Discuss The Full Book

[Elan Tedronai]

Yeah Perrin and Mat evolving needed to happen, indeed, it's just the lack of big chock like "oh my god the fireball destroyed his hand" or "omg he IS cleansing saidin!".

So YES, this is a great book. I would tend to prefer KoD and tGS (in no particular order) just for the sake of more suspense.

 

I will try to reread the whole thing through to get things into perspective, but PoD, most of WH and CoT are really a pain to get to reread.

 

 

yeah the book didnt end up with a climax like the previous 2. TOM was just disappointing

[haloun]

I wanted to mention something about "Apples First", most people seem to put the apple trees blooming and fruit growing down to Rand's ta'veren-ness and that is certainly one possibility, but we are not told (for certain or by any character) that this is the reason. Later on in Bandar Eben, Rand tells us that the effects on the food there is his ta'veren-ness with, "Not ridiculous, simply implausible ." As opposed to Almen Bunt's assertion "What was happening? Apple trees didn't blossom twice. Was he going mad?" Now to be fair his first thought was, "That was plain ridiculous." Followed by rubbing his eye because he could believe the process he was seeing take place and that paragraph goes on to describe the process:

 

That was plain ridiculous. He rubbed his eyes, but that didn't dispel the image. They were blooming, all of them, white flowers breaking out between the leaves. The flies buzzed into the air and zipped away on the wind. the dark bits of apple on the ground melted away, like wax before a flame. In seconds there was nothing left of them, not even juice. The ground had absorbed them.

 

then our viewpoint is turned from the process while he and Rand talk, then Rand tells him to collect the apples. Now we get to see what the end result of the process was as Almen turns back to the trees:

 

The blossoms he'd seen earlier had fallen free, and blanketed the ground in white, like snow.

Those apples seemed to shine. Not just dozens of them on each ripe tree, but hundreds. More than a tree should hold, each one perfectly ripe.

 

Compare this to the other things that we have seen of Rand's ta'veren-ness. When food rotted around him it was immediate, the tea souring all through tGS for example. There would be a brand new pot, freshly made, and would be sour in seconds.The process of the apples growing was not instant but very much accelerated.

 

And now I want to quote Elaida from TFoH during the Prologue, her and Alviarin and some Sitters are in her study and while she is thinking about how everyone is ignoring her, she turns to contemplate a rose blossom and thinks:

 

There had been no rain since she was raised, but fine blossoms were always available with the Power.

 

So, to summarize based on these things mostly, IMO Rand actually used a weave on the orchard, possibly even subconsciously, or without thinking about it. But consciously or not, I think this was a result of the OP as opposed to ta'veren-ness.

 

Feel free to tear this apart.

 

 

 

edited for punctuation

 

I like this did you see my thoughts on T'A'R? rand is there in person as well as being in the real world when perrin sees him, the darkness and storm around rand were there in T'A'R as well, i think it is possible for him to use a weave that lew therin remembers, but i think it also possible that his T'A'R link gives him the ability to alter the real world in similar ways, granted he doesnt have the same amount of control that he could in T'A'R, but i think he has it available, that explains the warp in the air, and the change from dark to bright, before the epiphany rand had a raging storm around him in T'A'R, and then afterwords, it is a burst of sunlight, maybe the extra dark or extra light in the warp is a direct reflection of the world of dreams, the same way rand was a mirror of himself. just another thought and based mostly on speculation and circumstantial evidence, but possible as well.

[DemandredFO]

I'm just curious Elan, is that because Egwene wasn't the main focus?

[Mr Ares]

Something I can't quite wrap my head around:

 

Where was Bela?!?!?!?

On the scrapheap for outdated jokes.

 

 

How so?

 

Very simple and yet complicated to put into words at the same time, Mr. Ares.

 

Any person who takes advantage of their physical, mental, financial, social superiority over others to bully, coerce and/or force hem into submission and into doing something that goes against their will, is incurring in a violation of human rights.

 

Any person who discriminates, demeans or outright offends another person based on racial, social, cultural, religious and or gender related bias or prejudice is incurring in a violation of human rights.

 

All humans are equals, regardless of their race, social position, nationality, color, religion and/or gender. All have the same rights and, well, these books are filled with examples of Aes Sedai violating the human rights of...well, basically anyone unfortunate enough to come across their paths.

 

Suffice to say that the words of Tam al'Thor to Cadsuane (not to mention what prompted said words) at the end of TGS, sum it up quite nicely.

I'm still not seeing how AS are guilty of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of male channelers.

 

 

I find it odd how powerful the damane are perceived as, on the one hand we have the Seanchan sweeping all before them but on the other even Bornhold manages to kill one with archers. A few good Two Rivers long bowmen should be able to put paid to the Seanchan. And I mean that as only half a joke. It's impossible to postulate how channelers were organised in the the lands the Seanchan conquered but things over this side of the ocean are a bit different, Avi's trip through the columns aside. It's worth noting that in TGH, one of the flicker futures Rand sees whilst shifting the portal stone to Toman's Head shows the Seanchan conquering the land but failing to hold the hoards of Trollocs back and being utterly defeated. Frankly all Egwene has to do is convince everyone to swear on the Oath Rod, regardless of whether they're kin, knitting circle or whatever and then the Seanchan will have an extremely limited pool to replace a dead demane from.

By getting all WO, Kin, Accepted, Novices and Windfinders to swear on the OR, you limit their effectiveness in the fight against the Seanchan while doing nothing to reduce the chances of them ending up as damane. You also hand the advantage to the enemy - the Seanchan would have unrestricted use of channelers in combat, the Westlands wouldn't. Now, a channeler can die to an arrow, the same as anyone else, but as they are capable of producing shields it is harder to kill them that way.

[blazetheearth]

I'm still not seeing how AS are guilty of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of male channelers.

 

 

Considering that all it would have taken was to 'bind' them with an Oath Rod or Binding Chair, and have the male channelers take an unbreakable oath to never touch the true source again. I think lobotomizing the ability to channel out of them can be thought cruel, especially when they know that Gentling them will drive them suicidal. And I am talking about the original AS that started TV and the WT, they were the one's that were entirely wrong in their approach to the problem. The only thing the current WT is guilty of is not looking for new ways to handle the problem. The WT is just a stagnant swamp, where any progress is immediately viewed as suspect on the basis that it is new.

 

The entire problem is:

1. There are better ways to deal with the problem of male channelers going insane

2. The WT has had 2500 years to find those better way, but NONE of them have found them.

3. From what we can tell, The WT never even looked for those better ways.

4. If you DON"T think performing an operation that you know will drive the patient to commit suicide in a few years is cruel ..... well, I wont get into my opinion of the moral character of someone who thinks that. Suffice it to say IMO (as someone who has seen someone suicidally depressed and watching it go on for years) it would be kinder to kill them out right.

[David Selig]

Considering that all it would have taken was to 'bind' them with an Oath Rod or Binding Chair, and have the male channelers take an unbreakable oath to never touch the true source again. I think lobotomizing the ability to channel out of them can be thought cruel, especially when they know that Gentling them will drive them suicidal.

What's the difference? If they can't touch the Source due to an Oath, it's the same as being gentled.

 

3. From what we can tell, The WT never even looked for those better ways.

Wrong. They tried many things during the early days of the tower, nothing worked.

[Elan Tedronai]

I'm just curious Elan, is that because Egwene wasn't the main focus?

 

 

no. It's just that there was nothing in the end that made go wow. In each of my fave books there has always been a climax in the end that made me wish the next book was released the day after.

 

There was no climax in TOM. It was just slightly above path of daggers

[Darth Krewl]

I'm still not seeing how AS are guilty of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of male channelers.

 

Well, Mr. Ares, the truth is that I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. People will see what they wish to see and that's up to each and every one of us. Suffice to say that I've made my case, presented evidence that is overwhelming and sustainable, to prove the barbaric ways of the Aes Sedai that, while appropriate for their time and age, can certainly never be considered humane in our modern society's far more civilized standards.

 

Also, the original argument was the ways of the Seanchan vs. those of the White Tower and, just like you refuse to acknowledge the barbaric practices of the White Tower, I fail to see what makes them better than the Seanchan in this regard. And, while I have presented evidence to sustain my argument (let's not lose sight that this was the original topic, AS vs. Seanchan ways) you have done nothing but question me, w/o presenting one single line for your case. So, not to be rude, but I'm not interested in pursuing this debate further.

[Mr Ares]

I'm still not seeing how AS are guilty of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of male channelers.

 

 

Considering that all it would have taken was to 'bind' them with an Oath Rod or Binding Chair, and have the male channelers take an unbreakable oath to never touch the true source again. I think lobotomizing the ability to channel out of them can be thought cruel, especially when they know that Gentling them will drive them suicidal. And I am talking about the original AS that started TV and the WT, they were the one's that were entirely wrong in their approach to the problem. The only thing the current WT is guilty of is not looking for new ways to handle the problem. The WT is just a stagnant swamp, where any progress is immediately viewed as suspect on the basis that it is new.

 

The entire problem is:

1. There are better ways to deal with the problem of male channelers going insane

2. The WT has had 2500 years to find those better way, but NONE of them have found them.

3. From what we can tell, The WT never even looked for those better ways.

4. If you DON"T think performing an operation that you know will drive the patient to commit suicide in a few years is cruel ..... well, I wont get into my opinion of the moral character of someone who thinks that. Suffice it to say IMO (as someone who has seen someone suicidally depressed and watching it go on for years) it would be kinder to kill them out right.

Gentling is not an automatic death sentence. As we have seen, it is a condition from which it is possible to recover. Death is not. Also, the problem is supposed to be a lack of touching the Source, not something about the procedure of gentling itself - any method of doing that would have the same result. The problem is in the ends, not the means, so changing the means but not the ends results in the same problem.

 

 

I'm still not seeing how AS are guilty of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of male channelers.

 

Well, Mr. Ares, the truth is that I'm not here to convince anyone of anything.

Then why are you here, if you have no interest in debate?

Suffice to say that I've made my case, presented evidence that is overwhelming and sustainable, to prove the barbaric ways of the Aes Sedai that, while appropriate for their time and age, can certainly never be considered humane in our modern society's far more civilized standards.

But my point is that you haven't. You just said they are guilty of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatement of male channelers. I'm no big fan of AS, but I just don't see this, and every time I have asked you for clarification you have failed to provide any. You have provided no evidence at all to support your case.

 

Also, the original argument was the ways of the Seanchan vs. those of the White Tower and, just like you refuse to acknowledge the barbaric practices of the White Tower, I fail to see what makes them better than the Seanchan in this regard.

The AS try to preserve the lives of male channelers, and treat them as human beings. The Seanchan do neither.

[johthohar]

Considering that all it would have taken was to 'bind' them with an Oath Rod or Binding Chair, and have the male channelers take an unbreakable oath to never touch the true source again. I think lobotomizing the ability to channel out of them can be thought cruel, especially when they know that Gentling them will drive them suicidal. And I am talking about the original AS that started TV and the WT, they were the one's that were entirely wrong in their approach to the problem. The only thing the current WT is guilty of is not looking for new ways to handle the problem. The WT is just a stagnant swamp, where any progress is immediately viewed as suspect on the basis that it is new.

 

The entire problem is:

1. There are better ways to deal with the problem of male channelers going insane

2. The WT has had 2500 years to find those better way, but NONE of them have found them.

3. From what we can tell, The WT never even looked for those better ways.

4. If you DON"T think performing an operation that you know will drive the patient to commit suicide in a few years is cruel ..... well, I wont get into my opinion of the moral character of someone who thinks that. Suffice it to say IMO (as someone who has seen someone suicidally depressed and watching it go on for years) it would be kinder to kill them out right.

 

Gentling is not an automatic death sentence. As we have seen, it is a condition from which it is possible to recover. Death is not. Also, the problem is supposed to be a lack of touching the Source, not something about the procedure of gentling itself - any method of doing that would have the same result. The problem is in the ends, not the means, so changing the means but not the ends results in the same problem.

 

Actually, the thing that drives severed channelers to suicide is the loss of the ability to even sense the source. Its as if the source doesn't even exist anymore. Using a binder would likely fix this problem but then there is the added complication that if they happen to find another binder (oath rod) and someone willing to channel spirit into it then they can rescind the oath not to touch the source.

 

I'm still not seeing how AS are guilty of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of male channelers.

 

I would point out the obvious example of Rand being stuffed into a box he had to be doubled over to fit into for days and only being taken out to be beaten. But that's more the exception than the rule. Not to mention it was Crazy Elaida and her cronies who were responsible. As far as "cruel, inhumane and degrading" I would say that at times it probably was but we have no specific examples of this that I can think of. Because of the nature of the Red Ajah it inevitable drew manhaters. So, in all likelihood many of them were probably abusive. But it probably depended on who was handling the male channelers. You can't really say the WT as a whole was cruel to men who could wield the One Power. You can only infer a little bit. And not nearly enough to make the statements I've seen in this argument.

 

EDIT: To be clear. The second half of my post was directed more at the others in this argument than at Mr Ares. Just used his quote as a starting point.

[Darth Krewl]

Then why are you here, if you have no interest in debate?

 

heh heh heh...I didn't know this was a site dedicated solely to debate. But, rest assured that I have learned well enough when and how to pick my fights, my friend ;-)

 

But my point is that you haven't. You just said they are guilty of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatement of male channelers. I'm no big fan of AS, but I just don't see this, and every time I have asked you for clarification you have failed to provide any. You have provided no evidence at all to support your case.

 

No. Your point is that you have failed to find the evidence I have provided. There is a huge difference right there. This would seem clear, since many other posters have, not only been able to see my point clearly, but have in fact, provided further evidence to support it, such as Khalika's quotes on the UN's Declaration of HR to be found above, on this very thread. Should be plain for all to see...if/when they wish to see, that is.

 

The AS try to preserve the lives of male channelers, and treat them as human beings. The Seanchan do neither.

 

Fair enough. Let's call the Aes Sedai the big heroes of this story and the Seanchan, the big bad guys, then. Thought the villains were Shai'tan, aka the Dark One, aka the Great Lord of the Dark and his followers but, then again, we may be reading different books, I guess. Because while the Seanchan's ways are wrong, the sisters are not exactly the "sisters of mercy" themselves heh heh...

[johthohar]

Fair enough. Let's call the Aes Sedai the big heroes of this story and the Seanchan, the big bad guys, then. Thought the villains were Shai'tan, aka the Dark One, aka the Great Lord of the Dark and his followers but, then again, we may be reading different books, I guess. Because while the Seanchan's ways are wrong, the sisters are not exactly the "sisters of mercy" themselves heh heh...

 

I believe you made this point shortly before:

 

Also, the original argument was the ways of the Seanchan vs. those of the White Tower and, just like you refuse to acknowledge the barbaric practices of the White Tower, I fail to see what makes them better than the Seanchan in this regard. And, while I have presented evidence to sustain my argument (let's not lose sight that this was the original topic, AS vs. Seanchan ways) you have done nothing but question me, w/o presenting one single line for your case. So, not to be rude, but I'm not interested in pursuing this debate further.

 

This is like the black pot calling the kettle gray and saying, "You're supposed to be black too!" Then the kettle says, "Okay, I'm black," you turn around and say, "Wait... I'm white."

[Darth Krewl]

Fair enough. Let's call the Aes Sedai the big heroes of this story and the Seanchan, the big bad guys, then. Thought the villains were Shai'tan, aka the Dark One, aka the Great Lord of the Dark and his followers but, then again, we may be reading different books, I guess. Because while the Seanchan's ways are wrong, the sisters are not exactly the "sisters of mercy" themselves heh heh...

 

I believe you made this point shortly before:

 

Also, the original argument was the ways of the Seanchan vs. those of the White Tower and, just like you refuse to acknowledge the barbaric practices of the White Tower, I fail to see what makes them better than the Seanchan in this regard. And, while I have presented evidence to sustain my argument (let's not lose sight that this was the original topic, AS vs. Seanchan ways) you have done nothing but question me, w/o presenting one single line for your case. So, not to be rude, but I'm not interested in pursuing this debate further.

 

This is like the black pot calling the kettle gray and saying, "You're supposed to be black too!" Then the kettle says, "Okay, I'm black," you turn around and say, "Wait... I'm white."

 

No, in fact, that is called sarcasm. Sometimes, we tend to forget that tone is all but inexistent on the Internet, of course, but that was my intent.

 

I will always stand by my point, which is that the White Tower's practices have been barbaric by modern day standards...or even those of their peers from the much more civilized Age of Legends. And this would be supported by any human rights institutions in either of those two examples (real world, WoT world during the AoL). I also stand by my statement that I also strongly disapprove of the Seanchan enslaving ways. And finally, I'll always stand by my point that both factions are completely wrong and must change for the sake of all in the Randland.

 

Or, have you not read my previous posts on this issue?

 

EDIT: spelling corrections.

[johthohar]

Fair enough. Let's call the Aes Sedai the big heroes of this story and the Seanchan, the big bad guys, then. Thought the villains were Shai'tan, aka the Dark One, aka the Great Lord of the Dark and his followers but, then again, we may be reading different books, I guess. Because while the Seanchan's ways are wrong, the sisters are not exactly the "sisters of mercy" themselves heh heh...

 

I believe you made this point shortly before:

 

Also, the original argument was the ways of the Seanchan vs. those of the White Tower and, just like you refuse to acknowledge the barbaric practices of the White Tower, I fail to see what makes them better than the Seanchan in this regard. And, while I have presented evidence to sustain my argument (let's not lose sight that this was the original topic, AS vs. Seanchan ways) you have done nothing but question me, w/o presenting one single line for your case. So, not to be rude, but I'm not interested in pursuing this debate further.

 

This is like the black pot calling the kettle gray and saying, "You're supposed to be black too!" Then the kettle says, "Okay, I'm black," you turn around and say, "Wait... I'm white."

 

No, in fact, that is called sarcasm. Sometimes, we tend to forget that tone is all but inexistent on the Internet, of course, but that was my intent.

 

I will always stand by my point, which is that the White Tower's practices have been barbaric by modern day standards...or even those of their peers from the much more civilized Age of Legends. And this would be supported by any human rights institutions in either of those two examples (real world, WoT world during the AoL). I also stand by my statement that I also strongly disapprove of the Seanchan enslaving ways. And finally, I'll always stand by my point that both factions are completely wrong and must change for the sake of all in the Randland.

 

Or, have you not read my previous posts on this issue?

 

EDIT: spelling corrections.

 

What I was pointing out was that you insisted earlier that the topic of debate was Seanchan ways vs White Tower ways. Then when Ares addressed that topic:

 

The AS try to preserve the lives of male channelers, and treat them as human beings. The Seanchan do neither.

 

You changed tack with your sarcastic "Oh yea, the Seanchan are the bad guys! Forget about the darkfriends!" You were the one who tried to direct the argument to a comparison of the two factions to begin with.

[Darth Krewl]

What I was pointing out was that you insisted earlier that the topic of debate was Seanchan ways vs White Tower ways. Then when Ares addressed that topic:

 

The AS try to preserve the lives of male channelers, and treat them as human beings. The Seanchan do neither.

 

You changed tack with your sarcastic "Oh yea, the Seanchan are the bad guys! Forget about the darkfriends!" You were the one who tried to direct the argument to a comparison of the two factions to begin with.

 

As you wish. If this is the way you feel about it, I respect that.

 

But your avoidance to answer my question can only lead me to believe that you haven't followed this debate from the beginning. Since I've grown weary of it already, I'm certainly not going to repeat myself. Just offer an explanation that, for better or worse, will have to do. Here's an example:

 

 

 

Very simple and yet complicated to put into words at the same time, Mr. Ares.

 

Any person who takes advantage of their physical, mental, financial, social superiority over others to bully, coerce and/or force hem into submission and into doing something that goes against their will, is incurring in a violation of human rights.

 

Any person who discriminates, demeans or outright offends another person based on racial, social, cultural, religious and or gender related bias or prejudice is incurring in a violation of human rights.

 

All humans are equals, regardless of their race, social position, nationality, color, religion and/or gender. All have the same rights and, well, these books are filled with examples of Aes Sedai violating the human rights of...well, basically anyone unfortunate enough to come across their paths.

 

Suffice to say that the words of Tam al'Thor to Cadsuane (not to mention what prompted said words) at the end of TGS, sum it up quite nicely.

 

Very Well Said!!!

 

Now, as you can see, I did provide evidence to support my claims about the way Aes Sedai have been violating human rights. Not as bad as the Seanchan, certainly, but they are guilty themselves.

 

As you can see, Ishadar found the evidence that Mr. Ares had asked of me. Regardless on whether Ishadar agreed with my views or no (that's up to him), Mr. Ares simply feels that I have failed to provide said evidence.

 

But, I'm certainly not about to go round in circles, endlessly debating this issue, only because a certain person does not or is unwilling to understand, see or agree with my point and keeps asking for evidence, when I have already provided such evidence. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that all of us posters here are equals and none is above anyone else. Therefore, I certainly feel under no obligation to entertain any one single person, only because he/she has failed/refused to see what others have clearly seen, whether they agree with my views or not.

 

I had already told Ares that I'm not interested in pursuing this debate any further. And he replied by questioning my reasons to be in this forum. That's my business and mine alone. Hence, my reply to him, the one you have been calling me out for, is my way of telling him, "yeah, well, whatever, dude. I'm not interested in your games anymore. I stated my point and if you fail, refuse or disagree to see, too bad. Your problem not mine."

 

That's all there is to it.

[johthohar]

I'm not trying to get involved in your debate. I saw a few points that I wanted to address in a couple earlier posts on this page and did so in my first post where I quoted Ares. Then I pointed out your flip-flopping. That's the extent of my involvement. I didn't answer your question because I didn't care to. No offense intended. I only mean that I'm not really interested in this debate beyond the few small points I covered in my first post on this thread. See below:

 

 

Gentling is not an automatic death sentence. As we have seen, it is a condition from which it is possible to recover. Death is not. Also, the problem is supposed to be a lack of touching the Source, not something about the procedure of gentling itself - any method of doing that would have the same result. The problem is in the ends, not the means, so changing the means but not the ends results in the same problem.

 

Actually, the thing that drives severed channelers to suicide is the loss of the ability to even sense the source. Its as if the source doesn't even exist anymore. Using a binder would likely fix this problem but then there is the added complication that if they happen to find another binder (oath rod) and someone willing to channel spirit into it then they can rescind the oath not to touch the source.

 

I'm still not seeing how AS are guilty of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of male channelers.

 

I would point out the obvious example of Rand being stuffed into a box he had to be doubled over to fit into for days and only being taken out to be beaten. But that's more the exception than the rule. Not to mention it was Crazy Elaida and her cronies who were responsible. As far as "cruel, inhumane and degrading" I would say that at times it probably was but we have no specific examples of this that I can think of. Because of the nature of the Red Ajah it inevitable drew manhaters. So, in all likelihood many of them were probably abusive. But it probably depended on who was handling the male channelers. You can't really say the WT as a whole was cruel to men who could wield the One Power. You can only infer a little bit. And not nearly enough to make the statements I've seen in this argument.

[Darth Krewl]

I'm not trying to get involved in your debate. I saw a few points that I wanted to address in a couple earlier posts on this page and did so in my first post where I quoted Ares. Then I pointed out your flip-flopping. That's the extent of my involvement. I didn't answer your question because I didn't care to. No offense intended. I only mean that I'm not really interested in this debate beyond the few small points I covered in my first post on this thread.

 

I would point out the obvious example of Rand being stuffed into a box he had to be doubled over to fit into for days and only being taken out to be beaten. But that's more the exception than the rule. Not to mention it was Crazy Elaida and her cronies who were responsible. As far as "cruel, inhumane and degrading" I would say that at times it probably was but we have no specific examples of this that I can think of. Because of the nature of the Red Ajah it inevitable drew manhaters. So, in all likelihood many of them were probably abusive. But it probably depended on who was handling the male channelers. You can't really say the WT as a whole was cruel to men who could wield the One Power. You can only infer a little bit. And not nearly enough to make the statements I've seen in this argument.

 

Yeah well, that's over with, either way. So, it's all good.

 

Excellent point about Rand and the cage/box and the true intentions behind the Reds' questionable ways with males, to say the least. Though I'm afraid things are a little more complicated than that concerning human rights:

 

Any person(s) attached to a certain institution is/are an official representative(s) of said institution. Should this person be charged with accusations of HR violations and found guilty, the pertaining recommendation is addressed to the holder/president/head of the institution in question. And, any and all penalization and compensation for the damage(s) suffered by the accusing party have to be covered by the institution itself and not the person(s) responsible for the actual offense.

 

Hence, in this case, the Red Ajah is a dependency attached to the White Tower, meaning that the Tower would be held accountable for any violation(s) committed by a Red Sister. After taking care of the incident, the institution can decide how to proceed against the culprits in any way they choose. But that's an internal thing, of course. So, even if/when sisters attached to any of the other six Ajahs may not be incurring in any HR violations (which is very debatable, IMO), the Reds still represent the White Tower. So, to the world at large, what any sister who has abused of another individual's HR falls squarely on the shoulders of the White Tower, including Elaida, of course, head of the whole Tower or not.

[johthohar]

I'm not trying to get involved in your debate. I saw a few points that I wanted to address in a couple earlier posts on this page and did so in my first post where I quoted Ares. Then I pointed out your flip-flopping. That's the extent of my involvement. I didn't answer your question because I didn't care to. No offense intended. I only mean that I'm not really interested in this debate beyond the few small points I covered in my first post on this thread.

 

I would point out the obvious example of Rand being stuffed into a box he had to be doubled over to fit into for days and only being taken out to be beaten. But that's more the exception than the rule. Not to mention it was Crazy Elaida and her cronies who were responsible. As far as "cruel, inhumane and degrading" I would say that at times it probably was but we have no specific examples of this that I can think of. Because of the nature of the Red Ajah it inevitable drew manhaters. So, in all likelihood many of them were probably abusive. But it probably depended on who was handling the male channelers. You can't really say the WT as a whole was cruel to men who could wield the One Power. You can only infer a little bit. And not nearly enough to make the statements I've seen in this argument.

 

Yeah well, that's over with, either way. So, it's all good.

 

Excellent point about Rand and the cage/box and the true intentions behind the Reds' questionable ways with males, to say the least. Though I'm afraid things are a little more complicated than that concerning human rights:

 

Any person(s) attached to a certain institution is/are an official representative(s) of said institution. Should this person be charged with accusations of HR violations and found guilty, the pertaining recommendation is addressed to the holder/president/head of the institution in question. And, any and all penalization and compensation for the damage(s) suffered by the accusing party have to be covered by the institution itself and not the person(s) responsible for the actual offense.

 

Hence, in this case, the Red Ajah is a dependency attached to the White Tower, meaning that the Tower would be held accountable for any violation(s) committed by a Red Sister. After taking care of the incident, the institution can decide how to proceed against the culprits in any way they choose. But that's an internal thing, of course. So, even if/when sisters attached to any of the other six Ajahs may not be incurring in any HR violations (which is very debatable, IMO), the Reds still represent the White Tower. So, to the world at large, what any sister who has abused of another individual's HR falls squarely on the shoulders of the White Tower, including Elaida, of course, head of the whole Tower or not.

 

Something just occurred to me. Maybe this was already addressed earlier in the debate. If so, I apologize.

 

You seem to be applying modern human rights standards to an age in which monarchies were the primary form of government. The violations you're describing are commonplace throughout the series. Not isolated to the Aes Sedai. I'm not defending the practice but the way you're presenting it the Aes Sedai are little worse than almost any other ruler in WoT.

[Darth Krewl]

Something just occurred to me. Maybe this was already addressed earlier in the debate. If so, I apologize.

 

You seem to be applying modern human rights standards to an age in which monarchies were the primary form of government. The violations you're describing are commonplace throughout the series. Not isolated to the Aes Sedai. I'm not defending the practice but the way you're presenting it the Aes Sedai are little worse than almost any other ruler in WoT.

 

Oh, that'd be quite a long story lol...

 

 

I brought up the subject of HR in real life as a way to try and illustrate my point on how, IMO, the AS of the Third Age, while not nearly as bad as the Seanchan, would be guilty of HR violations in a much more advanced civilization, such as ours or what I feel that the Age of Legends would've been like. The whole idea is to express my understanding that the Aes Sedai of the Third Age are far from being the heroes that, say, their counterparts from the Hall of Legends or a Jedi Order would be.

 

IMO, the difference between the AS and the rulers of the different nations in the WoT world is that, well, first of all, I don't see them as rulers, but again, more like the Jedi were in Star Wars...people (women in this case) with special powers sworn to serve a higher cause. The way I see it, they have lost their way and are a far cry from their counterparts of the much more civilized Age of Legends; those who were true "servants of all".

 

All that said, for practical purposes, you're absolutely right, of course. It would be useless to apply modern day HR to the fictional, medieval setting that the WoT's Third Age really is. I just used that example to try and illustrate my point and have a point of comparison that could be used to show how the AS are guilty of many barbaric practices that certainly deserve no applause. Then again, this is my very personal opinion on the WT, not based on misogyny, male chauvinism or any such bias and I know some people will disagree.

[Mr Ares]

Considering that all it would have taken was to 'bind' them with an Oath Rod or Binding Chair, and have the male channelers take an unbreakable oath to never touch the true source again. I think lobotomizing the ability to channel out of them can be thought cruel, especially when they know that Gentling them will drive them suicidal. And I am talking about the original AS that started TV and the WT, they were the one's that were entirely wrong in their approach to the problem. The only thing the current WT is guilty of is not looking for new ways to handle the problem. The WT is just a stagnant swamp, where any progress is immediately viewed as suspect on the basis that it is new.

 

The entire problem is:

1. There are better ways to deal with the problem of male channelers going insane

2. The WT has had 2500 years to find those better way, but NONE of them have found them.

3. From what we can tell, The WT never even looked for those better ways.

4. If you DON"T think performing an operation that you know will drive the patient to commit suicide in a few years is cruel ..... well, I wont get into my opinion of the moral character of someone who thinks that. Suffice it to say IMO (as someone who has seen someone suicidally depressed and watching it go on for years) it would be kinder to kill them out right.

 

Gentling is not an automatic death sentence. As we have seen, it is a condition from which it is possible to recover. Death is not. Also, the problem is supposed to be a lack of touching the Source, not something about the procedure of gentling itself - any method of doing that would have the same result. The problem is in the ends, not the means, so changing the means but not the ends results in the same problem.

 

Actually, the thing that drives severed channelers to suicide is the loss of the ability to even sense the source. Its as if the source doesn't even exist anymore. Using a binder would likely fix this problem but then there is the added complication that if they happen to find another binder (oath rod) and someone willing to channel spirit into it then they can rescind the oath not to touch the source.

Channelers who have been stilled or gentled can still sense the True Source, they just cannot touch it. Channelers who have been burnt out are unable to even sense it.

 

I'm still not seeing how AS are guilty of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of male channelers.

 

I would point out the obvious example of Rand being stuffed into a box he had to be doubled over to fit into for days and only being taken out to be beaten. But that's more the exception than the rule. Not to mention it was Crazy Elaida and her cronies who were responsible. As far as "cruel, inhumane and degrading" I would say that at times it probably was but we have no specific examples of this that I can think of. Because of the nature of the Red Ajah it inevitable drew manhaters. So, in all likelihood many of them were probably abusive. But it probably depended on who was handling the male channelers. You can't really say the WT as a whole was cruel to men who could wield the One Power. You can only infer a little bit. And not nearly enough to make the statements I've seen in this argument.

See, this is a good point.

 

 

But my point is that you haven't. You just said they are guilty of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatement of male channelers. I'm no big fan of AS, but I just don't see this, and every time I have asked you for clarification you have failed to provide any. You have provided no evidence at all to support your case.

 

No. Your point is that you have failed to find the evidence I have provided. There is a huge difference right there. This would seem clear, since many other posters have, not only been able to see my point clearly, but have in fact, provided further evidence to support it, such as Khalika's quotes on the UN's Declaration of HR to be found above, on this very thread. Should be plain for all to see...if/when they wish to see, that is.

No, my point is that you haven't provided the evidence. I've told you before not to tell me what I mean. You say the AS are guilty of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of male channelers. Evidence to support that would be instances from the books of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of male channelers by AS. Quoting from UN declarations might clarify what you consider to be cruel, inhumane or degrading, but it doesn't answer my question of when the AS act in that way. As has already been pointed out, Elaida's treatment of Rand could be seen to qualify. It is also very much the exception to the rule. They do not treat male channelers like that, they treated Rand like that, and did so for reasons other than him being a male channeler. Thus you have provided no evidence to suport your point. The only person to have provided evidence to support your point also said he didn't agree with you, and gave reasons why. Was their treatment of Logain cruel, inhumane or degrading? Taim? Emarin? This is what I'm asking for, and this is what you have failed to provide. They are your words, and you have failed to justify them. This is not about human rights violations in general, or AS being incompetent, failures, or generally unpleasant, this is about them being guilty of something quite specific, which I would like examples of: cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of male channelers. If you cannot provide said evidence, simply admit it was a poor choice of words. We all misspeak sometimes. But you stand by your words without supporting them.

 

The AS try to preserve the lives of male channelers, and treat them as human beings. The Seanchan do neither.

 

Fair enough. Let's call the Aes Sedai the big heroes of this story and the Seanchan, the big bad guys, then. Thought the villains were Shai'tan, aka the Dark One, aka the Great Lord of the Dark and his followers but, then again, we may be reading different books, I guess. Because while the Seanchan's ways are wrong, the sisters are not exactly the "sisters of mercy" themselves heh heh...

I don't know what you're trying to prove here.

[johthohar]

Channelers who have been stilled or gentled can still sense the True Source, they just cannot touch it. Channelers who have been burnt out are unable to even sense it.

 

I'm pretty sure you're mistaken here but many of the best reference sites are blocked on my work PC (I don't understand why TarValon.net is blocked but Dragonmount.com is not??) and I don't have internet access at home. So, I'll have to find the passage I'm thinking of where this is confirmed and post again later.

 

Edit: Okay, TarValon.net agrees with you and apparently this has been confirmed by Jordan. I thought there was a contradictory passage somewhere but I'll have to look through my books. I'm probably wrong.

[johthohar]

No. Your point is that you have failed to find the evidence I have provided. There is a huge difference right there. This would seem clear, since many other posters have, not only been able to see my point clearly, but have in fact, provided further evidence to support it, such as Khalika's quotes on the UN's Declaration of HR to be found above, on this very thread. Should be plain for all to see...if/when they wish to see, that is.

 

No, my point is that you haven't provided the evidence. I've told you before not to tell me what I mean. You say the AS are guilty of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of male channelers. Evidence to support that would be instances from the books of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of male channelers by AS. Quoting from UN declarations might clarify what you consider to be cruel, inhumane or degrading, but it doesn't answer my question of when the AS act in that way. As has already been pointed out, Elaida's treatment of Rand could be seen to qualify. It is also very much the exception to the rule. They do not treat male channelers like that, they treated Rand like that, and did so for reasons other than him being a male channeler. Thus you have provided no evidence to suport your point. The only person to have provided evidence to support your point also said he didn't agree with you, and gave reasons why. Was their treatment of Logain cruel, inhumane or degrading? Taim? Emarin? This is what I'm asking for, and this is what you have failed to provide. They are your words, and you have failed to justify them. This is not about human rights violations in general, or AS being incompetent, failures, or generally unpleasant, this is about them being guilty of something quite specific, which I would like examples of: cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of male channelers. If you cannot provide said evidence, simply admit it was a poor choice of words. We all misspeak sometimes. But you stand by your words without supporting them.

 

Something else just occurred to me. They did parade Logain through several cities (namely Caemlyn among others) in a cage as if to say, "Look! We caught the big scary monster! He's not so tough!" This could be construed as degrading, if not cruel. Of course one could then argue that Logain was guilty of crimes against humanity for having reaped havoc across the country side and gathering an army of Dragonsworn all in the name of personal glory. Not to mention there was also the specific reason of stopping panic from spreading by letting the public know that the false Dragon had been caught and was on his way to the White Tower. So, really its another dead end argument. We really have very few examples of Aes Sedai handling of male channelers and even fewer where we have specific accounts of how said channelers were treated.

[blazetheearth]

No. Your point is that you have failed to find the evidence I have provided. There is a huge difference right there. This would seem clear, since many other posters have, not only been able to see my point clearly, but have in fact, provided further evidence to support it, such as Khalika's quotes on the UN's Declaration of HR to be found above, on this very thread. Should be plain for all to see...if/when they wish to see, that is.

 

No, my point is that you haven't provided the evidence. I've told you before not to tell me what I mean. You say the AS are guilty of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of male channelers. Evidence to support that would be instances from the books of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of male channelers by AS. Quoting from UN declarations might clarify what you consider to be cruel, inhumane or degrading, but it doesn't answer my question of when the AS act in that way. As has already been pointed out, Elaida's treatment of Rand could be seen to qualify. It is also very much the exception to the rule. They do not treat male channelers like that, they treated Rand like that, and did so for reasons other than him being a male channeler. Thus you have provided no evidence to suport your point. The only person to have provided evidence to support your point also said he didn't agree with you, and gave reasons why. Was their treatment of Logain cruel, inhumane or degrading? Taim? Emarin? This is what I'm asking for, and this is what you have failed to provide. They are your words, and you have failed to justify them. This is not about human rights violations in general, or AS being incompetent, failures, or generally unpleasant, this is about them being guilty of something quite specific, which I would like examples of: cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of male channelers. If you cannot provide said evidence, simply admit it was a poor choice of words. We all misspeak sometimes. But you stand by your words without supporting them.

 

Something else just occurred to me. They did parade Logain through several cities (namely Caemlyn among others) in a cage as if to say, "Look! We caught the big scary monster! He's not so tough!" This could be construed as degrading, if not cruel. Of course one could then argue that Logain was guilty of crimes against humanity for having reaped havoc across the country side and gathering an army of Dragonsworn all in the name of personal glory. Not to mention there was also the specific reason of stopping panic from spreading by letting the public know that the false Dragon had been caught and was on his way to the White Tower. So, really its another dead end argument. We really have very few examples of Aes Sedai handling of male channelers and even fewer where we have specific accounts of how said channelers were treated.

 

I agree with all of this. While I still stand by my statement that doing something (Severing/Gentling) to someone that you know will cause them to commit suicide can be considered cruel and possible inhumane, especially when the evidence that we have would indicate that none have tried to find an alternate to doing this something (Gentling), I agree that other than the act of Severing itself we have very little direct evidence of cruel behavior toward men channelers. As far as parading Logain through citys and so forth, I can't see it as meant to be intentionally degrading, after all the AS didn't go out of their way to visit Tear or Far Madding or Cairhein to show him off, they just stopped at the Capital of the only country that their route back to TV, from where he was caught, would make them cross. The actions of the Red's in the "Vileness" of 20 years ago could be considered cruel and inhumane, but clearly their actions do not reflect WT policy or practices as a whole. I believe that RJ wrote the AS and the WT with the intent that we think of them as an agency that had 'good' motivations, but were too anchored in "it's always been done this way" to be able to carry out those 'good' intents. Too mired down in short-sighted arrogance to actually carry out the ideals of the women who set up the Tower initially. This makes them incredibly selfish and unable to react quickly to world change effectively (and their recruitment policy for the past has been designed to pull in selfish,power-hungry girls), but the institution itself is not intrinsically cruel or inhumane.

[johthohar]

I agree with all of this. While I still stand by my statement that doing something (Severing/Gentling) to someone that you know will cause them to commit suicide can be considered cruel and possible inhumane, especially when the evidence that we have would indicate that none have tried to find an alternate to doing this something (Gentling)

 

It's stated somewhere (I'll have to find the reference) that the Aes Sedai tried for hundreds of years to find an alternative to gentling before finally giving up. Pre-cleansing there really isn't one. Men with the spark would eventually channel no matter what and inevitable become mad and kill many more people than just one man. I know it's cliche but the "lesser evil" concept applies here no matter how inhumane you think it is.

[Darth Krewl]

No, my point is that you haven't provided the evidence. I've told you before not to tell me what I mean.

 

I can only interpret things the way my ample or narrow understanding allows me to interpret them. So please, try to use clear, concise language to get your point across, so that misunderstandings such as these can avoided. Or, if the problem for you is my speech, style or if my words rub you the wrong way, then just stop addressing me.

 

Either way, do not ever again presume that you can tell me what I can say and what I cannot say. Nothing has granted you that right over me or anyone else, for that matter.

 

You say the AS are guilty of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of male channelers. Evidence to support that would be instances from the books of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of male channelers by AS. Quoting from UN declarations might clarify what you consider to be cruel, inhumane or degrading, but it doesn't answer my question of when the AS act in that way. As has already been pointed out, Elaida's treatment of Rand could be seen to qualify. It is also very much the exception to the rule. They do not treat male channelers like that, they treated Rand like that, and did so for reasons other than him being a male channeler. Thus you have provided no evidence to suport your point.

 

I did provide the example of the words Tam al'Thor used to describe Cadsuane Melaidrhin's bully ways in TGS, albeit briefly (seemed to be good enough for Ishadar and Khalika, for instance, though). But in case you missed it or if it wasn't clear enough for you, here is the scene from the top of my head:

 

After being almost killed by Rand, Tam storms into Cadsuane's room in the Stone of Tear. The woman holds him with Air (that is cruel, inhumane, degrading treatment, because she is using abusive means at her disposal to inflict damage upon a third party and impose her will on them. It's called coercion and intimidation) so that Tam tells her where Rand has gone (which amounts to torture, which in turn, amounts to inhuman, degrading treatment, since according to the UN HR Declaration, any means such as coercion or intimidation to extract information from a person, constitutes a form of torture; the single gravest forms of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, other than murder.).

 

A concerned Min pleads with Cadsuane to let go of Tam. The Aes Sedai refuses. Tam holds her gaze and tells Min something along the lines of knowing the difference between a bully who likes to abuse others to get their way in a tavern, common room or something similar and those who only seek answers. It's not until this point that Cadsuane becomes aware of the wrong she's doing to the poor, non-channeling farmer (who, compared to a channeler, would fit into a vulnerable group, as all those who are short-handed - children, seniors, short people, mentally challenged, etc. - because channelers possess abilities that provide them with an advantage over their non-channeling peers and any abuse of said abilities to coerce, intimidate, torture or inflict any kind of damage - or threaten to do it - by using said superior abilities, constitutes...you guessed it: a major human rights violation) and let's go of him.

 

Not enough? Well, in that case there's a plethora of examples from this series that can be used...

 

How about the many times that Aes Sedai attempted to hurl stuff at Mat, putting his well-being at risk and not giving a hoot about it, to prove the efficacy of his medallion?

 

That is abusive conduct, unforgivable in any way, shape or form, given that, like Tam, Mat is no channeler and could have not defended himself from any potential damage that the hurling of objects in his direction by the Trakand girl, Adeleas and her sister (don't remember her name) had he not had the medallion. This would also qualify as abuse of a person shielded by the "vulnerable group" tag.

 

How about Lan threatening to kill some innocent folk in Jarra I believe, in TDR, because they had discovered Moiraine's true identity and her, having to intervene, to save that poor person(s)?

 

Since Mandragoran serves the White Tower, then for all legal intents and purposes, the man is officially attached to the organization of the Aes Sedai. Hence, any and all damage(s) he could have inflicted upon innocent, third parties would fall squarely on the shoulders of the Tower, as I've already explained.

 

There's also Rand's treatment after captured by Elaida, obviously.

 

There is also plenty of examples of Aes Sedai imposing their will, intimidating and coercing people, just because of their special abilities and station; something that, for all intents and purposes, constitutes an abuse of authority, which constitutes heavily sanctioned human rights violation. Jocelin's treatment of Mat in the kitchen at Setalle Anan's inn (and her attempt at intimidating him, via her Warder(s)) is the perfect example of this, because again intimidation, by any means at your disposal, is another BIG no-no in HR.

 

You strike me as an educated person, Ares. And frankly, it surprises me greatly to see that you would ask for examples directly from the books, unable to pick them out yourself. I don't blame you since, unfortunately, most people are not quite and fully aware of their own fundamental and inalienable HR. But still, 4 yrs. of work for different HR institutions across the world (including sending work directly to Irene Khan's desk, the Commissioner of HR for the UN) have made me quite aware of my own rights.

 

Hence, while all these HR violations may escape many a reader (such as yourself, it would seem) and, while they may not consider abusive, cruel, inhumane or degrading behavior in the Aes Sedai, reading about them was truly appalling to me. They stuck out like a sore thumb in this regard. Simply because these women are supposedly (and wrongly perceived by the majority) to be part of the "good guys" who fight for the Light. And, while certainly not the evil witches that the Children of the Light make them out to be, they're a far, far, far cry from what they're cracked up to be.

 

Were it the Seanchan, the Questioners of the Whitecloaks or Darkfriends, obviously, that we were talking about here, then things would be different. Because of what they represent, simple as that. Hence, my point that the White Tower is worse than the Seanchan. The former tries to come out as the champions of the Light, whereas their actions contradict this notion in every conceivable way, IMO. While the latter are conquerors by nature and, while their ways cannot be excused or forgiven, it's easy to understand how their ideological and cultural ways would be the reason behind their very questionable and reproachable behavior. Hope this makes it clear, once and for all.

 

Was their treatment of Logain cruel, inhumane or degrading? Taim? Emarin? This is what I'm asking for, and this is what you have failed to provide. They are your words, and you have failed to justify them. This is not about human rights violations in general, or AS being incompetent, failures, or generally unpleasant, this is about them being guilty of something quite specific, which I would like examples of: cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of male channelers. If you cannot provide said evidence, simply admit it was a poor choice of words. We all misspeak sometimes. But you stand by your words without supporting them.

 

Funny that you would demand that I don't tell you what you mean, when you're the one who started misinterpreting, misconstruing, altering, twisting and corrupting my points, in the first place lol!

 

My point has never been limited to AS treatment of male channelers, either. Far from it. All along, my point has been about the way AS treat just about everyone around them, not only male channelers. But if you want it straight from the horses mouth, then I will give it to you straight...

 

Whenever mental illness makes a person a danger to themselves and others, they have to be brought under control (using the most humane means possible; something that IMO, as I've already said countless times, the AS failed to observe) till the time they have either been rehabbed or have stopped to pose a threat.

 

At that point, once the danger has been brought under control, the person in question has the same right to freedom as all others. Meaning that, after trial, deliberation and execution of sentence, Logain had to be set free, for gentling him had prevented him from posing a danger to anyone, anymore. And yet, he was still held in the Tower and was forced to escape alongside Siuan and Leanne.

 

I don't know what you're trying to prove here.

 

Simple. I just realized that you and I would never agree on this (just like Elayne, I'd think), so I decided not to pursue the debate any further. IMO, you may believe the Aes Sedai to be better than the Seanchan. I don't. Seems to me like we have very different views of the WoT and I for one, respect freedom in all its aspects above all. I'm strongly opinionated and I will defend my views heatedly, but I do not seek to impose them on others.

 

Something else just occurred to me. They did parade Logain through several cities (namely Caemlyn among others) in a cage as if to say, "Look! We caught the big scary monster! He's not so tough!" This could be construed as degrading, if not cruel. Of course one could then argue that Logain was guilty of crimes against humanity for having reaped havoc across the country side and gathering an army of Dragonsworn all in the name of personal glory. Not to mention there was also the specific reason of stopping panic from spreading by letting the public know that the false Dragon had been caught and was on his way to the White Tower. So, really its another dead end argument. We really have very few examples of Aes Sedai handling of male channelers and even fewer where we have specific accounts of how said channelers were treated.

 

No, it's not a dead argument. You don't parade an unarmed, defenseless prisoner, after capture, regardless of his crimes. You issue statements informing of his capture and spread the news, to avoid a panic.

 

It is widely known that prisoners have rights, such as the right to a trial, legal representation, food, water, shelter and, most importantly, they have the right to privacy just like everyone else (hence the reason why no cameras are allowed into a courtroom in session).

 

Logain's treatment by being paraded, while caged and chained is an extremely barbaric practice that would attempt against the fundamental, inalienable right to human dignity (one of the most important HR's) in every possible way.

 

No use providing this example twice and include it in all the examples I provided above. But this does serve as major evidence of the way Logain was subjected to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, which was completely unnecessary at that point, since he had already been captured and shielded. No need for that, at all. And not only him, since the innkeep at Whitebridge says that at least another false Dragon was paraded in similar fashion; in this case a non-channeler who wanted to declare himself king, a few years earlier.

 

Logain had the right of being taken quietly and swiftly into Tar Valon, stand trial, have sentence delivered and executed. There was no reason to submit him to such suffering and pain.

 

This would clearly seem to indicate that the White Tower would do the same to all false Dragons, as a means to make an example of them and try to discourage any others from attempting them, through intimidation (again, that word. Seems to go hand in hand with Tar Valon, it would seem).