Questions about Moiraine ???

[Osan`gar]

Osan

 

Osan`gar <-- quote function challanged  :P

[Graendals favourite]

Let's say, in a company there are two new employees starting on the same day. Because they are new, they wear name tags, however, at some point they inadvertently mix their tags, so Bill's says Ben and Ben's Bill. Their manager Mike, who is also new and has not seen the two before, sees Ben and says, "would you go and fetch this and that from the town," and Ben complies. In town, Ben sees his co-worker Jill, who asks Ben, "What are you doing here?" Ben  answers, "Mike sent me to fetch this and that." Later Jill asks of Mike, "did you really send Ben to town for this and that, I thought he was supposed to be working on other things?" Mike says, "No, I did not send him anywhere, do you mean he was in town?" "Yes he was," says Jill. Mike continues, "Well, as defined by some people in this thread, Ben went off on his own and lied to you, a most grievious offence, he must be fired."

 

So the people in the thread are really adamant that because Mike did not intend to send Ben anywhere, Ben lied when he said Mike sent him? 'Cause sending always means there was intent. Everyone always acts intentionally, and every consequence of one's actions is always intentional, particularly if one never thinks on any consequences.

[Alghar Khan]

Who said that some people argue whether water is wet? I think this is another of those kinds of situations.

 

;D    ;D    ;D    ;D    ;D

[Jethro]

My belief is that Verin lied but not outright. She was grinning IIRC when she said "Moiraine sent me." Grinning, because she could get away with it; as TheBigEyeAm pointed out in another thread, all it took for those three words is for Moiraine to have sent Verin somewhere sometime. If Verin had said "Moiraine told me to join you," then it would be an outright lie and thus would mean she wasnt bound by the lying Oath. But, because she only said "Moiraine sent me" without specifying when or where or why in the same sentence in a plain simple manner, she was able to withold the majority of the truth. Hence her grinning when she said it; she just managed to integrate herself with Perrin, a Ta'veren, by worming her way round a lie.

[Alghar Khan]

I have already expained why that can't be the case. Look at my posts (this thread) if you want to, because I'm tired of repeating myself. Otherwise, believe whatever you want.

[Osan`gar]

My belief is that Verin lied but not outright. She was grinning IIRC when she said "Moiraine sent me." Grinning, because she could get away with it; as TheBigEyeAm pointed out in another thread, all it took for those three words is for Moiraine to have sent Verin somewhere sometime. If Verin had said "Moiraine told me to join you," then it would be an outright lie and thus would mean she wasnt bound by the lying Oath. But, because she only said "Moiraine sent me" without specifying when or where or why in the same sentence in a plain simple manner, she was able to withold the majority of the truth. Hence her grinning when she said it; she just managed to integrate herself with Perrin, a Ta'veren, by worming her way round a lie.

 

 

finally... a response that makes sense thank you

[Dracos]

My belief is that Verin lied but not outright. She was grinning IIRC when she said "Moiraine sent me." Grinning, because she could get away with it; as TheBigEyeAm pointed out in another thread, all it took for those three words is for Moiraine to have sent Verin somewhere sometime. If Verin had said "Moiraine told me to join you," then it would be an outright lie and thus would mean she wasnt bound by the lying Oath. But, because she only said "Moiraine sent me" without specifying when or where or why in the same sentence in a plain simple manner, she was able to withold the majority of the truth. Hence her grinning when she said it; she just managed to integrate herself with Perrin, a Ta'veren, by worming her way round a lie.

 

 

finally... a response that makes sense thank you

Actually, I'm not sure it does make sense.

 

If Verin lied then she is not bound by the Oath to never lie.

 

If she wormed her way around a lie (i.e. did not lie outright) then its possible that she cannot lie, but she can just Aes Sedai the crap out of what she says so that she might as well be able to lie.

 

Does that make sense to anyone? I mean I personally am not big on this debate, it just caught my eye so thats my two cents: either she lied or she wormed her way around it being an actual lie. Can't really be both.

[Casco]

Dracos, thats the point with the oath rod, and why people dont trust Aes Sedai. The oath dont work as intended. People know that Aes Sedai can let the truth be as they want (work around it)and often dont answer what you think.

[Gracel]

Wow, what a fascinating argument.

 

I think it's very interesting that the point of contention is either Verin lied or she twisted the truth to deceive. Sorry to complicate the matter, but I must bring to light a few other possibilities that seem just as likely (or unlikely, depending on your POV)

 

1) A forsaken disguised as Moiraine sent Verin. Unlikely, I know, but you never know. The Forsaken do some weird things for obscure reasons.

 

2) Verin received a letter, in a very good imitation of Moiraine's hand, that sent her to Ingtar, the true source unknown.

 

3) Moiraine actually lied. (Although I really, really don't want to believe that one)

 

There are also the possibilities mentioned before in the post--That Verin misinterpreted something Moiraine said, or that Verin used compulsion to cause her to forget having sent her (Although, why that would be advantageous for Verin, I cannot imagine.)

 

I want to make it absolutely clear that I'm not arguing that any of these points are what really transpired. I'm just saying that they are just as likely as Verin being a DF or somehow freeing herself from the Oath Rod in TAR. The fact of the matter is, we don't have enough information to say one way or the other, so all we can do is speculate, which is darn good fun. My guess is that when AMOL comes out, if this matter is touched on, the truth will be something none of us have imagined. Sigh. November cannot come soon enough!

[Osan`gar]

i think we are finnaly geting some interesting answers in this discussion... please continue

[Yllek]

Off the subject of lies and onto the subject of questions about Moiraine...

 

I want to know where she was at the beginning of the Great Hunt when the darkfriends were meeting and she was off on her own somewhere.  I also want to know how she came back with all sorts of knowledge about Rand's paternity.  I want to know how she knew it was Sammel and how she knew any number of other things.  Furthermore, I don't believe that she's the dumping ground for knowledge needed in a pinch... there's something fishy about her and the knowledge that she has.  She's been off on her own for a very long time without checking in with the tower, who knows what she's been up to al this time.  I'm not saying she's black, I'm NOT saying she's not either.  for all we know, she was black and came back to the light, or vise-versa.  There are several forsaken whose adgenda we know nothing about and there's several whose adgendas we DO know about and those adgendas arent all about the dark one breaking free and reshaping the world. 

 

I'm sick of the debate on definitions of words... Aes Sedei are expert manipulators and can twist their words around.  Lets move on.

 

 

[BKVMC]

"A forsaken disguised as Moiraine sent Verin. Unlikely, I know, but you never know. The Forsaken do some weird things for obscure reasons."

 

This  theory has some teeth IMO i believe its entirely possible.  We can assume  mesaana  is  posing as a  sister in  the tower, and we  know  lanfear  posed  as someone in the tower when  mat was there. there is also a  theory on  the theoryland site that  aserts that  verin was compelled  in the tower  when she gave  egwene  the  terangreal to  enter the world of dreams and  even  follows  her  symptoms of  the after affects of compulsion. this theory  clears up  a  whole lot of  questions if its correct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Osan`gar]

"A forsaken disguised as Moiraine sent Verin. Unlikely, I know, but you never know. The Forsaken do some weird things for obscure reasons."

 

This  theory has some teeth IMO i believe its entirely possible.  We can assume  mesaana  is  posing as a  sister in   the tower, and we  know  lanfear  posed  as someone in the tower when  mat was there. there is also a  theory on  the theoryland site that  aserts that  verin was compelled  in the tower  when she gave  egwene  the   terangreal to  enter the world of dreams and  even  follows  her  symptoms of  the after affects of compulsion. this theory  clears up  a  whole lot of  questions if its correct.

 

this makes no sense... why would messanna or any other forsaken want to manipulate verin into tagging along... what benefit would there be for them. if they wanted a spy ingtar was there the whole way. lanfear was well aware of rands activities as well. conversly if verin were black why would they need to disguise themselves as a trusted sister when they could merely issue orders and command her obeidience. thirdly if compulsion were used she would in essence be a slave to the will of whoever used compulsion on her. no disguises or trickery would be needed and again where is the bennefit???

[Jethro]

why would messanna or any other forsaken want to manipulate verin into tagging along... what benefit would there be for them. if they wanted a spy ingtar was there the whole way. lanfear was well aware of rands activities as well

 

That early in the series we have every reason that each Chosen other than Aginor and Balthamel were working alone. Not that I believe it, but Mesaana may have Compelled Verin despite Ingtars loyalties. For one thing I dont think each Chosen knows each and every single Darkfriend and for another we dont know which Chosen Ingtar was taking orders from IIRC. Lanfear was aware of Rands activities for reasons of her own, and was less than likely to share all she knew of him in book 2 taking into account again how early it is and how late the Chosen began to even think of working together properly.

[Mr Ares]

Mr. Ares or should i say bill

You should say neither. Mr Ares is correct. Or Sir.

sex doesn't mean sex unless it means intercourse, because oral sex isnt sex. if it was i would be wrong and that just can not happen, therefore i will rabidly defend my opinion to the death with spurious arguments and casutic acerbic responses, Clinton. in the reality you dwell in words of factual statement may have dubious yet multifaceted meaning. however i hate to shatter you fingernail grip on non reality by intruding myself on your fragile psyche with the terrible, painful; truth. the word sent is not, not, not ambiguous it is an irrevocable statement of fact it's meaning is not debateable unless of course the alternate reality in which you dwell has strange and unusal meanings for common, well understond word usages. that being said i eagerly await the imminent bashing you will confer upon me which is of course the last resort of the sheltered mind. please feel free to tell me how outrageously deranged i am because i refuse to acknowledge your flawed reality. i am sure that you will be quite sarcastic and caustic please feel free to do so as you have repeatedly demonstrated a great talent in this arena. however i feel that i must advise you that your constant defense of a indefensible position leaves you looking somewhat similar to the south end of a north bound mule. please do not stop. your ravings are most entertaing; kind of like watching a monkey do algebra. thank you for the entertainment.

Well, despite your blind, insane refusal to listen to anything resembling sense, to actually look at a dictionary, to actually provide evidence to support your interpretation of the word in question as  being the only possible correct interpretation, I have not given up hope that there is, somewhere, buried deep, deep down, a tiny grain of sense, a small, very small, part of you that is actually capable of reading something and taking in the information, not just dismissing it out of hand. So I will endeavour to try and reach that part of you, buried deep though it may be. The point is simple, exceedingly simple, so simple that it should be within the grasp of all on this board, in fact, the grasping of it should present no problems to any here, despite the unfortunate truth that the grasping does, in fact, appear to be providing a challenge. The word send does not require intent. It is entirely possible to send something by accident. If, entirely without meaning to, I sent something to someone that I had no intention of sending it to, then it has, unequivocally, undeniably, been sent. And yet that sending, and a sending it was, was done without the intent to send. Per your absurd, unsupported, ridiculous, self-created, solipsistic definition, it would not be sent. Whatever this thing was, it was not sent. It may have appeared to have been sent, what with it arriving, but you would not be fooled by such trivialities as the simple reality of the situation. You would quite happily invent a new word to describe how this thing could have "sent". Or, you could just do what the entire rest of the english speaking world would do and say it was sent. Now, as the word sent does not require intent on the part of the sender, then we can quite happily accept that Verin was sent, while simultaneously accepting that Moiraine could, in all honesty, claim she was not sent. Now, for all your claims that my position is indefensible, it is, in fact, very well defended, what with having the support of "the dictionary" and "the english speaking world", while your entirely objective, utterly flawless reality is not troubled by such ephemera. It turns out that this monkey is actually very good at algebra. He will now have a good laugh at the "human" (I think) unable to do the same calculations. As for mule's, the only similarity is in the stubborness (modesty forbids me from commenting on rumours on being hung like a horse).

[Alghar Khan]

Moiraine didn't intend to send her, she didn't actually send her. VERIN KNOWS IT! SHE WENT ANYWAY!

 

Verin had INTENT TO LIE. She did not fail. SHE ACTUALLY SUCCEEDED IN LYING! RJ said that it was INTENT that counted AS FAR AS THE FIRST OATH IS CONCERNED. Verin had intent to lie. And she did lie. As easy as 1+1=2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alghar Khan]

By the way, the "fire" analogies are not relevant. Fires are not conscious, but humans are. The "fire" expressions are uses of the word that is from the english use of language. Not all languages have those "fire sent..." type of expressions. When you say that a person sent you, everybody that listens will understand that your intention is to tell them that the person that sent you had intent to send you. Noone will ever believe that the person in question did not intend to. Why? Because that is what you're telling them. Anything else is A LIE! What did Verin do? SHE LIED!

[Mr Ares]

Moiraine didn't intend to send her, she didn't actually send her. VERIN KNOWS IT! SHE WENT ANYWAY!

 

Verin had INTENT TO LIE. She did not fail. SHE ACTUALLY SUCCEEDED IN LYING! RJ said that it was INTENT that counted AS FAR AS THE FIRST OATH IS CONCERNED. Verin had intent to lie. And she did lie. As easy as 1+1=2.

You continue to blind yourself to reason. RJ did not say what you claim he said. He made a point about sarcasm - that is, that one could say an untruth provided it was clear that it was not intended to be taken as truth. With regards to the literal truth though, they can say whatever the hell they want, in the sure and certain knowledge that people will be deceived by it. Intention is irrelevant. All that matters is that what you say is truth, and what Verin said was truth, therefore it does not fall foul of the First Oath. She did not lie, or at least not in any way different to any other AS. They are all bound by the FO, so is Verin, and we have absolutely no reason, at all, to believe otherwise. Moiraine's intentions are not relevant. She did not intend for Verin to go. Nevertheless, Verin felt that she had been sent, and therefore her words were completely true when she said she had been sent.

 

By the way, the "fire" analogies are not relevant.

Would you like to address the sending-things-by-accident analogies as well? They would appear to be more relevant.

When you say that a person sent you, everybody that listens will understand that your intention is to tell them that the person that sent you had intent to send you. No-one will ever believe that the person in question did not intend to. Why? Because that is what you're telling them.

Stop right there. As we have already proven, it is entirely possible to send something by accident. By saying that you were sent, people might believe that you were sent intentionally, that might be the most likely and most common interpretation, but it is not the only possible one. It is entirely natural to assume that she was sent intentionally, but (and it is a big but) it is not the only poossible meaning. And this is exactly what is meant by AS truth twisting. The truth you hear isn't the truth you think you hear. What they heard: Moiraine caused me to come here. What they thought they heard: Moiraine told me to come here. Both are entirely possible, all else being equal. It is entirely reasonable to assume as they did. But implications are one of the tools AS use. She said the former, she implied the latter. But it is completely within the First Oath to imply something without actually saying it, and then later saying "I said no such thing". Because they didn't. You just thought they did.

Anything else is A LIE! What did Verin do? SHE LIED!

Needless capitals? Check. Your point doesn't get any better because you use them. She implied. She told the truth, and implied a different truth. AS do this all the time. What makes Verin's lie so special?

[Alghar Khan]

You continue to blind yourself to reason.

No. You're mistaken.

 

RJ did not say what you claim he said.

He did say what I claim he said. I don't have the energy to pull it out again. And, even if he hadn't said anything whatsoever on the matter, this would still have been clear as crystal.

 

Intention is irrelevant. All that matters is that what you say is truth, and what Verin said was truth, therefore it does not fall foul of the First Oath.

She had intent to lie, and she did lie. Moiraine never sent her, she went anyway.

 

Moiraine's intentions are not relevant.

Oh, but you're mistaken.

 

She did not intend for Verin to go.

Exactly. Verin knew it, you know it and the rest of the world should know it too. The rest of the real world, not the WoT world.

 

Nevertheless, Verin felt that she had been sent,

Wrong again. Very wrong.

 

and therefore her words were completely true when she said she had been sent.

No.

 

Would you like to address the sending-things-by-accident analogies as well? They would appear to be more relevant.

Do they, really? No, as a matter of fact, they aren't. Sending one parcel (for instance) takes an action of actually SENDING the thing. That's intent. If you send another parcel (the wrong one), you've still done the act of sending it. That's intent. It's the wrong one, but you still did it with intent. The situations ARE NOT comparable, and thus they are logically not relevant as comparisons to each other. Moiraine DID NOT intend to send Verin, and Verin knows it - and so do you and I. Moiraine DID NOT intend to send Verin. She DID NOT send Verin. The readers know it, Verin too. She went anyway. BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO.

 

When you say that a person sent you, everybody that listens will understand that your intention is to tell them that the person that sent you had intent to send you. No-one will ever believe that the person in question did not intend to. Why? Because that is what you're telling them.

Stop right there. As we have already proven, it is entirely possible to send something by accident.

The compared situations are not relevant. By the way, have you ever sent any parcel or letter "by mistake" - meaning you did mean to send something, and you did, but it was the wrong thing to send? I haven't ever done that. Surely I can't be the only one. Sending the "not intended" must be a rare event. Sending TAKES INTENT, even if you send the unintended item.

 

Anyway, Verin knows that Moiraine had no intention of sending her anywhere. That means that Verin lied.

 

By saying that you were sent, people might believe that you were sent intentionally, that might be the most likely and most common interpretation, but it is not the only possible one.

No. You're wrong.

 

It is entirely natural to assume that she was sent intentionally, but (and it is a big but) it is not the only poossible meaning.

Wrong.

 

And this is exactly what is meant by AS truth twisting. The truth you hear isn't the truth you think you hear.

They can't lie. They can tell part of the story. The part they want to tell. And then let others draw the conclusions, if they want to. But they can't intentially lie. All except Verin and the Black Ajah. Maybe one or two or a few others. But very few.

 

 

What makes Verin's lie so special?

The thing that makes Verin's lie so special is that it was a lie by an Aes Sedai. Even more special, she isn't even Black Ajah.

 

 

 

[Jethro]

No, Verin did not lie. She twisted the truth, as has been pointed out. The Oaths go off the Aes Sedais own wording; to speak no word that is not true is a very small thing. How do you think Moiraine managed to be known as Mistress Alys? She could have said to Lan "I want you to introduce me as Mistress Alys," and that is not a lie, even though what she said will imply that her name is not Moiraine. There isnt a single word that isn't true in that sentence. As said, an Aes Sedai cannot intentionally lie, so all Verin had to do to be able to say "Moiraine sent me" was think of any one time that Moiraine asked her to go somewhere, anywhere, be it to the next room or the other side of the world, and the words "Moiraine sent me" on their own are no longer a lie. Verins grin would have been her congratulating herself, thinking something like "She didn't send me here though, but because I didnt specify where, you think I just answered you're suspicions as to why Im here." The Oath doesnt take into account what was said to Verin, only her own words, way she words anything she says.

[mb]

Lying does not necessarily break the oath.  The only thing that breaks the oath is something the speaker knows is false.

Verin believed that her statement was true; thus she did not break the oath.

 

 

Since this thread is about Moiraine, here is another situation relating to her:

In her letter to Rand, she told that she knew what happens in the world after.  She told that it did not concern Rand.  What did she know that she did not want to tell Rand?  Was it revealed in Thom's letter?

 

[Alghar Khan]

No, Verin did not lie. She twisted the truth, as has been pointed out.

And I've proven that point, that was pointed out, to be wrong.

 

The Oaths go off the Aes Sedais own wording; to speak no word that is not true is a very small thing. How do you think Moiraine managed to be known as Mistress Alys?

Maybe she said:..."You may call me Alys". That is MUCH more likely than assuming that she lied and said:..."My name is Alys. Verin sent me."

 

As said, an Aes Sedai cannot intentionally lie, so all Verin had to do to be able to say "Moiraine sent me" was think of any one time that Moiraine asked her to go somewhere, anywhere, be it to the next room or the other side of the world, and the words "Moiraine sent me" on their own are no longer a lie.

Have you read my posts since the last time you said the very same thing? Should I bother with writing the same thing again, when you clearly don't read the posts? I don't think I have the energy for it, anyway.

 

 

Lying does not necessarily break the oath.

Which oath are we talking about? The oath against lying? Lying does not necessarily break the oath againt lying? In what world can that be true? I'd bet there isn't any such world. It certainly isn't true in the WoT world.

 

 

The only thing that breaks the oath is something the speaker knows is false.

Yeah, like saying that someone sent you, when everything, and I really mean EVERYTHING, points toward her knowing that she spoke a lie.

 

Verin believed that her statement was true; thus she did not break the oath.

Why would she believe that? I have to say, you're about as wrong as you could be.

 

 

Since this thread is about Moiraine, here is another situation relating to her:

In her letter to Rand, she told that she knew what happens in the world after.  She told that it did not concern Rand.  What did she know that she did not want to tell Rand?  Was it revealed in Thom's letter?

I think she'd seen her possible future/futures after being rescued from the finn (if that happens, which I am confident that it will). I don't think she's revealed all the things she'd seen in any letter.

 

[Osan`gar]

Lying does not necessarily break the oath.  The only thing that breaks the oath is something the speaker knows is false.

Verin believed that her statement was true; thus she did not break the oath.

 

while the above statement is , in my opinion, factual; i still fail to see how you can twist the scenario in any manner whereby verin actually belived she was speaking truth. unless of course she was speaking true and moiraine was lieing.

 

 

[Osan`gar]

Mr. Ares or should i say bill

 

You should say neither. Mr Ares is correct. Or Sir

I am sorry but i only say sir to those who have earned and deserve respect... you do not qualify

 

Well, despite your blind, insane refusal to listen to anything resembling sense, to actually look at a dictionary, to actually provide evidence to support your interpretation of the word in question as  being the only possible correct interpretation, I have not given up hope that there is, somewhere, buried deep, deep down, a tiny grain of sense, a small, very small, part of you that is actually capable of reading something and taking in the information, not just dismissing it out of hand. So I will endeavour to try and reach that part of you, buried deep though it may be. The point is simple, exceedingly simple, so simple that it should be within the grasp of all on this board, in fact, the grasping of it should present no problems to any here, despite the unfortunate truth that the grasping does, in fact, appear to be providing a challenge. The word send does not require intent. It is entirely possible to send something by accident. If, entirely without meaning to, I sent something to someone that I had no intention of sending it to, then it has, unequivocally, undeniably, been sent. And yet that sending, and a sending it was, was done without the intent to send. Per your absurd, unsupported, ridiculous, self-created, solipsistic definition, it would not be sent. Whatever this thing was, it was not sent. It may have appeared to have been sent, what with it arriving, but you would not be fooled by such trivialities as the simple reality of the situation. You would quite happily invent a new word to describe how this thing could have "sent". Or, you could just do what the entire rest of the english speaking world would do and say it was sent. Now, as the word sent does not require intent on the part of the sender, then we can quite happily accept that Verin was sent, while simultaneously accepting that Moiraine could, in all honesty, claim she was not sent. Now, for all your claims that my position is indefensible, it is, in fact, very well defended, what with having the support of "the dictionary" and "the english speaking world", while your entirely objective, utterly flawless reality is not troubled by such ephemera. It turns out that this monkey is actually very good at algebra. He will now have a good laugh at the "human" (I think) unable to do the same calculations. As for mule's, the only similarity is in the stubborness (modesty forbids me from commenting on rumours on being hung like a horse).

 

I am sad to see that I waited so long for your reply when it basically consisted of "you are dumb because you insist on not acknowleding my reality." It must be a terrible burden being absoloutely right all of the time; yet no one believes you because you can not supply any more proof that "cuz i said so!" having said that I am sure you will tell me to read a dictionary. The bare definition of a word, and the way it is used in language are oftem dissimilar. Even if you can find a definition that supports your theory the context it was used in defies that definition. I did read your entire reply. You should be made aware that multi-syllabic words, and deft phrasing are not signs of intelligence nor accuracy. However i feel I should congratulate you on sticking to your flawed story like glue. I am sure that the last man to go down on the Titanic was similarly glad that he did not get on the life boat. I am sure he felt great moral and ethical superiority as he drowned. Foutunately, for you, the world will not have to wait much longer to put you to rest. AMOL will do that for us. If not, well then at least we can continue to be entertained by your insane ravings. Remember crazy don't know what crazy looks like. Allow me to translate for you. Insane people never doubt their reality. They stick to their story like glue because they are absolutely convinced that the rest of the world got it wrong. You may not be healthy but I am sure that you are happy. After all you are the only sane person here. Congratulations on your perserverance into non-reality. I usually give up after a couple of hours. I can only act silly for so long before rationalization occurs with jarring suddeness. I see you do not have that problem. That must be nice. Oh by the way the next time you are in a public restroom do NOT eat the big mint :P

[Jethro]

Maybe she said:..."You may call me Alys". That is MUCH more likely than assuming that she lied and said:..."My name is Alys. Verin sent me."

 

Nobody said Moiraine said Verin sent her anywhere.

 

Moiraine didn't intend to send her, she didn't actually send her. VERIN KNOWS IT! SHE WENT ANYWAY!

 

Verin had INTENT TO LIE. She did not fail. SHE ACTUALLY SUCCEEDED IN LYING! RJ said that it was INTENT that counted AS FAR AS THE FIRST OATH IS CONCERNED. Verin had intent to lie. And she did lie. As easy as 1+1=2.

 

Verin intended to mislead by only revealing half of the information, which was exactly where Moiraine sent her, and when. Verin didnt intend to lie because she knows she cant. She intended to leave out enough information that such a vague answer would make Perrin believe she had answered his question.

 

Alghar Kahn, if Moiraine had said "You may call me Alys," that would be exactly the same as Verins "Moiraine sent me." Both are attempts to mislead, not outright lie, so they can work around the Oaths. You cannot say one is possible without the other. Both mislead, with the intent to "lie" as in make someone believe something other than the truth, without lying outright. Verin did not lie. I did read your posts by the way, but this instance with Verin was not a case of her lying, and o ammount of energy will change that because she did not lie. She withheld the majority of the truth and let Perrin do the math, which was obviously a good move since Perrin only has one brain cell and didnt notice it despite being around Aes Sedai long enough to know what theyre like. The only thing to be learned from that bit is that Verin has goals of her own that, not that she can lie.