WAS WRONG ABOUT MOIRIANE. Min has only had one "failed" viewing, and Rand says she was wrong about Moiraine. Her one failed viewing was of Moiraine. FACT.

 

So, the viewing about "a women dead and gone", which she considers to be wrong (it is mentioned a couple times insome of her POV's, but i don't have the quotes, and i won't look them up, this is ridiculous) is about Moiraine.

 

:( ok now deny the obvious so i can waste time trying to explain this again.

 

nuh uh

 

 

 

 

jk, i like this reasoning, very logical.

[a pale tanned lover]

If Min only had one failed viewing weren't we led to believe that she had a viewing of who Moiraine was going to marry? would that not consitute as two failed viewings?

[Elgee]

It's not 1 viewing, it's a viewing(s) about 1 PERSON which failed.

 

ACOS: 35, Into the Woods, 543 : He would almost certainly fail without a woman who was dead and gone

 

ACOS: 35, Into the Woods, 546 : it was not as if she had really expected Moiraine to turn up alive. Moiraine was the only viewing of hers that had ever failed.

[a pale tanned lover]

Ah, ive always had a problem with this, but simply put its pretty obvious, clears up that issue for me, cheers  :D

[Kivam]

Anybody think that it's Kari al'Thor?  Me either cause it's Moiraine.

 

[Kivam]

Two more types of candidates came to my mind some time back.

The updated list:

-A woman who already died and afterward returned through some means (even if the means is balefire)

-A currently dead woman that will be resurrected

-A currently alive woman that will die then afterward return through some means

-A woman who is the reborn of some dead woman

-A merge between a dead woman and a living woman

 

looks like I picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue.

 

Rapunzel, Rapunzel!!!

Did you know that those comments came from Airplane ("Don't call me Shirley" Edition)?  Just wondering.

 

 

A few more candidates:

 

A woman who died and came back as a man

A man who died and came back as a woman

Ru Paul

[Kivam]

It can still be Moiraine.. but it's not a certany. It could be Lanfear!!!

 

I'm sorry, but logically it can't.

 

Let me see if I can do this a little more clearly.

 

Min knows the identity of the woman who is "dead and gone".  She has to, because "dead and gone" is her description of the woman, not the information conveyed in the viewing.  We know this because if the woman were truly "dead and gone", then it would be a failed viewing, and despite Min's opinion that it is a failed viewing, we know that it is not.  So, if it is Lanfear in the viewing about Rand, then Min must know that.

 

We know that Min had viewings regarding Moiraine, other than the viewing in question here.  We also know that since she believes Moiraine is dead, she believes that her viewings regardging Moiraine have failed.  Since Min believes that some of her viewings regarding Moiraine have failed (because she believes that Moiraine is dead) that means that if Lanfear were the woman in her viewing of Rand, there would be TWO women about whom she believes there are failed viewings.  If that were the case, Min would believe that she has had failed viewings regarding Moiraine and Lanfear.  However, we know this is not the case.  Therefore, the woman in the viewing of Rand must be Moiraine.

 

RAW, you're wrong in describing that ("Rand would almost certainly fail without a woman dead and gone") as a failed viewing, and so the rest of the argument falls.

 

It's not a failed viewing, because think about the possible futures still out there:

 

1) The "woman dead and gone" does not show up, Rand fails without her (viewing hasn't failed - it was correct)

 

2) Woman does not show up, Rand succeeds without her (viewing hasn't failed, since it only requires that Rand's failure be almost certain, not "Rand will fail without a woman dead and gone")

 

3) Woman dead and gone shows up, Rand succeeds (viewing hasn't failed)

 

4) Woman dead and gone shows up, Rand fails (viewing hasn't failed, because viewing does not say he will succeed with her, only that he will probably fail without her)

 

In other words, no matter what the future holds for the two key variables - the woman showing up or not, or Rand succeeding or not - the viewing has not failed.