Moiraine post ToG

[Mr Ares]

2) it takes a man to properly heal a stilled woman, and a woman to properly heal a gentled man.

This, according to RJ.

 

Furthermore Luckers you dismissed my court analogy.

Because it was complete crap. For one thing, this is not a court of law, this is an internet forum.

And we still lack heaping piles of evidence.

We have evidence. Make use of it. Occam's Razor, something your a fan of. We know of only one thing that could reduce her strength in the manner seen. We know ter'angreal are capable of burning people out. We have no reason to believe it is impossible to Heal burning out. We know of only two things that can snap a Warder bond, as Lan's bond was, and Moiraine isn't dead. All indicators of the both of them being burnt out and Cyndane being Healed.

[richnewton82]

.

[Mr Ares]

He argued that his theory isn't completely speculation when it clearly is.

Except for all the evidence that you ignored.

There's no evidence suggesting Lanfear was burnt out then healed by a woman.

That is the only theory with any support from the books. We have, after all, seen women Healed from severing who are reduced in strength, so this fits. They are the same.

Better theory would be she died and was recycled with less strength.

Strength remains constant, as seen in Osan'gar, Aran'gar and Moridin. Shai'tan wouldn't do it deliberately as it reduces the effectiveness of one of His tools to no possible gain.

Or her wish with the Finns

Why would they give her wishes? Can they even affect strength in the manner you suggest? The only thing supported by evidence is she was burnt out and Healed. You ignoring that evidence, ignoring Luckers' point, ignoring my point, does you no favours.

[richnewton82]

.

[richnewton82]

.

[Majsju]

Regarding the Finn wish theory, even if Lanfear had been allowed to get any "wishes" (which is extremely unlikely, considering how she entered their realm. The finns are not genies who for some reason has to grant three wishes, they make deals, and Lanfears bargaining position was not exactly great), they do not have the ability to transmigrate souls, which means they can not be responsible for her new body.

[Jameric]

As for Moraine I refer you to the law of conservation of energy. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed but transformed or transfered.

 

Now given that Lanfear came back at less then full power, what would be the most interesting thing that could of happened to her lost power? IMO that a portion got transferred to Moraine. Think of what she has accomplished in the series so far much lower in the OP then the Forsaken, and then think of what she could do if she comes back stronger. Would make from interesting reading on down the road.

 

The arguement I have seen against this is the strenght in the OP is linked to ones soul and in that way cannot be transferred, but Lanfear's example shows that manipulation of ones strenght is possible even if we dont have all the details on how yet. I cant really see the Dark One being the one who stripped some of her power, because if you where in his shoes wouldnt you want to have the strongest puppets possible in order to carry out your will? It would be an obvious advantage, and I dont see the Dark One passing up any advantage he can get his hands on if it has the slightest chance of helping him break his bonds easier.

[Arani Lepenque Aes Sedai]

Anyway, it wouldn't matter to the DO if Lanfear had suddenly become the strongest channeler in history.  It'd just make his position better, considering her stance now on LTT.

[Majsju]

That law is not relevant here, because we are talking about the ability to use the energy, not a defined amount of energy held by the channelers.

 

Compare it to lightbulbs. If you have one at 100W and one at 40W, both powered by the same source, the 25W bulb will not become a 45W bulb if you replace the 100W bulb with a 80W.

[dwn]

It's not (quite) explicitly stated, but the three answers/wishes are likely part of an agreement made by the *finns and the Aes Sedai who made the ter'angreal door frames. Once the ter'angreal melted, the agreement probably ended as well. I think it's highly unlikely that either woman was given any wishes.

 

It'll be nifty to see what happens through the Tower of Ghenjei.  I suspect that entering that way one is kinda on their own to reach any kind of accommodation with the *finns.

 

To beat a dead horse: given the similarity to Siuan and Leane, Lanfear was most likely burned out and healed by a woman. Moiraine's situation is less certain, but given that her bond to Lan broke, she probably was as well.

 

-- dwn

[Luckers]

Ok Luckers, pleaes find the quote where Egwene says that Novices don't have to worry about being burned out anymore. Saying "somewhere in TCOT" is BS. Find a quote.

 

Stilling and burning out seem very much different to me and we have no evidence to suggest they are the same. Setalle Anan is probably the only woman in Randland that I can think of that burnt herself out. We have yet to see her healed or anybody mention that being burnt out can be healed. Rand stilled those Aes Sedai. He did not burn them out. They were healed of stilling.

 

Your theory sucks, sorry. It has no evidence to support it whatsoever. Telling me to go back and re-read your post is not supporting your argument. Suian lost a great deal of her power. Lanfear did not. Stilling and Burning out are different. Argue against those as much as you want to support your theory but you're wrong.

 

So, despite frequent requests by me for you to address exactly which part of my theory you feel to be unsubtantiated your only real comment is 'your theory sucks'?

 

Well, that's your perspective, but I don't precisely understand why you commented in the first place. This is a discussion forum, designed for debate. Your personal disgust is not a topic of discussion. It's not even much of a topic of interest given you're not terribly eloquent about presenting it.

 

I'm left feeling... 'meh'.

 

Furthermore Luckers you dismissed my court analogy. Courts require evidence to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. So no, it is NOT speculation in a courtroom. It is evidence based. And we still lack heaping piles of evidence. We know NOTHING on Cyndane other than we know she's Lanfear and she's been given 1 last chance. We don't really know anything about her time with the Finns or why her power level is lower.

 

I dismissed it because it made you sound young and baseless in your comments. A cry to an authority is stereotypically the sign of an underdeveloped argument (and mind). Worse yet you display a TV knowledge of the law--if you're going to ascribe to a type of argument as a general dismissal at least know what the hell you're talking about.

 

I think this breaks it down pretty accurately. Notice how many times it states "we really don't know" because, well, we really don't.

 

http://darkfriends.net/wheel/1_dark/1.2_forsaken2/1.2.4_cyndane.html

 

I never said we did know, I offered a theory based on evidence in the text. You were the one that sought to play the game of absolutes. Also, we are in the process of updating the FAQ. We havn't gotten to this thread yet.

 

I disagree strongly with your interpretation of the quote provided.  I think they're clearly saying they're not half of what they were.  However, strength in the power not being quantified by any particular scale, I do think that they can't really know precisely what % of their power they lost, and that it may a be a depressive reaction/dramatization in response to their drop in the ranks of the social hierarchy.  I also agree with the majority of your argument that being burned out can be healed.  I really think you've misinterpreted/overthought the above quote in terms of siuan's description of her power loss. She's clearly claiming that her and leane aren't even half what they were, not talking about some ridiculous estimate of what fraction of the gap between their current and past abilities nynaeve might be able to bridge.

 

Unfortunately RJ's comment makes it impossible that they lost more than half their original strength. They may have stood at the top, but they weren't Forsaken.

 

  Agreed, I said pretty much the same thing. I think you're interpreting it how you want to so as to further your own theory and not how the statement is written. If I could bench press 200 pounds, had some type of surgery, and can now only bench 85 pounds I would say that I'm not even half as strong as I used to be. Not that I'm half as strong as the gap between me and the weakest member of my local gym. And I would be hoping to get to my full strength or at least 2/3 or at worst 1/2. Not that I wish I could be halfway up the fraction of the distance between what I was and the weakest member of the gym added to his base level strength. Sort of a silly extrapolation of a pretty straightfoward comment so as to make the comment fit your theory.

 

Actually the 'social standing' interpretation came prior to me setting up this theory--it started as an attempt to make those comments make sense given RJ's comments about the cut off limit of the Aes Sedai. And the same restrictions apply.

 

Luckers: Maybe you can cut most of that part and replace it with something like "We don't know why it looks like Lanfear lost less than Siuan and Leane, it could be that they overestimated their loss, or that the amount lost has something to do with the healer, the old strength, the time spent burnt out or stilled or even something completely random". But feel free to ignore this suggestion or to expand it in your own longwinded  style.

 

Longwinded? I just... like my words... and stuff... heh.

 

I probably will edit this sometime soon to add the ideas about the effects of a specific healer, and to clarify the standard of loss--but based on RJ's comments they DID overstate their loss. Not overestimate, they know precisely what they lost. They simply overstated it because of the influence of the social system.

 

You simply have to face it. Siuan and Leane lost significant power while Lanfear did not. Luckers is twisting to the text to support his theory while offhand dismissing any other scenario due to lack of evidence. It is a perfect example of circular reasoning.

 

Offhand? I wrote  at least ten paragraphs on the other scenarios. Which you've not addressed despite frequent requests.

 

You are the only one doing offhand dismissals here. At least I offer ARGUMENTS for my position.

 

How'd you like the use of capitals? I was trying to take a leaf from your books. It made me feel a bit dirty but if it worked for you all is good.

 

No, what does nobody any favors here is the following:

 

1. presenting a completely speculative theory

2. twisting the text to support it

3. countering any and all possible scenarios that would work other than the 1 you support as "too speculative / not enough information"

4. telling anybody who argues against that they need to reread the original post

 

1. Yup. Totally. Definately a speculative theory--as in a speculation about an event with reference to events in the story to sustain it.

 

2. Yup. That'd be the 'references to the events in the story'.

 

3. Actually I wrote detailed comments on the other scenarios, and why they don't work.

 

4. Actually that's just you. And you havn't actually 'argued against' my theory. Your posts have come to nothing other than 'No, no, no, NO, NO, NO! YOU'RE WRONG! I'M NOT LISTENING!' That's sort of why I directed you to reread the post, and question me on the specific elements you felt were unsubstantiated.

 

What you guys are doing is using speculation and circular reasoning to present a theory and then refusing to defend it because you think it supports itself by itself

 

Defend it from what? You've not even commented on it yet! I've asked you to time and again, but you just keep repeating comments that I've addressed in the theory--without addressing the points I used to dismiss them in the slightest.

 

I have nothing to defend against. You've said nothing other than... well, read the above.

[supermanblue2001]

 

Longwinded? I just... like my words... and stuff... heh.

 

 

While your posts do tend to run a little longer than the norm it's obviously an attempt to give:

a) background on the subject

b) outline other theories/ideas not your own

c) support for your point

 

Just remember:

 

"Brevity is the soul of wit" -Polonius [Hamlet Act 2, scene 2]

[richnewton82]

.

[csarmi]

Face it Luckers, I, and many other people in this thread do not agree with your theory. You fail to resolve why 1 person would have a considerable percentage of her former power while 2 others wouldn't.

 

He did. As I read, he claims that 1) it is not so different 2) it's probably not based on percentages, but on differences

 

That's all in your post that's worth replying to. The rest is BS'ing.

But in short. It is not a court. It is not science. Even if it was, his theory would be sound and as it seems to be the best right now, a scientist would go with it. Of course it is speculation. That's the whole point.

 

You are contributing nothing to this discussion. Luckers posted a theory which may or may not be true, but what did You do? You had no argument, you had no theory, you had nothing to say.

 

Just for once try to think from other's perspective. Someone checks out this thread because he is interested in the topic. Why should he read your posts at all? What did you give them?

 

[Red Hand Man]

Face it Luckers, I, and many other people in this thread do not agree with your theory. You fail to resolve

 

I believe what he is most adamant about is that he spent a lot of time coming up with that theory and you didn't put in an equal amount of effort trying to show him how bad it is (to you), you simply bashed with the term "speculation".

 

I for one agree with him on this theory.  Besides, who doesn't like to speculate?  There's an entire genre of books about speculating what would happen if you change a single historical event (e.g. Harry Turtledove).

[Mr Ares]

let me guess - you think Moraine killed Asmodean?

You guess wrong. Very wrong.

When a theory is proposed it is just that, a theory.

Very good. Round of applause.

If it stands the test of time, it becomes widely accepted.

Which is what we have with this one. A measure of speculation is involved, of course, as this is a theory, but just ignoring the evidence and refusing to respong to the points raised against you does you no favours. You're just saying nothing at length. We have evidence to support it, but it is still only a theory. Stop ignoring evidence.

[Luckers]

*wanders into the thread, smiles at all the lovely people, and wanders out again*

[Mr Ares]

*wanders into the thread, smiles at all the lovely people, and wanders out again*

Hey, don't I get a smile?

[richnewton82]

.

[richnewton82]

.

[Mr Ares]

Every person in this thread who has questioned your theory has received the same snide replies to "read the original post."

Maybe they should follow that advice. Just a suggestion

 

I'm not ignoring the evidence - THERE IS NONE.

Exactly. You're ignoring it. It's been presented, you say it doesn't exist.

 

That entire quote is BS. You call my posts BS. Give me a break. THIS is an argument? I'm supposed to buy into this? This is speculative AT BEST! There isn't even a reason to argue against that because its convoluted. What would you like me to do, reply with equally convoluted arguments and hypotheticals for why all of those things may not be so?

Translation: Oh bugger, I'm out of my depth, but I'm still not going to address the actual argument.

[Luckers]

Quote from: Luckers on Today at 04:14:27 AM

*wanders into the thread, smiles at all the lovely people, and wanders out again*

 

Hey, don't I get a smile?

 

Well you are a horrible human being, but alright. You get a smile. If it looks like a grimace that's just the caffein.

 

;D

 

This is exactly like a creationist asking an atheist to disprove God. You can't disprove something that lacks evidence for or against.

 

I rather thought Richard Dawkins did a brilliant job of that in his book 'the God Delusion'.

 

Though I am honoured you compare me to the athiest, and not the creationist. I always prefer to be seen as the one with reason, as opposed to faith, on his side.

 

Be as smug as you want Luckers because you have a couple supporters. Every person in this thread who has questioned your theory has received the same snide replies to "read the original post."

 

Nope, that'd be just you.

 

He offhandedly dismisses all counter theories.

 

You reguard more than ten paragraphs on it 'an offhand dismissal'? I'd hate to see what you reguard as an organised dismissal.

 

That entire quote is BS. You call my posts BS. Give me a break. THIS is an argument? I'm supposed to buy into this? This is speculative AT BEST! There isn't even a reason to argue against that because its convoluted. What would you like me to do, reply with equally convoluted arguments and hypotheticals for why all of those things may not be so?

 

Like MY use of caps?

 

They are rather boring, actually. Would you care to comment on where you find my arguments BS. Specifically, thank you very much.

 

Because the answer to your question is that yes, 'THIS' is an argument.

 

Feel free to argue against it. In detail.

[richnewton82]

.

[Luckers]

How old are you?

[Majsju]

Luckers, play nice.