Kurkistan

Your compromise is acceptable I was mostly kidding with the MEC. His answer isn't really enough by itself for anything besides "well, I guess I'm not completely wrong." A guy can always dream, though...

^He ended up putting them in on he Cosmere 201 thread he started.

^Colors man, I've agreed with you on this point three times by now. It's not a sure thing, so don't put it in the OP. We're good. I think what both Sombrero and I were getting at, after giving up the specific "Forgeries could work in Arelon" point, was that there are a certain number of--slightly more substantiated--broadly-held theories such that it might be worthwhile to throw in a smidgen of "based on this quote, a lot of people think this" as addenda to a few of the bare quotes. EDIT: For instance, the answer to my "throwing a spear out of a time bubble" question essentially boils down to Cognitive identities determining when an object is in or out of a time bubble. We "theorize" that because his answer screams Cognitive, but a new member might not immediately connect the dots. P.S. Does this mean that the MEC get's to be put in? Last One: Ha! That's a very interesting way to look at it. The theory isn't all there, but it's thinking along the right lines.

We also know that unassisted people also replaced at least some spikes. EDIT: Oops, somehow didn't notice an entire second page after Windrunner's last post on the first one. Hi guys. 'Sup?

No problem, it's a bit tricky. https://support.twitter.com/articles/80586-how-to-link-directly-to-an-individual-tweet

Wow, I totally misread him. That was odd.

You mean this poll!?

I agree. That's why I said the same thing. Twice.

^I assume you meant this one (you have to throw in #15 at the end of the url for the 15th answer), which, coincidentally, I rather terribly mangled in my paraphrase. And you are right. The answer to the Shallan question is a "yes" at an event where people weren't supposed to ask spoilers, while the other one was nearly trolling. It's not self-evident, but becomes nearly as evident, to most people's eyes, when considered in the broader context. Once again, you are right that such suppositions shouldn't be in a purely factual thread, although an "everyone assumes X, but we're not sure about it" might be appropriate.

Yeah, I probably got a bit too into it. I hereby declare myself to be chillaxing on the issue. Chaos (as is annoyingly usual for him ) just about said it perfectly.

1) Copy text of quote 2) Open new tab on browser, paste in quote, put quotation marks around it. 3) Get specific link to an unrelated post in the same thread 4) Scroll around until you find the right post This is all especially problematic in the age of mobile browsers, where copy-pasting and whatnot is that much more difficult than just tapping on a link. Multiply this for potentially dozens of people. Vs. 0) Original poster just pastes in the link too 1) Click on link It's also infinitely more difficult when people paraphrase, though I suppose then it's harder for the original poster to provide the link as well--though still probably easier than it is for a newbie to find it. Then you get into paraphrasings and "as you knows" and, before you know it, something has entered into he realm of "general knowledge", and yet finding the actual link which it is based on is nearly impossible if you didn't know it in the first place. And, even if you can find it with your Google-fu, it's still a lot of unnecessary work for a lot of people. I know this is ultimately just an opinion poll, and you're free to act and think as you choose, but what are you saying here? Do you intend to stop doing something for the simple reason that someone asked you to do it? I suppose we have the same philosophical disagreement here as with me and Phantom. I think the burden is on those who have the knowledge and the position; to ease the passage for those who would otherwise have an unnecessarily hard time of it. I don't subscribe to a "hard knocks" outlook on bringing new members up to speed.

Well by-golly you're right. I apologize. That was an error on my part: I suppose I missed it, for one reason or another. That's really no excuse on my part, though. Meg, I am sorry that I unleashed my fiery torrent of pro-linkage in reaction to your post, instead of waiting for a more deserving example.

Ah, yes, you are right there that it was not a definite fact. I think we've all been reading this as just about as certain as "Shallan has what you think she has"--which I think is justified--but you're right that we're not sure. Sorry, I suppose I misread your post as a genuine question of befuddlement, not a "doesn't this raise interesting questions?". You asked while that very contradiction indicates the "yes" that we've been reading from Brandon's "that's interesting". Sombrero and I were trying to allay those fears of contradiction with the most plausible answer to it. But so far as making this thread 100% hard facts, you are right that such a theory, even if widely held, is not certain. Also, once again, I apologize for what can be read as a bit of a personal attack: As I said, "this isn't aimed at Meg at all. Sorry if I come across as a bit harsh. I've just been noticing a disturbing tendency away from direct attribution, and it's hard enough to become Cosmere-conversant as it is."

Just to reiterate, I'm mostly lasering in on more intense discussions where full quotes are provided, or obscure facts. So "Well, we all know that Spook is the Lord Mistborn, so..." needn't be attributed, but "<QUOTE BLOCK OF DEATH>" should be. If you've got it, flaunt it, but I don't think there's a pressing need to hunt down links to common knowledge in casual discussion. @happyman This really isn't official, it's kind of bet-settling between Nepene and I, as well as the logical extension of my current link-tastic high horse. @Phantom Monstrosity I suppose we simply disagree on where the burden lies so far as quote-courtesy goes.

@Millenium I'm fairly sure you ended up agreeing with me by the end of your post, and I can see mistraiths having some instinctive ability to put bare spikes in the proper place. In fact, that's kind of necessary, assuming that there wasn't a lot of very messy trial and error when the survivors at the Pits tried to re-Blessing the Kandra after the end of HoA.

^And so Sharders of the world did rejoice as linkage was provided unto them! Thanks. Your theoryland links don't seem to be linkifying, by the way.

It really does seem like a more magical "Fail" when you read it, though. I have some thoughts higher up in the thread about the degree of "animosity" towards a Forgery mattering. I agree, it probably won't come up. If it did, though, I think there are two rather clear ways it would work: Case 1: Soulcast rock->bread at t0, try to Forge it at t2 such as to change its history at t1. In this case, I think the bread would act like bread, since it seems that what was once soulcast stays very firmly soulcast: rocks turning back into rocks a few years after they've been incorporated into your body would not be nice. Case 2: Soulcast rock->bread at t1, try to Forge it at t2 such as to change its history at t0. Now this one gets interesting. I think objects can recall their histories, since Shallans' goblet knew that it had been in one form for a long time. So you might actually be able to Forge a soulcast object such that it was never soulcast, or such that it was soulcast differently. It all depends on whether somethings history is completely wiped whenever you soulcast it, as well as if Forgery can simulate other magic systems. I think it should retain its history and Forgery is that versatile, and so the Forgery should work and change history at t0. Yeah, thinking about it, I don't think "spren == Cognitive aspects" will cut it. Two plausible options (and one less plausible) occur to me: 1) Spren are Cognitive, true, but are not Cognitive aspects. Rosharians are conflating the two because they are rather similar and it makes the whole system easier to understand, rather than having to posit that their are two distinct kinds of Cogniitive existences. I think this one is most likely. 2) Spren are not necessarily Cognitive aspects (they get their existence from Honor/Cultivation), but do tend to latch onto objects whenever they don't have anything better to do. 3) (Less plausible): Spren started out as Cognitive aspects, but Honor/Cultivation's presence on Roshar, as well as Stormlight supercharged them and gave them more independent existence. So every Cognitive aspect is a potential spren, with Cognitive aspects undergoing mitosis under the effects of Stormlight and letting a spren go off into the wild while he original object still gets to have an aspect of its own. I think Dalinar not seeing any spren at all in his visions is either some quirk of the visions (is Honor blind to spren?) or just an accident on Brandon's part. We know that at least bonding spren exist, from Nohadon, and the sudden onset of spren at some point in history would seem to be a pretty big event, on par with the Recreance or the Desolations. The kind of thing that gets mentioned. Recall also that spren really aren't mentioned that much in the book: they're background noise that Brandon intentionally has people not pay attention to, because he wants to give the impression that they are simply natural to and accepted in the world. Dalinar's scenes are pretty heavily focused on some weighty stuff, so it's understandable that mentioning/noticing spren would be secondary. I think I'd seen this one before, but I hadn't remembered it: http://www.stormblessed.com/2010/12/25/interview-with-brandon-sanderson/ So groundspren can still be a thing, just not be "noticeable". And Axies was right that some spren require rare circumstances and/or regions. I'm not so much positing variations of flamespren as variations on whether or not there are ale-spren. I'd hold that the "Fire" form is essentially universal on Roshar, and so transcends regional boundaries and has a single, universally accessed and formed existence. Actually, she quite explicitly wasn't including herself. (WoK 262) I read the "virtually the same individual" just to mean that there wasn't much to differentiate them. So, under my theory, they're all basically blank slates that latch onto Forms and act in the same way in relation to their environments. --- Also, fun fact, I've been trying to generalize "Forms", though I went off on a bit of a Forgery tangent. I basically agree with this. The fact that someone else doing the recording unbeknownst to the person doing the measuring still works to lock spren down, though, means that there are some more complicated things going on. Spren seem to be able to tell, on a very macro level, whether their attributes have been recorded. While both Ashir and Geranid knew that he was calling out real sizes (really, it should have been double-blind), only Geranid knew when she wrote it down, and that was in response to a mere report from Ashir. So the spren either had to be able to access both of their perceptions of it or access Geranid's very weak "I suppose Ashir is calling out real measurements" belief. The spren was also immediately "freed" when they erased the measurement. It could be the case that even a double-blind situation would freeze a spren. SCIENCE TIME! Scenario:

^Thanks for the quotes, but my main point is what is referenced in the last one: TenSoon made sure that the spikes pierced specific organs.

My understanding is that the interesting thing about spiking Kandra is that they have to know what they're doing. Kandra have to actually manipulate their own organs such that the spikes pierce the right ones to grant powers. So a pair of iron spikes can either be a Blessing or transformative aggressive-monster-juice. Given that Kandra adapt not only the bones, but the organs of what they eat, their new sets of iron spikes would be impaling the same regions as they did in the Koloss, resulting in the same effects. I can't find the link to actually prove this (bad Kurkistan!), sorry.

At first I was rather disappointed that fellow forum members would see my efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the 17th Shard community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Sharders who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of "linkedness" that they have adjusted to not having links; and in part of a few veteran Sharders who, because of a degree of Cosmerical and Reputational security and because in some ways they profit by others' ignorance, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses...I have tried to say that we should all provide links for the betterment of the forum. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label...Perhaps the thread, the forum, and the internet are in dire need of creative extremists. Source

^It's more options in the sense of "click on this link to learn more and/or attribute it properly in the future, or just keep reading." 2 < 5. And frankly, I think that new members or worst-served by not providing attributions. We vets have vague memories of where we first read all this stuff, we've read all the interviews that we wanted to--so don't need a source to find more--and we're better versed at searching the WoT database, this forum, and Googling for Cosmere stuff in general. Either of us could find a direct link to one of those quotes in a few minutes, while new members are lost in a sad haze of confusion and torment, with no idea of even where to start looking. Tell you what. I'll start a poll. I'm fairly sure most everyone will agree with my side.

Nepene has started a "Cosmere 202" thread listing a bunch of quotes from Brandon and other Cosmerical sources. Good idea. I like it. Only problem is, he doesn't provide direct links to any of the quotes he has. Now, I'm not doubting the guy, and I recognize all the quotes, so I don't have any reason to doubt him, but I find it to be only a positive thing when a direct link to the source of a fact is given. It makes citation easier, it makes figuring out the context easier, and it provides an easy way to find new interviews if you didn't see the quote the first time it surfaced. Nepene thinks simplicity is king. He is wrong. I think providing as much cross-linkage as possible is vital to keeping current members properly informed as well as making the lot of new members easier. That is all. Don't be swayed by my opinion or anything. :P/> Discussion: Update: Victory!

No, it's totally fine. I had literally just publicly mounted my link-tastic high horse a few hours before you posted, so I was basically inside-joking, but you were a first-time poster, so it didn't work that well. :\

1) Thanks. 2) EVERYTHING MUST BE LINKED! *Froths* :wacko: :wacko: () Tweet: EDIT: 3) Welcome to the Forums! With this high of an Admin population in this thread, you'll be spiked get a cookie in no time!

^More options are always better, I say. Maybe you could throw in a "these links are here for attribution purposes, no need to read them all!" disclaimer in?