Saidin in Ebou Dar

[NZ Warder]

WHy does Saidin feel strange in Ebou Dar? Is it because of the bowl being used?

[a5m]

I believe it is a combination of the bowl being used and the gateway not being unraveled successfully. Saidar is also effected though we only know this through references of "sick" damane.

[mb]

Like another poster, the unraveled gateway is not related to the effect.

 

When the Bowl is used, Elayne noticed that it also drew in saidin even though the circle was just saidar channelers.

The source of the saidin is one thing I have wondered about.

 

[a5m]

Is there a reference somewhere that shows the gateway had nothing to do with the effect? Or is this simply an opinion or a group consensus?

[mb]

Is there a reference somewhere that shows the gateway had nothing to do with the effect? Or is this simply an opinion or a group consensus?

 

Here:

http://linuxmafia.com/jordan/2_nondark/2.3_one-power/2.3.12_op-eboudar.html

 

[Kaznen]

Well, the animals the Kin didn't take with them when they fled with the AS would have died in the explosion that destroyed everything within 500 yards and the shockwave traveled at least half a mile (Remeber Elyane, Avi, and Brid. were behind a hill) and the animals they did take with them were still with them (unless they went into the women's bellies during the journey) it is safe to asume they didn't help with teh cleansing.

[water_seeker]

Please not another comment involving explosions and shockwaves.  :P

[Roxinos]

Where's Michael Bay when you need him?

[mb]

Just because he didn't explicitly deny it doesn't mean it makes sense to believe it.  I mean, does anyone have a quote in which RJ explicitly denies the involvement of the farm animals from the Kin's farm in the Cleansing of Saidin?  No?  Then it must be so!!!   ::)

That is the fallacy ad ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance).

Robert Jordan neither confirms nor denies the possibility.

With no comment on the issue, only the evidence at hand would tell the conclusion.

 

[mb]

That is the fallacy ad ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance).

Robert Jordan neither confirms nor denies the possibility.

With no comment on the issue, only the evidence at hand would tell the conclusion.

Why, thank you mb.  I never would have known that.

That is the use of sarcasm (Response to Ignorance).

The beginning comment was meant more as a warning than as an informer.

 

[Luckers]

Cool it.

 

He did not specifically preclude the unravelling gateway as potentially being contributory, however the effect is noted by Elayne before the gateway was unravelled. That fact, combined with RJ's answer, does rule out the idea.

 

It was caused by forcing the bowl.

[zanotam]

Cool it.

 

He did not specifically preclude the unravelling gateway as potentially being contributory, however the effect is noted by Elayne before the gateway was unravelled. That fact, combined with RJ's answer, does rule out the idea.

 

It was caused by forcing the bowl.

 

And someone who has the necessary mental faculties to have read far enough into the story to know what we're talking about and then to go on dragonmount would not be able to figure that out? I mean, I understand pet theories and holding onto the illogical, but since Saidin was effed up before the gateway, why would that really matter?

[Kivam]

Just because he didn't explicitly deny it doesn't mean it makes sense to believe it.  I mean, does anyone have a quote in which RJ explicitly denies the involvement of the farm animals from the Kin's farm in the Cleansing of Saidin?  No?  Then it must be so!!!   ::)

That is the fallacy ad ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance).

Robert Jordan neither confirms nor denies the possibility.

With no comment on the issue, only the evidence at hand would tell the conclusion.

 

Actually, it's the application of the well known principle of statutory construction expressio unis exclusio alteris - the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.  RJ was asked, and he answered.  Even ignoring the fact that his answer fits with the timing at issue, while the suggestion that the gateway was involved does not, he didn't imply there was anything left out of the answer.

 

Thus, it is the suggestion that "we don't know for certain" that is the appeal to ignorance.  By that logic, Rand might not be the Dragon Reborn - after all, there could be a channeler, who has inverted his weaves and found a way to be both invisible and intangible, shadowing Rand throughout the series who is the "real" source of all of the things Rand does.  And don't tell me about Rand's POV as a "proof" that is false - after all, we don't know for certain that he isn't absolutely insane and imagining everything, which, on the theory that anything not explicitly stated can be the subject of intelligent discussion, is exactly as valid a theory as what you're proposing.

[Luckers]

Cool it.

 

He did not specifically preclude the unravelling gateway as potentially being contributory, however the effect is noted by Elayne before the gateway was unravelled. That fact, combined with RJ's answer, does rule out the idea.

 

It was caused by forcing the bowl.

 

And someone who has the necessary mental faculties to have read far enough into the story to know what we're talking about and then to go on dragonmount would not be able to figure that out? I mean, I understand pet theories and holding onto the illogical, but since Saidin was effed up before the gateway, why would that really matter?

 

Excuse me?