Timewaster's Guide Archive

I loathe English.  I would like to learn Chinese (of some dialect) and Korean and Thai, but alas, my programming classes take up FAR too much time and I'm required to be in those classes when language classes are being taught.

The first logic chain makes sense, but I don't think Ruin wants to be worshiped. He just wants to destroy things. (As per Alendi's logbook entry, which has something to do with Ruin on some level.) As for the second, the problem I see with that is that even if Ruin is limited in spirit-form, Inquisitors seem so much more limited to me. They have to rest very often and can omnisciently warp reality. If he wanted a body, I don't think he'd choose an Inquisitor unless he had to.

Good grief.  How to the native speakers learn this stuff?

Buy or sell?
Ruin is a Soother.

No, we generally do not.  The magic in this world follows specific rules.  We don't know all of them, but every last one that we have seen, every last one that has ever been found, *including the examples listed above* all involve metals, and only metals.  Not only that, but trace metals play only the smallest part in the system and seem very unlikely to get involved unless crazy-strong allomancers get involved.  Even if they do, it will still be the metal that is special.

In addition, none of these powers leave "footprints" in the usual sense of the word.  Once pushing or pulling (physical or emotional) is done, the item (person) moves on its new trajectory following the "non-magical" laws of physics; it has been changed, but the change does not continue; there is no allomantic radiation given off, or any continuing magical change.  I've heard rumors that internal pushing and pulling might leave permanent scars, but that's probably more like bending metal with a pull and leaving it be; there is no trace of pulling left over after, just the bent metal (or person).

What you don't seem to understand is that we don't expect EUOL to change the rules midstream.  We expect the final picture to make sense in terms consistent with what we already know.  You could keep saying things along the lines of "Prove that obsidian can't have magic powers!" and we won't have a final answer for you until we actually read the last book.  That doesn't mean that our answers aren't sufficient; we logically cannot prove a negative.  We just have to give reasons to think the negative is unfruitful and why we choose to ignore it.  Your protests to the contrary aren't swaying anybody; they're just ticking us off, largely because they aren't really adding anything to the debate.

No, I mean objective.  We can make ethics anything we wish.  We can change them to suit our needs.  While they are subjective, they are also objective.

Quote from: Czanos on September 02, 2008, 01:09:29 PM

Well, if you pay really close attention to semantics, the body below had eye-spikes. Just saying . . .

My point solidified as much as possible without reading the book.  (Even if it's NOT an Inquisitor, I would be disappointed if this was the body that Ruin took.