Questions about Moiraine ???

[Luckers]

He just likes the way he looks in a kilt.

 

And so this message is spam, i agree--Verin lied.

 

*ducks his head shamefaced and scampers off*.

[benr]

All of the Verin apologists could teach the AS a thing or two about how to twist the truth.  It depends on what the definition of what "sent is"?  Kind of reminds me of "it depends on what the meaning of ""is"" is.  RJ didn't put all of the mysterious things about Verin in the series for fun, or by mistake.  There is something going on with her.  It'll be great to find out what.

[Gentled Ben]

All of the Verin apologists could teach the AS a thing or two about how to twist the truth.  It depends on what the definition of what "sent is"? 

It depends on what Verin believes to be words that are not true in the given context.

[benr]

Then the oath is worthless.

[Vambram]

Verin is indeed a mysterious and great character. I Like her alot, and I am sure that RJ (and now Sanderson), have something special in mind for Verin in the last book. I can't wait to RAFO. However, Verin can twist the truth just as good as any other Aes Sedai, but she did NOT Lie.

[Gentled Ben]

Then the oath is worthless.

For the most part, yes, it is. That is a point that the books have driven home beginning with Eye of the World, when Tam first alerts Rand to the fact that you cannot trust what an Aes Sedai says. The story has never deviated from that.

[Gracel]

Anyone else thinking this question would be a good poll? I'm not sure how to set one up, I'm new, but I'll give it a try. If you don't see one by Monday morning assume I gave up or fell asleep. If anyone else wants to go for it, feel free. javascript:void(0);

[Jethro]

So, is the battle won?

[Orange Fescue]

So, is the battle won?

Won? The battle will never be won. It will just go on and on in circles, repeating itself endlessly as the Wheel turns. Or until everyone gets bored with it. Either way.

[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.

 

"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.

Please tell me you are joking. Please?

 

 

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.

And the majority of dragonmount can't be wrong, because that is impossible. That can't ever happen. The majority of any group of people can't be wrong about anything. Not during the entire history of human existance has that ever happened. Because it is impossible. Right?    :D

 

 

[Luckers]

Actually it happened once, with Taimandred.

 

However this is not Taimandred.

[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.

Please tell me you are joking. Please?

 

 

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.

And the majority of dragonmount can't be wrong, because that is impossible. That can't ever happen. The majority of any group of people can't be wrong about anything. Not during the entire history of human existance has that ever happened. Because it is impossible. Right?    :D

 

 

 

No, I am not joking. I gave a quote from the text where Verin indicates that she thinks  Moiraine's intentions are for her to join Ingtar's party. You keep insisting that she knew what Moiraine did and did not intend, and I keep asking you to prove it. Go ahead; prove it. Back up your assertion with the text.

[Nightstrike]

No, I am not joking. I gave a quote from the text where Verin indicates that she thinks  Moiraine's intentions are for her to join Ingtar's party. You keep insisting that she knew what Moiraine did and did not intend, and I keep asking you to prove it. Go ahead; prove it. Back up your assertion with the text.

That quote does not indicate what she thought. It states what she said. We've got nothing that says, either way, if she's mistaken on Moiraine's intentions (as you claim) or if she knows the intentions. Noone has any proof of anyones thoughts on the matter. Not Verin, anyway. I don't think we have anything on Moiraine either.

 

[Mr Ares]

So, is the battle won?

Only when all my enemies lie dead.

 

You're wrong. Moiraine didn't intend to send Verin' date=' and she didn't.[/quote']She may not have intended to, but she did.

Oh, looking forward to november

As are we all. However, you will not be pleased if this subject arises in the last book.

"Sent", used in the context of "Moiraine sent me, she thought you might need me", requires intent on Moiraine's part.

No, it doesn't. It might usually be expected to have intent, but it is not required. An unusual word use is not the same as an incorrect word use.

I've also based my so called "theory" on several other things.

Nothing supports you. That RJ quote doesn't, Verin's words don't. What does?

Your opinion is clear, but you've presented nothing to support it.

Yes, I have. You just saying I haven't isn't good enough. I actually looked at your evidence, and pointed out how it doesn't support you.

The dictionary does not say that sent, used in this situation, does not require intent.

Why would it? You can't expect a dictionary to list all the things that aren't needed. But if a word requires intent, you might think it would mention that. For example, if the dictionary defines sent as "to cause to go", that does not say anything about intent. Why assume intent is necessary? If it defined it as "to intentionally cause to go", that one word rules out unintentionally sending things. If it was required, surely they would put that extra word in? But they don't. If it is required, why not?

 

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

Quotes. We have shown evidence of what could be interpreted as being sent.

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

Well, examples can be useful to help illustrate the point.

From "dragoncon":

Irrelevant.

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.

They can't lie, is the key. They can tell misleading truths. Whether they consider it a misleading truth depends on individual and specific circumstances.

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.

We don't know she can lie. We have no reason to suspect that she can. So the rest doesn't follow. Clear as crystal.

 

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.

And yet according to you, she did so. Quite blatantly. In a way very easily detected. There is an old robot saying which I believe is relevant to this situation: does not compute.

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.

Which just goes to show that your conclusion requires assumptions be piled on top of assumptions in order to support it. Occam's Razor, child. Why do we need all this unnecessary overcomplication? Why not just take the simplest solution to fit all the facts - that she did not lie?

Verin DID NOT go through any "mental gymnastics".

Really? Her POVs show her being quite specific in her word use, every word she says being completely true, but much of it being misleading. For example, mentioning the heat, and how she had come close to fainting once or twice herself. It was not the heat that brought Verin close to fainting, nor was it what had affected her fellow Sister, but that is the implication. Misleading, but true. Typical AS. Why, if she could just say that the sun gave her a funny turn?

It was absolutely clear to me as a reader

Ever consider that that is because you're a bad reader?

 

I'm sorry' date=' 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.[/quote']I don't think you go far enough. I think we can also include WoT fandom as a whole, and any elements of the English speaking world who are made aware of the argument, even without reading the books.

 

all playing aside i think you are all missing something here. i never said verin lied. i said verin or moiraine lied.

No' date=' I got that.

which one was it?

Neither. We have been over this repeatedly, and there is no requirement for Verin's words to be untrue, nor for Moiraine's. The two can both be true, from the points of view of the respective speakers. We know Moiraine is bound, we have no reason to so much as suspect Verin is unbound, besides this which can be explained far more easily without such speculation. If both are bound, neither can speak a word that is not true. Therefore, every word they spoke was true. But as Moiraine didn't intend to send Verin, she quite naturally said she didn't when asked. As Verin felt herself sent, she said she had been. Both are true.

we can, and have argued semantics over definitions but you must at least concede that one of them was being deceptive.

Yes, one of them was being deceptive. I have never denied that. As has been stated repeatedly, it is well within the confines of the Oaths to be misleading. That much is not at issue. However, the deception was within the confines of the truth - nobody lied, or at least nobody lied in a way that normal AS can't. As it is, we can be sure that it is Verin who is being sneaky, which is normal for her. As for why, Luckers has a theory about Verin's actions. Maybe you should ask him about it.

it strikes me as odd that moiraine would let any man that could channel run loose let alone  the dragon reborn.

Why? She can't control his actions. She decides to give him a measure of freedom in Fal Dara, keeping out his way. Because he doesn't trust her, and the more she tries to keep him on a short lead, the more he will fight against it.

it is equally odd that verin would go against the apparant wishes of two sisters stronger than her in the power.

Well, we know Verin has her own agenda.

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.

Actually, it is more likely that they would think her interested in the Dragon Reborn.

 

All of the Verin apologists could teach the AS a thing or two about how to twist the truth. It depends on what the definition of what "sent is"? Kind of reminds me of "it depends on what the meaning of ""is"" is. RJ didn't put all of the mysterious things about Verin in the series for fun, or by mistake. There is something going on with her. It'll be great to find out what.

We know it wasn't a mistake. RJ has said it wasn't, if we had any doubts. We know Verin is mysterious, and has an agenda. But she didn't lie. It is no good trying to understand Verin's motivations if we get completely the wrong idea about who she is and what she wants.

Then the oath is worthless.

Finally figured that out?

 

Anyone else thinking this question would be a good poll?

So we can find out how many people are wrong and need me to change their opinions?

 

And the majority of dragonmount can't be wrong, because that is impossible. That can't ever happen. The majority of any group of people can't be wrong about anything. Not during the entire history of human existance has that ever happened. Because it is impossible. Right?

Sure they can be. But, and it's a big but, if the majority think something, there is probably a reason, so it is advisable to listen to what they have to say and decide if it is a good reason. The case for it being a lie rests on the word sent requiring intent. However, no dictionary that anyone has quoted from includes intent as a part of the definition. Examples have been given in the thread of things or people being sent without intention. Many people agree that it is an entirely permissable word usage - and if they can agree why can't Verin? - and if that is so, then it blows the case for it being a lie out of the water. Because all you have is a possibility, with nothing to suggest it is the case. On the othr hand, the opposition has good reason to believe it is not a lie. Your case is founded on your refusal to accept that a word doesn't mean what you think it means, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

[benr]

Then the oath is worthless.

For the most part, yes, it is. That is a point that the books have driven home beginning with Eye of the World, when Tam first alerts Rand to the fact that you cannot trust what an Aes Sedai says. The story has never deviated from that.

 

Help me here.  Do the people in general not believe the oath holds?  Or is it our characters?  Aes Sedai?

[CUBAREY]

Help me here.  Do the people in general not believe the oath holds?  Or is it our characters?  Aes Sedai?

 

Everyone believes that the oath perse holds. However, everyone also knows that there is no requirement that a Aes Sedai answer a direct question directly and everyone knows that to say something that is truthful but misleads the listeners is not a lie. Therefore the oath holds but there are so many ways to get around it that it is meaningless.

 

Moreover, it should be observed that there are many ways to get around it does not necessarily imply that the Aes Sedai who came up with the oath intended it to have loopholes. It is quite possible that they intended it to be taken at face value and that once the oath was taken it became clear (first to them and later to the general public) that it could be easily circumvented.

[Guest The Thin Inn Keeper]

Help me here.  Do the people in general not believe the oath holds?  Or is it our characters?  Aes Sedai?

 

Everyone believes that the oath perse holds. However...

And furthermore, even the characters in the books know that the Oath is merely an impediment.

 

Consider Tam on his deathbed. Within the first few chapters of book 1 we have someone who at the time was a central figure in the story clearly telling Rand to examine every word Moiraine (or any Aes Sedai) says.

 

The fact that the Oath is severely limited is introduced right from the off.

 

Then also consider the number of times you see people being warned about, or complaining about, Aes Sedai "trickery".

 

The Oath holds, it's just badly worded if the intent was to prevent deception. But then all 3 are open to manipulation.

 

It's about as useful as having Lan swear (yes, I know he can't) not to kill anyone using a sword. He still has a variety of weapons available to him to do the job while being somewhat restricted in choice.

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

I think that, for Moiraine to have sent Verin, she had to have caused Verin to go.  She didn't actually do that, so Verin lied.

 

"We must win", he told me.

In order to win I think I'm going to have to cheat

<cheat> <cheat> <cheat>

"He told me to cheat," I said.

He interjected, "You're a liar!"

"No," I glibly replied "you said we must win.  There was no way to guarantee that without cheating."

"Nice try," said the Referee "but you're disqualified."

 

Verin was not sent by Moiriane because Moiraine didn't cause Verin to go anywhere.  Verin could have said "Moiraine wants to get that dagger back" and she would have sucessfully twisted the truth.  She didn't: she lied.

[Mr Ares]

I think that, for Moiraine to have sent Verin, she had to have caused Verin to go. She didn't actually do that, so Verin lied.

Great. Someone new to join the party and ignore the evidence. She may have had to cause Verin to go, but that doesn't mean she had to intentionally cause her to go. If she did so unknowingly, then she still did so. Verin is still bound, and therefore is no more capable of a lie than any other AS.

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

Great. Someone new to join the party and ignore the evidence.

boo hoo

 

The semantic argument "does sent imply intent?" is meaningless.  If Moiraine accidentally sent Verin we would have seen it on the page.  The words that Moiraine spoke did not "send" Verin anywhere.  Her actions did not "send" Verin either.  The opposing viewpoint is that Verin took Moiraine's "We must get the dagger" and "The dagger will be found when they find the Horn" to mean "Go to them".  If Verin was not lying then she could also have said "My mother sent me" or "The Creator sent me" or "The Dark One sent me" because all of them performed some actions that influenced her decision to go.  However, influencing someone is not the same as sending them.  To send something, you have to cause it to go.  If I drop a coin and someone goes to the store to spend it, I have not "sent" them there (I did "send" them the money unintentionally, by dropping it).  Moiraine dropped a coin but Verin chose how to use it, so Verin initiated the action and was therefore not sent by Moiraine.  She might have said "Moiraine told me things which sent me", but she needs to include the clarification.

 

Verin formulated the words in her mind "Moiraine sent me", and then spoke them.  If she is bound by the Oaths, the sentence is true.  Is anything untrue in that sentence?  Well, if you consider that Moiraine has probably sent Verin places before to do various things, it is a true sentence.  However, I don't think the Oath allows that.  That "loophole" in my opinion boils down to the idea "a word by itself is never untrue", which would allow an Aes Sedai with enough control over her thoughts to say anything she wished.  No, an Aes Sedai is lying if she speaks an untruth completely out of context.  To illustrate, consider this example:

"Are you Black Ajah?"

I wonder if this dress exposes too much cleavage? "No," this is just the right amount. "Also, how DARE you accuse ME of such a thing!"

I'll say "I am not Black Ajah" until they stop suspecting me. Mua ha ha!.

 

There is nothing in the books that says this is not allowed, it is just my opinion.  However, I think the Oaths are boring this way, and also all of the Aes Sedai (except Verin) are absolutely stupid for not figuring out how to lie through this loophole.  Again, just my opinion.  We know that Aes Sedai are good at twisting the truth, but this loophole seems like too much.

 

 

AHEM

After reading my own post over a couple of times I have found a flaw in my first point.  Verin DID clarify her statement, by saying "she thought you might need me".  By speaking about what Moiraine "thought" Verin is effectively saying that she is guessing at or interpreting Moiraine's intentions (because no one actually knows anothers' thoughts, it can be considered a figure of speech to say "she thought").  That may or may not be enough to clear her under the Oath.

 

I just don't know anymore...but I still think the "every word is true by itself" loophole is dumb.

[RobertAlexWillis]

If Moiraine accidentally sent Verin we would have seen it on the page.

 

Thats a pretty big assumption.  But regardless of the size of the assumption, we did see it.

 

Quoth Moiraine, to Siuan and Verin:

 

"Then we must find the dagger, Sister. Agelmar is sending men to hunt those who took the Horn and slew his oathmen the same who took the dagger. If one is found the other will be."

 

TGH ch 7

 

We must find the dagger.  Ingtar's party is hunting for the dagger.  Siuan couldn't go, as Amyrlin she had other duties.  Moiraine made it clear she wouldn't go.  That only leaves Verin.  Therefore, Moiraine's statement is the cause that Verin chooses to cite mentally to justify saying, ""Moiraine Sedai sent me, Lord Ingtar.  She thought you might need me."  (Please note that those are two separate thoughts.)  Moiraine's statement caused her to go (first sentence, no conditional phrasing since, some people's opinions notwithstanding, there is a valid use of the verb "send" without implication of intent).  Moiraine did express a thought that could be interpreted to mean that Siuan, Moiraine, and/or Verin had to find the dagger (second sentence, and note the carefully conditional phrasing for that one, since it deals with Moiraine's intentions). Verin used two separate statements in close proximity to deceive Ingtar, (who thinking like the majority of us, assumes then that Moiraine Sedai intended Verin to come with them).  Luckers has admirably covered in another thread her purpose in creating such a (false but useful) connection.

 

This is really not that hard, guys.  Verin's TPoD prologue POV gives multiple examples of the type of internal rationalizing she uses to deliberately deceive while not speaking any "word that is not true".

 

When Moiraine spoke those words (quoted above) in TGH ch 7, she did not do so with the intent that Verin follow Ingtar.  That is why she could later claim, with complete truth from her point of view, that "I did not send Verin."  Jordan provides here an excellent example of how Aes Sedai commonly deal with the first Oath, and how it can be circumvented successfully.  I don't think the placement of this incident was an accident; The Great Hunt is the first book in which we deal with Aes Sedai as a group.  TEoTW had only Moiraine, and a short appearance by Elaida, without the two of them interacting.

 

As Obi-Wan Kenobi observed with annoying accuracy; "You will find the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."  The first Oath operates entirely through the speaker's point of view; as long as the speaker does not believe that she is speaking a "word that is not true", she can deceive 'til her heart's content.  The intention to deceive only becomes an issue when the Aes Sedai is speaking a word that is not literally true, as in the case of sarcasm (see Alghar Khan's oft quoted RJ blog entry).  But when the words are technically true (as Verin's are) then the intent to deceive becomes irrelevant. 

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

While there may or may not be an implication of intent in the verb "to send", there is definitely an implication of cause.  You can't send something unless you cause it (perhaps unintentionally) to go where it is sent.  YOU need to perform an action that sends it.  Verin is not a machine with a "send" button that Moiraine acidentally pressed.  Moiraine did not do or say anything that Verin could construe as "I am sending you to them".  She took in some information from her surroundings and decided to go on her own.

 

Verin used two separate statements in close proximity to deceive Ingtar, (who thinking like the majority of us, assumes then that Moiraine Sedai intended Verin to come with them).

Yes, but I think that the second sentence is required for the first to not be a lie.

 

We must find the dagger.  Ingtar's party is hunting for the dagger.  Siuan couldn't go, as Amyrlin she had other duties.  Moiraine made it clear she wouldn't go.  That only leaves Verin.

This doesn't work, because Verin knows that Moiraine is attempting to leave the boys alone for a while.  She knows that Moiraine does not want anyone to interfere.  How can she say "Moiraine sent me" when she knows that Moiraine would probably have said "don't go" if she asked?  She can only do it by immediately explaining further - "She thought you might need me".

 

Really, it would be so lame if AS could manipulate the truth to such a degree.  First, because it's silly to think that it isn't common knowledge after hundreds of years that Aes Sedai can actually tell lies simply by speaking the truth out of context.  Second, anyone who has studied Epistomology, even a basic college intro, knows (lol) that the truth is a very very slippery subject.  I can't imagine the Whites NOT discussing the Oaths to the point that they figure out ways to lie like Verin.  I think they must have had those discussions and determined that statements like that are lies after all, and cannot be spoken.

 

This is all  IN  MY  POSSIBLY  FLAWED  OPINION, so please keep this in mind: I admit I might be wrong.  Remember that you might be wrong too.  And finally, remember that it doesn't matter who is right or wrong, as long as we get to discuss these excellent books.

 

Look:

M: "We have to find the dagger.  Ingtar's group will get it.  I'm not going to mess with those guys for a while."

V: "Someone who understands the problems they face would be helpful."

M: "Yes."

No one was sent anywhere.

[RobertAlexWillis]

You can't send something unless you cause it (perhaps unintentionally) to go where it is sent.  YOU need to perform an action that sends it

 

Are you claiming that simply making a statement cannot cause something to happen?  Because I've made a lot of statements that caused things to happen over time, and not all of those things were intentional.  We don't normally use the word "send" in that way, but it remains a valid use.

 

M: "We have to find the dagger.  Ingtar's group will get it.  I'm not going to mess with those guys for a while."

V: "Someone who understands the problems they face would be helpful."

M: "Yes."

 

While that is a facile re-invention, that is not the dialogue which took place.  Particularly your inclusion of the idea that Ingtar would have been included in Moiraine's "we".  Ingtar was not present, and he was not Aes Sedai.  He was not capable of doing anything to help Mat once the dagger was found, or to contain the damage it might do.  When a Sister, in the presence of no one but other Sisters, makes a statement about what "we" must do, she generally means either 1) the specific individuals present here, or 2) Aes Sedai in general.  In this specific case, it had to be directed at a Sister because only a trained channeler could help Mat once he got the dagger. 

 

Again, these are not the only possible interpretations.  But to circumvent the Oath, Verin needed only one plausible interpretation that would allow her to act as she wished.  Moiraine's actions (leaving Rand alone, and thus leaving Ingtar's party without a Sister), in combination with her statement, created a situation which caused Verin to go.  Therefore, Verin's decision to leave was caused by Moiraine's actions/words.  Therefore Moiraine caused Verin to go.  Therefore, Moiraine sent Verin, her actual intentions notwithstanding.

 

Is it convoluted?  Absolutely.  Does it involve using words in a way that is unusual and deceptive?  Of course.  Did Verin "speak [a] word which is not true"?  Nope.

[Nightstrike]

Are you claiming that simply making a statement cannot cause something to happen?  Because I've made a lot of statements that caused things to happen over time, and not all of those things were intentional.  We don't normally use the word "send" in that way, but it remains a valid use.

"I did not mean to send her, but I did.". No, that doesn't sound right. Either you sent her or you didn't. If you didn't, then the person in question must be mistaken on your intentions. Meaning that they thought you did, but you didn't actually.

 

Again, these are not the only possible interpretations.  But to circumvent the Oath, Verin needed only one plausible interpretation that would allow her to act as she wished.  Moiraine's actions (leaving Rand alone, and thus leaving Ingtar's party without a Sister), in combination with her statement, created a situation which caused Verin to go.  Therefore, Verin's decision to leave was caused by Moiraine's actions/words.  Therefore Moiraine caused Verin to go.  Therefore, Moiraine sent Verin, her actual intentions notwithstanding.

I disagree. Either Verin misunderstood Moiraine, or she lied. I don't think there are any other options. I'm not entirely sure which of those two that is correct. I think both options have their problems. I don't like either one of them.

 

 

 

[RobertAlexWillis]

"I did not mean to send her, but I did.". No, that doesn't sound right.

 

I'm sorry if it offends your sensibilities, but it actually makes perfect sense, linguistically.  It is a properly constructed and intelligible sentence.  I have already given what I consider numerous examples of how things can be sent unintentionally, which you obviously don't agree with, so there isn't much point in going over it again.

 

Either Verin misunderstood Moiraine, or she lied. I don't think there are any other options. I'm not entirely sure which of those two that is correct. I think both options have their problems. I don't like either one of them.

 

It makes sense that you don't like either of those options, because neither fits with all the facts we have about both parties.  Good thing those actually aren't the only two options.

 

You've basically said, in this particular post, that the word "send" cannot be used that way, because you don't use it that way.  But Verin's Oath is not interpreted through your consciousness.  So, in all honesty, your understanding of the word "send" is moot.  I would hasten to add, mine is too.  It is not our individual interpretations of the word, but the simple fact you and I have demonstrated different understandings of the same word, that is relevant. 

 

If you and I can have different understandings of the same word, as we plainly do, then "Verin" (in quotes because it is obviously RJ writing the character of Verin) can also have a different understanding, and her Oath would only enforce her subjective understanding.  So, no matter how either you or I interpret the word, it is possible for her character to interpret it in a way which allows her to use it in this circumstance without violating the Oath.