Search SJML Archives! (Powered by Google)

Previous Message: Re: Re:
Next Message: Re: Devient& Tom M.
Month Index: June, 1996

From:     Deviant <deviant@????????.??.ca>
Date:     Sun, 30 Jun 1996 11:41:21 -0700
Subject:  Re: Re:
Thomas O. Magann Jr. wrote:

> >I don't want to argue, I am making an argument. As in a logical discourse.
> And I don't
> >recall making any statement about light bulbs.
> No, but above you implied that very fact that was an arguement was proof that
> there was room for doubt, but all you've expressed is doubts, with nothing to
> support them.
> It certainly seems a s though you're arguing out of boredom.

I wasn't when the discussion began.

> >
> >When a person is covered in oil of etherialness, is he suddenly no longer on
> the Prime
> >Material?
> That's right, he's shifted to the border etherial. That's why the oil doesn't
> work in the Outer planes or the Flow.

Fair enough.
> You did? When? You've shown that once the change becomes permenant, that
> final body is kept, but that's all you've shown.
> And it didn't really need to be shown in the first place, as it was common
> sense.

Fine. You haven't shown that the body is a different one each time, and I haven't proved
the body is the same one. This question is incidental and seems to be borne of a desire
to argue. One way or the other, it really doesn't affect the overall discussion.

> >No, I am not making fun of any errors, I was simply unfamiliar with the
> term. I was not
> >sure if it was a spelling mistake or an actual term. Please try to see the
> point that I
> >am attempting to make, and not focus on the method that I am going about
> bringing it up.
> >My interests are purely in an exploration of the rules, and are not grounded
> in any sort
> >of hostility.
> OK< what the hell is the point you are trying to make? The books are
> mistaken?
> The authors used the wrong rules?
> Access to the etherial plane isn't necessary to become etherial?
> I really don't know, but you haven't made any of them.

The point that I have repeated over and over again is the need for access to the
etherial plane for the transformation to be possible. Now I grant you that the writers
of the DS rules had never even considered such an idea, as they did not take the DS
rules into account when they wrote them. But until I find some proof that states that
the transformtation is dependant on access to the etherial, I'm not going to take it for

> >> You, amognst others, remember?
> >
> >No, I simply said that Athas was off the normal space routes. And that as
> far as TSR was
> >concerned, i.e. in terms of creating a Athasspace supplement, the sphere was
> >inaccessible. That is not to say that spelljamming does not exist in their
> sphere, it is
> >to say that the characters spelljamming from a DS setting will not interact
> with SJ
> >characters setting out from Realmspace or the like.
> I believe a day or so ago, you first mentioned the Black and Grey, whatever
> they were. Today's mention, by someone else, was the second mention, and
> you're the only other one involved.

Well it wasn't me. I am still fuzzy on the Grey and the Black, and have only a vague
idea of what they are. You were mentioning something about PS rules and penetrating the
Grey and the Black, weren't you? Could you explain these concepts? I am unfamiliar with
their meaning, and have no idea how to deal with them.

> >But the tern requirement has never been used in any of the three places,
> merely that the
> >change occurs in that manner. A part of the change yes, but not a requisite
> part. Ice
> >changes to liquid before turning to a vapor, but under certain circumstances
> when
> >prevented from attaining a liquid form, the solid form of water can
> sublimate the liquid
> >state entirely and change to a gas. I am merely suggesting that the part of
> the
> >transformation is not a requirement.
> Based on what? That's my point, you seem to have no basis for such an
> assumption, and to want to ignore every thing that the books say about
> anything that disagrees with this "suggestion", yet you offer no supporting
> facts for any of your claims, and consistantly ignore the points and
> references I've brought up to he point of asking for them repeatedly,
> although they've already been given.
> Including in this very post.

There is nothing that disagrees in the books. You've given many pieces of evidence, but
not one of them supports the claim that the etherial plane is necessary for the
transformation, and that without that access, that the transformation would be
cancelled. I am not ignoring the references, I have looked them up, repeatedly. There is
still nothing that supports your argument.

I am not disputing that the etherial state is a part of the transformation. I am merely
questioning how critical it is.

> >> >And as yet, there has not been one solid piece of evidence that states
> that
> >> your
> >> >assumption is correct.
> >>
> >> There hasn't been? Or you've ignored it?
> >
> >I have not ignored anything you have said. On the contrary, I have been
> paying close
> >attention to your argument.
> Then why ask for pages numbers and facts you've already been given a few
> tomes previous?
> Hardly seems to be any attention paid at all, sorry.

As I mentioned. The facts are given, but they are supportive of the wrong argument.

> As it's *PART* of the transformation, proving it's necessity is on a par with
> proving that the body becoming flame is necessary to tranforming the body to
> flame.
> That *is*, after all, the *second* stage of the transformation, when a fire
> elemental cleric is concerned.
> Frankly, the very fact that it *is* part of the transformation (and imposed
> should the change be imposed, instead of taken by choice on a given day)
> proves it necessary.

How exactly.

> Also. you're therory about one element overriding the others being
> responsible for the change doesn't seem to agree with the facts. DK staes
> that the cleric is either "fully elemental, or fully human". Which means that
> there is none of the other three elements left to fight but the over riding
> elemental, and bring back the human body.

Not my theory. There are other people on the list discussing this, you see.

> While in all of the three places that you point out, the
> >term etherial is used, in no place have I found the term
> 'necessary','manditory' or
> >'required'. I have no dispute with the fact that it is a part of the
> transformation
> >under normal circumstances, but given the possibility of the prevention of
> the etherial
> >state, there is nothing to say that the transformation will not take place.
> >
> See above.

You too.
> What's more important is that there is nothing saying how it *could* take
> place if the etherial was cut off from the character.
> Old rule from med school, a Doctor friend of mine told me: When you hear
> hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. Zebras are pretty rare, and almost never
> come up. You seem to argue that they *might*, some day, but you haven't even
> addressed the fact that is probably horses running by.

The point is, while something may seem like common sense, it cannot be taken for
granted. In the DS world, no cleric has ever been put in this situation. There is no
precedent. There is no statement in the rules anywhere that says the Etherial state is a
necessity. Perhaps it is merely a side affect. That is mere speculation, but a distinct
possiblilty. If you find one single piece of proof anywhere in the DS rules, then I will
grant you the point and we can move on from this discussion, which seems to be getting
carried away.

Deviant of the Blatant Disregard    ?Moral victories don?t count.?
                                      -Ragnarok?s Sixth Law of
    deviant@????????.??.ca               Survival.

Previous Message: Re: Re:
Next Message: Re: Devient& Tom M.
Month Index: June, 1996

SubjectFromDate (UTC)
Re: Re:    James Perry    27 Jun 1996 00:12:21
Re: Re:    James Perry    27 Jun 1996 00:37:33
Re: Re:    Don Weis    28 Jun 1996 15:10:58
Re: Re:    Deviant    29 Jun 1996 19:30:16
Re: Re:    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    29 Jun 1996 19:18:13
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 01:46:25
Re: Re:    James Perry    29 Jun 1996 23:03:46
Re: Re:    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    30 Jun 1996 00:06:56
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 07:11:08
Re: Re:    Don Weis    30 Jun 1996 05:19:06
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 07:16:45
Re: Re:    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    30 Jun 1996 05:44:31
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 07:56:57
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 08:01:37
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 08:08:08
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 08:12:05
Re: Re:    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    30 Jun 1996 06:25:48
Re: Re:    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    30 Jun 1996 06:42:32
Re: Re:    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    30 Jun 1996 06:47:03
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 09:43:21
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 09:54:49
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 09:58:17
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 10:01:55
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 10:10:39
Re: Re:    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    30 Jun 1996 08:49:42
Re: Re:    Shelby Michlin    30 Jun 1996 15:48:10
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 18:41:21
Re: Re:    James Perry    04 Jul 1996 16:24:22
Re: Re:    Don Weis    05 Jul 1996 10:34:37
Re: Re:    James Perry    05 Jul 1996 17:34:26
Re: Re:    Eugene Shumu1insky    16 Sep 1996 21:50:02

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]