Questions about Moiraine ???

[Alghar Khan]

Nobody said Moiraine said Verin sent her anywhere.

No, me neither. I wasn't even suggesting that Moiraine lied about being named Alys. Was that what you were doing? My memory is so short.  :(

 

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.

Lets go along with that assumption for a while. Verin had the intention of lying, and she did. But only because she was thinking about another situation in her past, and not the situation that everybody had in mind. That would also mean that they can think about another item in their past, and tell the blind person that "the ... is ...". They only formed half the information. The pen is blue". It was "this pen i have on my desk in another room". As long as that's the pen they are thinking about, everything works out just fine for them. But that would also mean that ALL Aes Sedai can lie outright as much as they want to, because it's not their intention toward the listener that determines whether it's a lie or not. It would also mean that RJ was mistaken about his own creation when he said that it was intent and result that counted:

For Majsju, the oath against lying does leave room for sarcasm. It is intent and result that matter.  No sister can intentionally speak an untruth either with the intent of passing on false information or with the belief that false information might be passed on.  Thus the careful slicing and dicing of words. But if someone were to hold up a piece of white cloth and ask whether it was black or white, someone who had sworn the Three Oaths would be capable of saying that it was black as a matter of sarcasm.  But not if, for example, the person asking the question was blind and thus might well take the statement for truth rather than sarcasm.

Why can't they tell a blind that the cloth is black, but they can tell a seeing? Because it is intent toward the listener that counts. If they can think about "this cloth I have in my room", then they can tell it to the blind as well. But forget all about that, because we know that Aes Sedai can't lie. It is implicitly understood which piece of cloth everybody is talking about. That means that the intention is to lie to the blind (trying to talk about another item, when everybody knows which item they are talking about). That is a lie, quite obviously. And water is still wet... The Aes Sedai can't lie. They can't lie to the blind, not even through talking about something else than the things that all know, but remains implicitly understood.

 

 

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.

No, "You may call me Alys" is no lie. She don't even have the intention to lie. She simply says:..."You may call me Alys". That is no lie, whatever her name is. Logically speaking, it CAN NOT be a lie. It's maybe not even likely that someone that hears it truly believes it to be her real name. I wouldn't believe it to be, if someone presented herself that way. On the other hand, I would call the person what they wanted to be called.

 

Both mislead, with the intent to "lie" as in make someone believe something other than the truth, without lying outright.

One is a lie:..."Moiraine sent me". Delivered with the intention to lie. The other is NOT a lie:..."You may call me Alys". Makes all the difference.

 

 

Verin did not lie.

It was implicitly clear what they were talking about. Verin came to them, unexpectedly. It was clear what the subject was. And she said:..."Moiraine sent me". The intention (focus on the listeners="the blind ones") was to lie. Then she did. And water is still wet...

 

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.

See the above.

 

 

 

[Jethro]

Lets go along with that assumption for a while. Verin had the intention of lying, and she did. But only because she was thinking about another situation in her past, and not the situation that everybody had in mind. That would also mean that they can think about another item in their past, and tell the blind person that "the ... is ...". They only formed half the information. The pen is blue". It was "this pen i have on my desk in another room". As long as that's the pen they are thinking about, everything works out just fine for them. But that would also mean that ALL Aes Sedai can lie outright as much as they want to, because it's not their intention toward the listener that determines whether it's a lie or not. It would also mean that RJ was mistaken about his own creation when he said that it was intent and result that counted:

 

First off, your example was crap because it didnt fit the situation we are talking about. If you asked me "where is my pen?" and I all I said was "Its in my office," for that to not be "a word that is not true" in accordance with the Oath all I would have to do is think of something in my office and then I could say "IT is in my office." I, in my head, would know that I was talking about my desk, say, or my phone, and NOT your pen. But because I didnt say outright "YOUR PEN is in my office" I havent said "a word that is not true"  even if I had sold your pen for crack money.

 

Secondly, I think RJs comment about the intent to lie wasnt meant the way you think it was, I will explain my thoughts. RJ said the Oath goes off the intent to lie, fair enough. That means, you can still say something that isnt true, but only if you believe it to be the truth. If, say, Moiraine had tried to say "My name is Alys" she would have found that she couldnt, because that isnt true and she knows it, obviously. If you intend to lie outright, to say something outright that you know to be untrue, you cannot say so outright in full. So, if I was bound by the Oath I couldnt say "YOUR PEN is in my office" if I had sold it for crack money, but I could quickly think of the carpet in my office and say "IT is in my office," knowing in my own head that I mean the carpet and not your pen, then I havent "said a word that is not true" the way the Oath means it.

 

"Moiraine sent me." The perfect example for all the sayings of an Aes Sedais truth not being the truth you think it is. Thats my belief, anyway.

[Alghar Khan]

First off, your example was crap because it didnt fit the situation we are talking about.

No, they fit the situation you were describing. If you're right, then my examples of how Aes Sedai could lie are also right. But you are not right. We all know that Aes Sedai can't lie. And water is still wet...

 

If you asked me "where is my pen?" and I all I said was "Its in my office," for that to not be "a word that is not true" in accordance with the Oath all I would have to do is think of something in my office and then I could say "IT is in my office." I, in my head, would know that I was talking about my desk, say, or my phone, and NOT your pen. But because I didnt say outright "YOUR PEN is in my office" I havent said "a word that is not true"  even if I had sold your pen for crack money.

That's your situation. Think of something and say it. No problem for any Aes Sedai. But we know that that is not the case. Aes Sedai can't lie.   ...

 

If you intend to lie outright, to say something outright that you know to be untrue, you cannot say so outright in full. So, if I was bound by the Oath I couldnt say "YOUR PEN is in my office" if I had sold it for crack money, but I could quickly think of the carpet in my office and say "IT is in my office," knowing in my own head that I mean the carpet and not your pen, then I havent "said a word that is not true" the way the Oath means it.

That means that they can intentially form a lie. But we know that they can't.    ...

 

 

 

[Graendals favourite]

This threads make a good point about arguing points of logic to people. I will keep it in mind. However, I'll just address this last, which is unfortunately somewhat ambiguously phrased so that whomever reads it cannot be certain what is meant, but which I interpret is meant to mean that Aes Sedai cannot say "It is in the office":

 

If you intend to lie outright, to say something outright that you know to be untrue, you cannot say so outright in full. So, if I was bound by the Oath I couldnt say "YOUR PEN is in my office" if I had sold it for crack money, but I could quickly think of the carpet in my office and say "IT is in my office," knowing in my own head that I mean the carpet and not your pen, then I havent "said a word that is not true" the way the Oath means it.

That means that they can intentially form a lie. But we know that they can't.    ...

 

How does this square with, say, our introduction to Elaida(I will leave out middle parts since this quote will otherwise become a whole page long.):

Morgase made a soothing gesture toward her daughter, but her eyes remained on Rand. "Is this a Foretelling, Elaida? Are you reading the Pattern? You say it comes on you when you least expect it and goes as suddenly as it comes. If this is a Foretelling, Elaida, I command you to speak the truth clearly, without your usual habit of wrapping it in so much mystery that no one can tell if you have said yes or no. Speak. What do you see?"

 

"This I Foretell," Elaida replied, "and swear under the Light that I can say no clearer. From this day Andor marches toward pain and division. The Shadow has yet to darken to its blackest, and I cannot see if the Light will come after. Where the world has wept one tear, it will weep thousands. This I Foretell."

 

A pall of silence clung to the room, broken only by Morgase expelling her breath as if it were her last.

 

Elaida continued to stare into Rand’s eyes. She spoke again, barely moving her lips, so softly that he could barely hear her less than an arm’s length away. "This, too, I Foretell. Pain and division come to the whole world, and this man stands at the heart of it. I obey the Queen," she whispered, "and speak it clearly."

 

...

 

"I have said all that I have read in the Pattern, Captain-General," Elaida said. She flashed a hard smile at Rand, a smile that barely bent her lips, mocking his inability to say that she was not telling the truth. "A few weeks imprisoned will not harm him, and it may give me a chance to learn more." Hunger filled her eyes, deepening his chill. "Perhaps another Foretelling will come."

So Elaida must be Black Ajah after all, according to those who insist Verin lied. After all, Elaida knew fully well the Captain-General, whom she was a addressing, and the Queen, both of them could only think the first part of her Foretelling was all of it, indeed her reply was phrased to mislead, for they could not have seen or heard her whispering to Rand.

[Charlz Fel]

I think that it would be in character for Verin to have released herself from the First Oath, just out of curiosity to see if it would work, and then later on found this to be useful.  We know she did something like this with Compulsion.  

 

However, I do not believe she did.  Why?  Because she had no real need to lie here.  She is an Aes Sedai herself, and does not need Moiraine's "sending" as justification for her presence.  If she were not bound to the First Oath, and intended to keep this secret, Verin would have to be extremely careful, lying only at great need.

 

On the other hand, if Verin is in fact bound, she is going to put no extra effort into making sure nobody catches her lying, because she can't lie.  Thus, she can feel free to try out any of the justifications people on this thread have suggested, in private, to see if they will enable her to say the words "Moiraine sent me"; and if any of them actually works, then she will have no qualms about using it.  If she has experimented thoroughly enough with this in the past, she will not even have to put out extra effort for this one, relatively unimportant deception; she will simply know, as soon as she wants to tell Ingtar "Moiraine sent me," how she can justify this in her own head.

 

Actually, if Verin had done all these experiments before releasing herself from the Oath, she would still know this was something a bound sister could say, and therefore something she herself was safe in saying.  But even in this case, the statement "Moiraine sent me" is something that she could say if she were bound; therefore, it is not evidence that she is not bound.

 

As a tangential note, I really do not think we know enough about the precise effects of the First Oath to say whether the justifications given would actually work.  In fact, I suspect this is something Aes Sedai must learn by experimentation, finding out that they can say things they did not expect, or cannot say things they thought they could.  We have an instance of the former in New Spring when Moiraine tells Siuan that "everything will be all right" and is surprised that she can say this, in spite of the First Oath.  For the other, consider Elayne's statement to the Borderland rulers that "I cannot tell you exactly where he [Rand] is, but a search of Murandy will be profitable [to me, but not to you]."  Perhaps she would have been able to say this if bound, but I do not think we have ever heard a bound Aes Sedai shave the truth that closely.  For a more blatant example, consider Nyneave's statement in The Dragon Reborn that "Those who might have come in our place were killed."  Her justification for this statement is that the three Aes Sedai murdered by Liandrin, etc. could not possibly have been Black Ajah.  However, if they had not been murdered, then Siuan Sanche could not have known they were not Black; thus, there is no possible way they might ever have been sent in place of Nyneave, etc. to hunt the Black Ajah.  I very much doubt that Nyneave could have said this if she were in fact bound to the First Oath.

 

[Alghar Khan]

So Elaida must be Black Ajah after all, according to those who insist Verin lied. After all, Elaida knew fully well the Captain-General, whom she was a addressing, and the Queen, both of them could only think the first part of her Foretelling was all of it, indeed her reply was phrased to mislead, for they could not have seen or heard her whispering to Rand.

As I said before:..."Lets go along with that assumption for a while. Verin had the intention of lying, and she did. But only because she was thinking about another situation in her past, and not the situation that everybody had in mind. ". Verin is supposed to, out of the implicit context, pull some memory in the past where Moiraine supposedly sent her somewhere. Then she says "Moiraine sent me, she thought you might need me". Two situations, and of completely different contexts. And then the added "she thought you might need me".

 

Then we have your situation. No different contexts between told truth and the "truth/reality", and no lie (because she told everything to Rand just seconds before).

 

Anyway, I hope you're not suggesting that the Aes Sedai can think of anything in their past and then pull that into the context of what is being remarked upon. Because that is to lie. And everybody knows that Aes Sedai can't lie.

 

However, I do not believe she did.  Why?  Because she had no real need to lie here.  She is an Aes Sedai herself, and does not need Moiraine's "sending" as justification for her presence.  If she were not bound to the First Oath, and intended to keep this secret, Verin would have to be extremely careful, lying only at great need.

After witnessing Rand's speach to the Amyrlin, she might have wanted to calm down any suspicions. "She thought you might need me", so that he wouldn't send her away because he didn't want to be "used" or something even worse.

 

 

 

[Graendals favourite]

Anyway, I hope you're not suggesting that the Aes Sedai can think of anything in their past and then pull that into the context of what is being remarked upon. Because that is to lie. And everybody knows that Aes Sedai can't lie.

That is exactly what I am saying. Everybody are wrong in 'knowing' that Aes Sedai cannot lie. Of course, what 'everybody knows' is wrong most of the time. The oath is to not speak a word that is not true, which is a different thing than lying. Aes Sedai can say whatever they want, as long as it is technically true, no matter how anyone understands it. The limit comes from their understanding of what the oath means. As Egwene remarks, the oath against speaking a word that is not true does no one any favours, Aes Sedai themselves least of all: Aes Sedai still have to take each other on faith most of the time since there are so many ways for them to get around telling the truth. This is also the reason people who have dealt with Aes Sedai are all the time asking them to say what they say straight out, and still Aes Sedai manage to mislead them.

[Alghar Khan]

If that had been true, then the first oath would have been completely and utterly useless. Needless to say, I disagree.

[Graendals favourite]

If that had been true, then the first oath would have been completely and utterly useless.

This is something I agree with wholeheartedly. Aside from shortening the Aes Sedai's lives by half, the oaths do not achieve what they are meant to achieve.

[Charlz Fel]

 

However, I do not believe she did.  Why?  Because she had no real need to lie here.  She is an Aes Sedai herself, and does not need Moiraine's "sending" as justification for her presence.  If she were not bound to the First Oath, and intended to keep this secret, Verin would have to be extremely careful, lying only at great need.

After witnessing Rand's speach to the Amyrlin, she might have wanted to calm down any suspicions. "She thought you might need me", so that he wouldn't send her away because he didn't want to be "used" or something even worse.

 

 

 

 

First of all, I think Verin would be a fool, after what she has seen of Rand, to think his suspicions would be so easily calmed. 

 

Secondly, the comment that "Moiraine thought you might need me" is much harder to contradict than "Moiraine sent me."  The first comment is true as long as Verin believes Moiraine thought Ingtar's party (in particular Rand) might need Verin; this is plausible unless Moiraine told Verin "Ingtar's party does not need you," which I very much doubt that she did.  On the contrary, the comment "Moiraine sent me" is much easier to provide evidence against, unless it is clear to other Aes Sedai that Verin could have been using a loophole here.

 

Thus, consider the scenario: Verin arrives at Ingtar's party, able to lie but not wanting this known, and wants to allay Rand's suspicions.  She believes that he will be at least slightly less suspicious if she presents herself as being sent by Moiraine, and moreover sent to serve his need.  How does "Moiraine sent me.  She thought you might need me," which contains a detectable lie (at least according to those who believe Verin is not bound), give this impression any better than simply saying "Moiraine thought you might need me," which does not contain a detectable lie?

[Charlz Fel]

If that had been true, then the first oath would have been completely and utterly useless.

This is something I agree with wholeheartedly. Aside from shortening the Aes Sedai's lives by half, the oaths do not achieve what they are meant to achieve.

 

The First Oath is meant to make an Aes Sedai's word carry weight, and in this it succeeds--probably more weight than it should, given this discussion.  For instance, when Egwene wants to quell rumors among Gareth Bryne's camp that Rand has knelt before Elaida, all she has to do is send six sisters, who supposedly know it for themselves [i.e., directly from the Wise Ones], to deny these rumors quite explicitly.  Rand has much more difficulty with such rumors.

 

Actually, this brings up another question--why does Rand not simply have the sisters who have sworn fealty to him deny the rumors publicly?  I imagine he probably does not want to give them apparent positions of influence, which might be counterproductive if the Aiel do not have the same sense of Aes Sedai trustworthiness that wetlanders do.  Besides, it's much more fun to humiliate them by having them serve tea and the like.

[Mr Ares]

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.

Indeed. Crystal clear, no lies.

 

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.

Your imaginings.

 

Moiraine's intentions are not relevant.

Oh, but you're mistaken.

No, I'm not. Whther or not Moiraine intended to send Verin is not at issue. The simple fact is that whether or not she did intend it, she did it.

 

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.

You say that like I've said something to support you. I haven't. She sent Verin. Fact. She did not intend to, but she did. As for the rest of the world, I think you'll find more people support the position that, at the very least, she might not have lied. You are part of a tiny, insignificant even, minority, which holds with the entirely unsupported and utterly unsupportable view that it is impossible for it to be anything other than a lie, which is wrong.

 

Nevertheless, Verin felt that she had been sent,

Wrong again. Very wrong.

Her words are clear, and she cannot lie.

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

No.

Yes.

 

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.

Yes, she wanted to. She was also sent. Now, as RAW said earlier in the thread, he has sent things by accident - without intending to. So, it is entirely possible to send something without intending to, that much cannot be denied. It is fact. So the mere fact of Verin being sent does not require that Moiraine intended to send her. She did anyway.

 

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.

To quote RobertAlexWillis: "I have actually sent things to people by accident". So, sending without intent it possible, and has happened. Intent is not necessary. If you happened to be sending a lot of letters, and one you didn't want to send got mixed in, then entirely without intending to send it, you have sent it. Undeniably. The same holds true here. Moiraine may have had no intention of sending Verin. But she did.

 

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

Verin didn't say Moiraine intended to send her. Where is this invisible lie?

 

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.

I would appreciate a little more than your say so. It is not the only possible one. The dictionary, the examples given in the thread, all this is clear. Verin's POVs are likewise clear that she is bound. Just because you imagine some ridiculous situation to the contrary, doesn't change the simple reality presented in the books. Verin did not lie, nor can she.

 

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.

Just the Black Ajah, no others. And whether or not they can lie depends on your definition of a lie. "However, even a true statement can be considered a lie if the person making that statement is doing so to deceive." (Wikipedia). However, if we are to define lies are being falsehoods with intent to deceive, then it was not a lie, because while it had intent to deceive - like much of what AS say - it lacked falsehood. It was true. So it is no more a lie than any other statement AS make with the intention of deceiving people.

 

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.

No. It was true. Every word she said was true. No different from other AS.

 

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.

Jethro is entirely right in this. You have proved nothig beside your own refusal to listen to reason.

 

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.

One could ask you the very same questions. I, however, do have the energy to keep going, so if you want to concede defeat, do so. You will never change my mind to support such an irrational and ridiculous theory, which flies in the face of all the evidence we have.

 

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 Oath is not against lying, it is against speaking untruths. The two are not the same. As already pointed out, some would argue it is possible to lie without being untruthful (in which case all AS are liars) and not all untruths are lies. If you wish to define lies as solely being untruths, I'm fine with that, but that means Verin is not a liar, no more than any other AS.

 

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

By everything, you really mean nothing. No word Verin said was untrue.

 

while the above statement is ' date=' 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.[/quote']It has been explained to you many times. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Verin considered herself sent. Moiraine said, to Siuan and Verin, "we must find the dagger". Moiraine isn't going, Siuan cannot, but what of Verin? She can go, and she is the only one. And it is imperative that one of them go, per Moiraine's words. Verin must go with them to find the dagger. It is quite clear.

 

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

Who does? However, Sir is the correct form of address, whether or not your worthless opinion deems me worthy of it, but I don't think this forum requires such formality. My chosen screen name will be quite sufficient.

 

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."

That is not quite my point. My reality has backing outside of myself. Your does not. You would still be dumb even if you did acknowledge my reality.

It must be a terrible burden being absoloutely right all of the time

It is, but I struggle on.

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.

Well, the dictionary itself is proof, and something more than "because I said so, dammit", which is all you have going for you. As for no-one believing me, more people support her not lying than support her lying.

Those who think she might be or was telling the truth: (deep breath) Mr Ares, RobertAlexWillis, mb, Graendal's favourite, Gentled Ben, Luckers, Jethro, Charlz Fel, the WOT FAQ keeps its options open, but certainly allows for the possibility of her telling the truth, Wotmania says it is very possible she did not lie, Theandrin, Briwan Dragain, cloglord, BrainFireBob, ignavus1223, Angel of Death...I hardly think I need go on, suffice it to say that anyone with any measure of sense will at worst recognise that this is possibly AS truth twisting, or Verin telling the truth somehow, and most people  will see how simple it really is - she did not lie. Both of them told the truth, in the way AS do.

 

Now, there are essentially two sides - Verin must have lied, and Verin might be telling the truth. You are the former, I am the latter. Let us compare them: You need further explanation for why she decided to lie, and why she does not do so at any other time, and why her POVs in PoD show her sticking to the truth, with no deviations. It doesn't add up. We have good reason to believe in her honesty, and none at all to believe her free of any of the Oaths. You must also account for her Agelessness, and what, if any, new Oath she has sworn. Invention piles upon invention with no support. Her telling the truth is simple, elegant, requires no further explanation. Perfect. Why, when we have such a good explanation, should we seek to add unnecessary assumptions?

 

They stick to their story like glue because they are absolutely convinced that the rest of the world got it wrong.

Are you talking to me, or you? Cuts both ways, you know. And an awful lot of people support me. Who's insane now? Plus, what reason have we to disagree with me? None at all, besides your stubborn refusal to accept that that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

After all you are the only sane person here.

No, RAW is as well, as are all the other people who recognise a good argument when they see one. Jethro, mb, all the rest.

I can only act silly for so long before rationalization occurs with jarring suddeness.

When it happens, let me know.

Oh by the way the next time you are in a public restroom do NOT eat the big mint

Big mint? You hallucinate giant mints in public restrooms? How odd. How long have you been seeing these "mints"? I think perhaps you had better see a Doctor.

 

Lets go along with that assumption for a while. Verin had the intention of lying' date=' and she did. But only because she was thinking about another situation in her past, and not the situation that everybody had in mind. That would also mean that they can think about another item in their past, and tell the blind person that "the ... is ...". They only formed half the information. The pen is blue". It was "this pen i have on my desk in another room". As long as that's the pen they are thinking about, everything works out just fine for them. But that would also mean that ALL Aes Sedai can lie outright as much as they want to, because it's not their intention toward the listener that determines whether it's a lie or not. It would also mean that RJ was mistaken about his own creation when he said that it was intent and result that counted:[/quote']It might just mean you are mistaken in your interpretation of what RJ said (you are). Intention doesn't matter with regards to AS telling the truth. They deceive people all the time. "The truth you hear isn't the truth you think you hear". Remember that? People know they have to pay close attention to what they have said, and be sure that what they actually said is what they think they said. Intentions towards listeners, as shown repeatedly throughout the books, are irrelevant outside of certain specific situations. AS can "lie outright", in the sense of being able to deceive people by telling the truth. But they cannot tell untruths. Except when it is clear that what they are telling is untrue - when there is no intent to deceive.

 

For Majsju' date=' the oath against lying does leave room for sarcasm. It is intent and result that matter. [b']No sister can intentionally speak an untruth either with the intent of passing on false information or with the belief that false information might be passed on.[/b] Thus the careful slicing and dicing of words. But if someone were to hold up a piece of white cloth and ask whether it was black or white, someone who had sworn the Three Oaths would be capable of saying that it was black as a matter of sarcasm. But not if, for example, the person asking the question was blind and thus might well take the statement for truth rather than sarcasm.

Now, this quote has been presented before, as has been shown to say something. Just not the something you like to imagine it does. I have bolded the relevant section. They cannot speak an untruth, except when they make it clear that what they are saying is not intended to be taken as truth. If "Moiraine sent me" is true, which it is, then it doesn't matter if people are mislead. AS mislead people all the time. Unless you are willing to ignore the books, RJ's own words. People don't trust what AS say. They don't trust them, because they know that while what they say is true, they will try to slip a truth under the radar. What they actually say is not what you think they said. You have been deceived. They could not do this if your interpreatation was correct, because according to you, they cannot say anything with the intent to deceive. Everyone would trust their word, everyone would know that the truth you hear is the truth you hear. Any other interpretation makes a nonsense of the series. RJ's statements cannot possibly be referring ot anything other than untruths. Which is only relevant if someone is trying to argue that Verin was being sarcastic - in which case, she failed, as her words were taken for truth. So, Moiraine's intentions are irrelevant. Verin's are irrelevant. All that matters is the words, and their interpretation. That is all. "Moiraine sent me." By accident or design, she did. Verin's words do not make the issue of whether it was accidental or not clear, and she is not asked. Moiraine's later words indicate that she did not send Verin - which means that she did not knowingly do so. Her words do not, and cannot, rule out Verin being sent by mistake. This much is fact. Combined with the other evidence we have, all indications are tht Verin told the truth. No ifs, ands or buts. She. Told. The. Truth.

End of Argument.

Meaningless trivia about the wetness of water and Verin's wholly imaginary "intention to lie" can be left at the door. If we take a look at the cold, hard facts, we cannot find one tiny sliver, one miniscule scrap, not one itsy bitsy little shred of evidence to support your absurd ravings.

 

If that had been true, then the first oath would have been completely and utterly useless. Needless to say, I disagree.

The Oath is essentially worthless. They can say anything, provided that what they say is true. Doesn't matter how misleading. They do this all the time. How could you miss it?

[Alghar Khan]

Verin didn't say Moiraine intended to send her. Where is this invisible lie?

Sending takes intent, as I explained. You didn't quote that part, did you?

 

She sent Verin. Fact. She did not intend to, but she did. As for the rest of the world, I think you'll find more people support the position that, at the very least, she might not have lied. You are part of a tiny, insignificant even, minority, which holds with the entirely unsupported and utterly unsupportable view that it is impossible for it to be anything other than a lie, which is wrong.

How much more fun in november (or whenever) when us insignificant ones becomes the significant ones. Speaking of unsupported, what support do you have for your claims? None! You're the unsupported one.

 

To quote RobertAlexWillis: "I have actually sent things to people by accident". So, sending without intent it possible, and has happened. Intent is not necessary. If you happened to be sending a lot of letters, and one you didn't want to send got mixed in, then entirely without intending to send it, you have sent it. Undeniably. The same holds true here. Moiraine may have had no intention of sending Verin. But she did.

No, I explained it before. Did you bother to read it? Sending takes intent. If you have two letter, one of them is expected to be sent, and the other not, then you still intend to send something. And you do. You still intended to sent something, and you did, but later you find out it's the wrong one.

 

The Oath is essentially worthless. They can say anything, provided that what they say is true. Doesn't matter how misleading. They do this all the time. How could you miss it?

I haven't missed anything. They can't lie, that is completely clear. How can you miss that?

 

 

[Mr Ares]

Verin didn't say Moiraine intended to send her. Where is this invisible lie?

Sending takes intent, as I explained. You didn't quote that part, did you?

It doesn't take itent, as you have already been told numerous times. How long before it sinks in?

 

She sent Verin. Fact. She did not intend to, but she did. As for the rest of the world, I think you'll find more people support the position that, at the very least, she might not have lied. You are part of a tiny, insignificant even, minority, which holds with the entirely unsupported and utterly unsupportable view that it is impossible for it to be anything other than a lie, which is wrong.

How much more fun in november (or whenever) when us insignificant ones becomes the significant ones. Speaking of unsupported, what support do you have for your claims? None! You're the unsupported one.

You'll be waiting a lot longer than just till November. Because it's never gonna happen. As for support, your theory rests upon the only possible meaning of "sent" requiring intent. Which is wrong. The dictionary does not support you. It has nothing to require intent. The way people use the word also does not require intent, because people will say that they sent things even when they did so unintentionally. Therefore, the word sent not requiring intent makes a nonsense of your point that that is the only possible meaning, so you are unsupported. The word sent leaves things open to multiple interpretations - requiring intent or not. So your absolutist position is ruled out at once. We have passages, already quoted, that are certainly possible to read as Moiraine sending Verin. We have Wotmania's mention of RJ statements from signings requiring Three Oaths for the Agelessness, which Verin has, and which appear to have support in the books, what with the successive tightening of skin arising from each Oath sworn. We have Verin's PoV in PoD Prologue, where she is quite specific in all her words, and everything she says is true, even when lies would be harder to detect than in this instance. Which doesn't make sense if she can lie. We have no reason to believe herself ever to have unbound herself. We have RJ's statements about falsehoods only being utterable with intent to deceive which cannot be taken to support you, and the books repeatedly making clear that AS are able to mislead with the truth quite freely under the First Oath. All the evidence supports me, not you. Nothing supports you. If you actually opened your mind and thought about it, you would see that inescapable truth.

 

To quote RobertAlexWillis: "I have actually sent things to people by accident". So, sending without intent it possible, and has happened. Intent is not necessary. If you happened to be sending a lot of letters, and one you didn't want to send got mixed in, then entirely without intending to send it, you have sent it. Undeniably. The same holds true here. Moiraine may have had no intention of sending Verin. But she did.

No, I explained it before. Did you bother to read it? Sending takes intent. If you have two letter, one of them is expected to be sent, and the other not, then you still intend to send something. And you do. You still intended to sent something, and you did, but later you find out it's the wrong one.

You sent two things. You intended to send one. The other was sent unintentionally. Stop rewriting the dictionary. Sending does not require intent, and in the given example something is sent without intent, regardless of something being sent with intent. How about another example? You start writing an e-mail. It is a very angry e-mail, addressed to someone who has done something to upset you. Before you send it, you stop. You don't want to send it. You were just writing it to blow off steam. You reach for your mouse, and quite by accident your finger comes down on the button just as the cursor moves over the send button. It is sent. You didn't intend to send it - quite the reverse. It was sent unintentionally. How many examples do we have to come up with to prove what is already plain to all? Not one dictionary states intention as the absolute requirement you persist in saying it is. With nothing to back it up! Extraordinary. The definition of the word is against you, and you will still not stop. The way people use it is against you, and still you will not stop. The mere fact that some people can use the word send to refer to things sent unintentionally proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that it can be done. If I can, if RAW can, if the man in the street can, why can't Verin? She can. Your imaginary definition aside, there is no reason to accept your delusions as anything other than what they are. Intention is not necessary. Some people accept that, therefore it is entirely possible that Verin could be one of those people. I will accept your position if you will show that Verin would only use that word if she had been sent intentionally - if that formed part of her definition. Otherwise, you've got nothing.

 

The Oath is essentially worthless. They can say anything, provided that what they say is true. Doesn't matter how misleading. They do this all the time. How could you miss it?

I haven't missed anything. They can't lie, that is completely clear. How can you miss that?

You appear to have missed the definition of lie I provided, if nothing else - the one that said that true things said with the intention to deceive can be considered lies. That clearly falls within the acceptable limits of the Oath - it is not speaking a word that is not true, because every word is true. If, however, you wish the definition confined to untruths with intent to deceive, I won't argue - indeed, I support that, with regards to this argument. Keeps things clear. So, what did I miss? Nothing. Because I was already well aware that AS cannot lie, in the sense we are using it. I have said so. They cannot lie. No arguments from me. They can say whatever they want, provided it is true, or that it is an untruth that is clearly not intended to deceive (e.g. sarcasm). So we agree. AS cannot lie. Verin is AS. Therefore Verin cannot lie. That is absolutely crystal clear.

[Alghar Khan]

It doesn't take itent, as you have already been told numerous times. How long before it sinks in?

You're wrong. Moiraine didn't intend to send Verin, and she didn't. How long before that sinks in?

 

You'll be waiting a lot longer than just till November. Because it's never gonna happen.

Oh, looking forward to november.  ;D

 

As for support, your theory rests upon the only possible meaning of "sent" requiring intent. Which is wrong.

"Sent", used in the context of "Moiraine sent me, she thought you might need me", requires intent on Moiraine's part. Yes, that much is clear. I've also based my so called "theory" on several other things. As for support, you've got none whatsoever. Your opinion is clear, but you've presented nothing to support it. Can you do it now, because I would LOVE TO SEE MR ARES PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE ON HIS THEORY. YES, I AM USING VERSALS. THEY ARE INDEED NECESSARY.

 

The dictionary does not support you. It has nothing to require intent.

The dictionary does not say that sent, used in this situation, does not require intent. If that's what you're thinking, then you're misinterpreting the dictionary. There are certain odd expression, in the english language (but not in all languages), such as "the fire sent them...", where it clearly is not intent that is referred to. The situation with Moiraine/Verin DOES REQUIRE INTENT ON MOIRAINE'S PART. VERIN DIDN'T GO BECAUSE OF MOIRAINE, SHE WENT ANYWAY.

 

The way people use the word also does not require intent, because people will say that they sent things even when they did so unintentionally.

Sending a parcel (intentially sending something, which happpens to be the wrong thing) is NOT RELEVANT as a comparison to the Verin/Moiraine situation. Sending the uninteded item doe not relate to the situation which we are discussing. DROP IT.

 

 

 

[Gentled Ben]

Alghar Khan, it would seem that this intent that you require is provided by Verin, not Moiraine. Moiraine may have simply been thinking out loud, musing if you will, that the Horn must be found, but by saying "We must," in relation to the finding of the Horn, and by the fact that Siuan, the Amyrlin, is not going to seek and find this Horn, and that she, Moiraine, who stands well above Verin in the Aes Sedai heirarchy is not going to seek and find this Horn, then it is really not a stretch at all for many of us to see that Verin could easily supply this intent herself by assuming that it is implied in Moiraine's statement that she intends for Verin  to find the Horn, as she stands above her in the heirarchy, and she said it must be done, with Verin being the only one available who can do it.

 

Perhaps a real life example would be useful here. Let's suppose that you have a job (I assume you do, but you might be a bright and articulate minor or a full time college student as well--doesn't matter either way) and that you, your supervisor, and the owner of the company are discussing the day's business. As the discussion winds down, your supervisor mentions that the working space needs a good cleaning. Is it likely that the supervisor intends to grab a broom? Is it likely that the supervisor expects the owner to grab a broom? Assuming that you are an employee with initiative, is it a stretch to assume that you might soon grab a broom? If so, and another worker asks why you are cleaning, is it a stretch that you would say, "The supervisor told me to?" If it is a stretch, then therein may lie the difficulty in this long-running argument, as many people (Mr Ares listed several of us in an earlier post) would have taken the supervisor's comment as a roundabout way of telling you to clean the work space up, and that is why so many people are arguing with you on this thread--all of us who are arguing would have taken the statement that there was some cleaning to be done as a hint that we should soon commence with this cleaning.

 

Now, it is quite possible that while the supervisor was serious about the need for some cleaning to be done, they may have only been listing yet another thing to be done around the business that day, and actually have no intention of causing you to do the cleaning. Indeed, they might have even had another employee in mind for the task, so if they were later asked about telling you to clean up, they would reply, "No, I didn't tell Alghar to clean the place." You felt like you had been told to clean and told the truth about it. The supervisor did not feel that they had told you to clean, and told the truth about it. Now I ask you, who lied?

[Alghar Khan]

Alghar Khan, it would seem that this intent that you require is provided by Verin, not Moiraine.

No. Moiraine didn't intend to send her. Verin knows it.

 

Perhaps a real life example would be useful here.

No. We don't need any other examples than the example of the situation we are discussing. The Verin/Moiraine situation.

 

 

 

 

From "dragoncon":

Q85 – Part 1: Quoting from Tamra in new spring, “You will tell no one about this, not for any reason, if necessary lie, even to a sister, Gitara died without speaking, do you understand me.” How is it that Tamra can tell Moiraine and Siuan that Gitara died without speaking, when she knows full well that she did speak?

 

RJ: It’s simple. It is part of her instructions. There are a lot, thousands, of loop holes about that "thou will speak no word that is not true". This is part of her instructions, she is telling them what they are to say. She is not saying something she believes, and thus she was able to say it.

 

Q86 – Part 2: Based on the oaths, if a sister asked them [Moiraine and Siuan], if they were instructed, as to what they have to say, would they be able to say it after taking the oaths?

 

RJ: After taking the oaths they would find it hard to say, even with instructions, they might not be able to say it at all, because they know it is a lie. That is the key you can't knowingly tell a lie.

This means that they can't say "I've gotten no instructions.". They can't think of sometime, somewhere when they did not get instructions, and then pull that into the implicit context. They can't lie. That is mentioned on numerous occasions in the series as well. It is known to all, or at least it should be. Clear as crystal.

 

Verin can't think of sometime, somewhere when Moiraine sent her, and then pull that into the implicit context. She can't say "Moiraine sent me, she thought you might need me". She can't lie, if she's bound by the first oath. But we do know that she can lie, so she is not bound by the same oath as the other aes sedai. Clear as crystal.

 

 

 

 

[Gentled Ben]

Where in Verin's POV are we told that she is aware of what Moiraine's intentions are? Verin never gives any indication that she knows what Moiraine does not intend. Show the quote; provide the text where Verin reveals that she is aware that Moiraine did not send her. You keep insisting that Verin knows that Moiraine did not intend to send her. Prove it. Then prove how Verin cannot say that Moiriane sent her, given the conversation about the dagger between Verin, Siuan and Moiraine. While you're at it, explain Verin's PoV in PoD and why she goes through the mental gymnastics that she does in order to misrepresent the facts without speaking a word that is not true, and I will agree that Verin lied.

 

I did not say that Verin can think of some other time that she was sent; Verin only needs to believe that saying she was sent by Moiraine does not constitute saying a word that isn't true. Verin can misrepresent the situation until the cows come home if she does it by telling the truth, and that is what you cannot or will not grasp. *shrugs* The rest of us get it. Verin told the truth, but not the truth that Rand thought he heard. You and your misunderstanding of what Verin said are a perfect example of not hearing the truth, or in this instance, the lie, that you thought you did.

 

The first Oath is a joke, and we are shown that in the very first book, when we first learn that Moiraine is Aes Sedai, and Tam, on his sickbed, insists that Rand must remember *exactly* what Moiraine had said because Aes Sedai can so easily twist the truth. Why you do not grasp the concept of this  rampant truth-twisting among Aes Sedai and why and how twisting the truth is exactly what Verin did in this instance is beyond me, so I will hand it back to Mr Ares to argue with you about it.  :-\

[Alghar Khan]

Where in Verin's POV are we told that she is aware of what Moiraine's intentions are?

You should show me where in Verin's POV we are told that she isn't aware what Moiraine's intentions are.

 

Verin never gives any indication that she knows what Moiraine does not intend.

We got no POV from Verin where she reveals not to know what Moiraine intended.

 

Show the quote; provide the text where Verin reveals that she is aware that Moiraine did not send her.

You show me the quote; provide the text where Verin reveals to the readers that she is not smart enough to know what Moiraine said or didn't say.

 

You keep insisting that Verin knows that Moiraine did not intend to send her. Prove it.

Yes, I keep insisting that Verin is smart enough to comprehend what was said and what wasn't. I think Verin is a very smart lady.

 

Then prove how Verin cannot say that Moiriane sent her, given the conversation about the dagger between Verin, Siuan and Moiraine.

Given the conversation about the dagger, it was clear that Moiraine did not send Verin anywhere.

 

While you're at it, explain Verin's PoV in PoD and why she goes through the mental gymnastics that she does in order to misrepresent the facts without speaking a word that is not true, and I will agree that Verin lied.

When you intend to show the entire world that you are bound by the first oath, you must have the instinct ingrained in you to never tell a lie. That habit would be a part of everything you do. Besides, what reasons would she have had to lie in the first place. The woman had already drawn her own conclusions. No need to lie, so Verin DID NOT go through any "mental gymnastics". It was a simple conversation. No great effort involved. If we would assume that Verin must have replaced the first oath with something in order to maintain the ageless face (Verin is a very clever Brown, and many years of life in the Tower, and could have figured that out), then she could have replaced it with "I swear not to lie any more than three times a day.  ;)   Maybe she'd run out of her quota.  :D

 

I did not say that Verin can think of some other time that she was sent;

No, others have. I wasn't responding to you alone in all of that post.

 

Verin only needs to believe that saying she was sent by Moiraine does not constitute saying a word that isn't true. Verin can misrepresent the situation until the cows come home if she does it by telling the truth, and that is what you cannot or will not grasp. *shrugs* The rest of us get it.

I believe that Verin is smart enough to know that Moiraine didn't send her. It was absolutely clear to me as a reader, so I think it was to Verin as well. I got it, Verin did too. In november (or sometime else) others will too.

 

You and your misunderstanding of what Verin said are a perfect example of not hearing the truth, or in this instance, the lie, that you thought you did.

I understand it just fine, thank you very much. She lied. Moiraine never sent her.

 

Why you do not grasp the concept of this  rampant truth-twisting among Aes Sedai and why and how twisting the truth is exactly what Verin did in this instance is beyond me, so I will hand it back to Mr Ares to argue with you about it.

November, my friend.  ;D

 

 

 

[Jethro]

Okay, for a moment I think we should take our eyes off examples from Moiraine and Verin, and look at the Oaths themselves for a while, and then come back to the quotes.

 

 

  1. Under the Light, I vow to speak no word that is not true.

 

  2. Under the Light, I vow never to make a weapon for one man to kill another.

 

  3. Under the Light, I vow not to use the One Power as a weapon, except against Shadowspawn, or in the last defence of my life, the life of my Warder, or that of another Sister.

 

[tPoD, ch 26, The Extra Bit, p504 Orbit hardback?

 

Since the first Oath is the one under the microscope let us look at how the others can be bent first.

 

At Dumais Wells we see the Third Oath being taken into account and worked around intntionally. If I remember rightly Perrin had at least five Aes Sedai with him, Aes Sedai bound by the Oaths. The Aes Sedai cannot use the Power as a weapon unless at least one of those conditions dictated by the Oath is met. However, the Aes Sedai deliberately get themselves close enough to make it that they must fend off attacks. Instantly, in this incedent, the Aes Sedai are in danger of being killed and thus allows them to use the Power as a weapon. The fact that they deliberately made it so they were in danger of being killed means nothing, because of the wording of the Oath. As an extreme possibility, I think if Moiraine lunged at someone with a knife and that person responded by charging her with a sword, Moiraine could convince herself that her life was in danger and thus use the Power as a weapon, both in spite of AND because of her effort to provoke the attack. A slightly less extreme example from the books is when Rand is captured by the Tower Aes Sedai and they are beating the crap out of them with the Power. They arent using it as a weapon in their own minds, because they dont intend to kill him and he poses no danger to them tied and Shielded as he was. Yet they still beat ten bells out of him.

 

Regarding the Second Oath. My memory is vague on this, but do I remember Aes Sedai putting weaves on catapult ammunition to make them explode when Perrin defends the Two Rivers? Im pretty sure this has been done by an Aes Sedai, and even though they have used the Power to enhance a weapon, they didnt make the weapon itself, they merely enhanced its ammunition so that it would be more likely to kill. Tell me if I am inaccurate here though please since this part is a bit cloudy.

 

The Oaths, because the wording of the Oaths themselves aren't generalised enough, the reality is that while the Oaths themselves prevent Aes Sedai from doing certain things, those things are taken to mean more than they do by most. An Aes Sedai cant intentionally kill someone with the Power for no apparant reason. If an Aes Sdai wished to kill someone and but had no reason to do so, she would have to create a reason herself in order for her to be able to use the Power as a weapon. Here are some ways for an Aes Sedai to create a reason to kill someone that would be allowed by the Oaths.

 

1) The Aes Sedai draws a knife, lunges at a man who has a sword, and when he gets his sword out she just keeps stabbing at him until the very moment he starts to swing his sword, she instantly has the reason to unleash a weave that will intentionally kill him. The Oaths dont say she cant be the instigator, or that she cant attack someone with a weapon made to help a man kill another, or that she cant use the Power as a weapon if to begin with she placed herself in a position that would put her in danger of being shot by arrows or struck by a fireball.

 

2) Imagine Moiraine and Lan stood on one side of a street, and 25 heavily armed and armored ruffians stood in a crowd across the road are giving them dirty looks. As time goes on they have really really wound Moiraine up (that bit doesnt matter to the Oaths) and eventually she has an unhealthy desire to kill them.

 

Moiraine: I want to kill them Lan! I want to kil them all!"

 

Lan: You cant because of the Oaths.

 

Moiraine: Dont worry, if your life is in danger I can use the Power as a weapon. But only if your life is in danger, so I could send you in and then kill the ones I think are going to strike at you.

 

Lan: My life will be in danger when they all have their weapons out.

 

Moiraine: You're getting as good at this as me! When they draw their weapons and ready themselves to stike you I can kill them with the Power.

 

3) If an Aes Sedai came across Elyas or Perrin and didnt know who they were, and had never heard of Wolfbrothers before, let us say that the Aes Sedai as a passing thought that the Wolfbrother is Shadowspawn. The Aes Sedai cannot kill them with the Power intentionally yet. But if, say, that Aes Sedai saw the Wolfbrother walking beside a Trolloc or Myrdraal, or saw them giving orders someone she knew to be a Darkfriend several times, or the Wolfbrother told her he was Shadowspawn and filled her with enough bollocks to convince her, she could easily confirm her "suspicions" that the Wolfbrother was indeed Shadowspawn and thus intentionally kill him with the Power.

 

Regarding the lying Oath. Again some specifics on this part are vague in my mind so bare with me. I remember Egwene? or someone using an Oath Rod to force another Aes Sedai to speak truthfully. When the person using the Oath Rod told the victim to "tell me [something, it was obvious that the victim believed whatever it was to be a lie]." The victim Aes Sedai nearly choked, because the Oath Rod was trying to make her say outright something that she personally thought was a lie. For example, if Rand convinced some random Aes Sedai that Tam al'Thor was his biological father, she would be able to say so outright because she believed it was the truth. But, if Rand had told another Aes Sedai that Tam wasnt his father, she could also say outright because she believed it.

 

The actual truth isnt important, it is what the bound Aes Sedai believes. That is what RJ meant about the intentional lie being impossible. The intentional mislead is an entirely different matter because the Oath didnt say "I vow to never speak a word that is not true or misleading." the Oath also didnt say "I vow to never leave enough out of a sentence that the wording itself can be used in response to pretty much anything I want." And because the Oath is so vague, Aes Sedai have gained a reputation that the truth you hear from an Aes Sedai may not be the truth you think you are hearing. Look at Thoms surprise when Moiraine says to him "you will survive Tanchico." She didnt think he probably would, she has seen him in the future AFTER he survived Tanchico; she knew, and said it outright. She didnt need to leave anything out.

 

If we look at the very literal wording of the First Oath, and then come back to Verins words "Verin sent me," arent specific enough to mean that Moiraine sent her to help Perrin. For it to be an outright lie, she would have had to go about saying it the long way. If she said "Moiraine sent me to join you, Perrin, because she thought you might need my help," then we would know, from Moiraine denial of any such sending, that Verin could lie.

[Gentled Ben]

Where in Verin's POV are we told that she is aware of what Moiraine's intentions are?

You should show me where in Verin's POV we are told that she isn't aware what Moiraine's intentions are.

 

"Moiraine sent me, Lord Ingtar, she thought you might need me."

Your turn...

 

Have you read the prologue to Path of Daggers? It does not seem that you have.

[Vambram]

I cannot add anything to the posts of those defending Verin as to her to NOT be a liar. Completely, and totally, do I agree with the points made by Mr Ares, Jethro, RobertAlexWallace, and Gentled Ben.

I'm sorry, Alghar Khan; but after 10 pages of this thread, there is no denying the fact that you are in the minority of opinion of posters in this thread, and probably also in the minority of opinion of those of us here in Dragonmount.com, as well regarding this issue of whether or not Verim Aes Sedai LIED.

[Osan`gar]

Mr. Ares: Now, there are essentially two sides - Verin must have lied, and Verin might be telling the truth. You are the former, I am the latter. Let us compare them: You need further explanation for why she decided to lie, and why she does not do so at any other time, and why her POVs in PoD show her sticking to the truth, with no deviations. It doesn't add up. We have good reason to believe in her honesty, and none at all to believe her free of any of the Oaths. You must also account for her Agelessness, and what, if any, new Oath she has sworn. Invention piles upon invention with no support. Her telling the truth is simple, elegant, requires no further explanation. Perfect. Why, when we have such a good explanation, should we seek to add unnecessary assumptions?

 

all playing aside i think you are all missing something here. i never said verin lied. i said verin or moiraine lied. which one was it? we can, and have argued semantics over definitions but you must at least concede that one of them was being deceptive. which one and to what end? it strikes me as odd that moiraine would let any man that could channel run loose let alone  the dragon reborn. it is equally odd that verin would go against the apparant wishes of two sisters stronger than her in the power. one of them the ahmyrlin seat. also, why would verin even need to deceive them? she could have stated something much less deceptive like telling them she wanted to observe their actions for historical purposes or something like that. it would have easily been misunderstood to be about the horn when she really wanted to keep track of rand and nobody would have really questioned her. after all her power would have a great asset when they confronted fain.

 

[RobertAlexWillis]

RobertAlexWallace

 

FRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Sorry, I had to.

[Vambram]

*chuckles* :) Sorry about that, RAW. But, I am glad you have a good sense of humor about my mistake.