Pathfinder

Theoretically you can hack any magic system to power another magic system. Some are harder than others. Theoretically if an elsecaller could hack allomancy in a similar manner that compounding is a hack for feruchemy to be fueled by allomancy, then it would make a feedback loop. So the compounder burns the metal, creating a gate way of investiture from preservation. That gateway is changed to read as the feruchemical attribute. So the investiture powers the feruchemical attribute instead of the allomantic one. So going on this premise, if theoretically this can be applied to other magic systems, then burning a metal (depending on what misting you are), could be used to turn that investiture to power soulcasting. Then that soulcasting could soulcast something into steel. Steel is relatively common, it would enable to elsecaller to also "fly" via steel pushes, and shoot ranged projectiles. Projectiles the elsecaller could soulcast into being and then fire with a steel push. Where it becomes a feedback loop is the elsecaller gets a piece of steel. Burns it, fueling her soulcasting. They then soulcast more steel. Given you can get a lot of burning steel from a few flakes, I would imagine an Elsecaller could soulcast a bar of steel, that they could then file to get tons of flakes. The elsecaller could then stock up on flakes that they soulcasted, and anytime they are going to run low, soulcast more. That is all theoretical though.

Replying to both @Quantus and @Kingsdaughter613 here So the Ars Arcanum (which can be disproved because it is only Khriss's observations that can be revealed to be inaccurate later. which I am only saying to indicate that I am admitting this is not an absolute truth. It could be wrong) says "The windrunner would infuse something, give a mental command, and create a pull to the object that yanked other objects towards it. At its heart, this lashing created a bubble around the object that imitated its spiritual link to the ground beneath it. As such, it was much harder for the lashing to affect objects touching the ground, where their link to the planet was strongest. Objects falling or in flight were the easiest to influence. Other objects could be affected, but the stormlight and skill required were much more substantial" So it does say spiritual link, so from what you were saying @Quantus then if the spiritual link is considered investiture acting upon, then I guess as per the Ars Arcanum then it would not affect the spike. Personally I think since it is referring to creating an effect that creates an alternative "link" it would still work. Just objects that are not in flight, are not as affected. That is a poor way of putting it and may be more semantics, but its the best I can come up with at this time.

So this is all theoretical but: Elsecaller/steel misting. Potentially using steel allomancy to power elsecaller soulcasting, to create more steel to burn to fuel elsecaller powers.

I agree we have not seen enough So first sorry I misrepresented you. Second, I personally do not believe that prevents what I stated. For myself emotional allomancy is still targeting the person. Aluminum acts as the field preventing that. The reverse lashing to me targets the (in this case lets say ground). If there was aluminum in, or around the ground, then for myself yes it would negate the surge. But the ground itself in this case is not. The reverse lashing is sourced at the ground, creating a gravity well. So for myself, I believe it would still affect the spike. But as my original intention was to elaborate on what I thought you were saying, and that is not in fact the case, then this is moot. Cool. To clarify it was never my intention or goal to say the other argument is without merit.

Totally respect your thoughts. For myself I do not think so. I believe atium shadows are not produced by aluminum weapons, because the atium shadows is the investiture power. Ok, I thought of this other example, and you can totally disagree with this other example. I am just writing it because I thought of another way to convey it If kelsier tries to push on an aluminum spike nothing happens if kelsier pushes on a piece of metal, and that metal hit the aluminum spike, the aluminum spike then moves So in the case of atium and shadows, for myself it would be for instance seeing an atium shadow of someone dying. You do not see the atium shadow of the arrow penetrating the person, but you can still ascertain something is coming that will kill that person.

So I was going to reply to this being what my reply to traveler was to mean, but then you stated it (in my opinion) below So this is what I meant by : "True, but for myself that then branches to the discussion to all the other abilities a Radiant has and all the other abilities a Mistborn had. My intention was to comment on the idea that someone with atium would be the apex "predator" if you will (not attempting to put words in robardin's mouth. That was just the best descriptor I thought I could provide at the time). I was referencing a WoB where Brandon felt there was a counter to that. Also am not attempting to negate the capabilities of atium. " That then since Kelsier is a mistborn with other powers, we then examine those other powers. And since Kaladin has more abilities/powers than just flying, we then also examine those powers in relation to the ability that atium shows. That atium itself is not the cause of the mistborn being apex. It could be a contributing factor, and it is a strong one (I did say I am not attempting to negate the capabilities of atium), but for myself, when in view of the other factors, there are other mitigating issues to be considered. Which is what you then said. (this statement is not to be taken as critical of how you wrote your post, nor stating my post stated it any better, or that you should not have posted. the only intention meant is that I believe I said the same thing, but a different way)

If I may, another example I was going to add to possibly illustrate because I personally believe the question is not so much does the reverse lashing work on aluminum, but does the effect do so. I think this example might convey my thoughts better (though keep in mind this is also hypothetical as I am using the surge division in this example, and there is much we do not know about it. So in order to use this example, we will have to assume some things) So if we assume using division on an object directly burns/decays/what have you. Then if Kelsier throws this spike and the dusbringer tries to touch and melt the object directly, then nothing would happen. Now conversely if the dustrbringer perhaps sets fire to the ground, and that heat is so great, so overwhelming, that it super heats the air, then the spike passing through that space (to me) should be able to be melted. Because it is not the surge acting directly on the spike. It is a byproduct of the surge acting on the object. So too, to me, then the gravity well effect should still affect the spike, as the gravity well affects objects. The surgebinder is not attempting to make the spike the focus of the gravity well. if that was the case, to me it would not work. The surgebinder is creating the gravity well effect, of which the effect acts on the spike. At least that is what I believe. And what I think Quantus was trying to convey.

I think what quantus is trying to say is there is a difference between investiture directly acting on something, and the nature of that investiture acting on something. So steel pushing is the power directly acting on an object. If that object is aluminum it will not work. You counter this issue with the steel piece Gravitation surge requires power directly acting on the object. You are touching and changing the gravity of the object. Aluminum would prevent this The surge that created a "black hole" like effect (forgot the name). The investiture is acting directly on the point that kaladin is touching. That act creates a black hole like effect. A gravity well if you will. The gravity well itself is not investiture acting on the aluminum. So the pull of gravity should (based on my understand and i think quantus understanding) still pull at the aluminum spike. Because it is not directly acting upon the aluminum spike. It is creating a current that would draw anything, of which the aluminum spike would be included

Yep. I am in complete agreement on all those traits.

I agree, it would help if there was a capability to chose multiple favorites as Dalinar and Jasnah can both be amazing in each their own ways. Also most definitely agree Navani should be included Just makes me value what we got all the more lol.

True, but for myself that then branches to the discussion to all the other abilities a Radiant has and all the other abilities a Mistborn had. My intention was to comment on the idea that someone with atium would be the apex "predator" if you will (not attempting to put words in robardin's mouth. That was just the best descriptor I thought I could provide at the time). I was referencing a WoB where Brandon felt there was a counter to that. Also am not attempting to negate the capabilities of atium.

Surprising no one, Jasnah.

So as I said on the other thread, I like the rationale/headspace that is bringing this about. Now having said that, in this case, just for myself I do not feel it fits. I feel that if Jasnah was of the third oath when she was working with assassins regarding Aesudean, and that the third oath is the why she would kill Aesudean, then Jasnah not killing Aesudean would be breaking that 3rd oath. Perhaps she was further along in oaths at that point then?

I will need some time to pull it up, but there was also another WoB, that said Kaladin could just wait out the atium. Questioner Who do you think would win, an atium misting, or Kaladin with Syl? Brandon Sanderson The atium misting, as long as they have enough atium, is probably got an advantage, but Kaladin can fly. So, I would bet on Kaladin, meaning he flies up high, waits 'til they run out of atium, then gets them. Oathbringer release party (Nov. 13, 2017)

I guess what I have been trying to convey but have been failing is that the definition of fairy is not someone coming up and saying "fairy is this". We cannot say that, because a fairy does not exist. I will elaborate below So we take the fairy example. We type fairy in google and we get a definition from the dictionary that says: noun: a small imaginary being of human form that has magical powers, especially a female one adjective belonging to, resembling, or associated with fairies. Does that mean we can now apply that definition to everything we see to determine whether it is a fairy or not? We cannot. Because this is a generic definition for someone who just wants a generic idea. It is not what a fairy is. It can be said it is the most common and widely accepted version of a fairy, but if we look back 100 years, then the most common and widely accepted version of a fairy might be different. Is the definition of fairy only determinate on the number of people that currently agree on it? Then we look at the Merriam Webster dictionary (I will only reference the first one in the dictionary, as the other regarding the slur is not pertinent here) 1. a mythical being of folklore and romance usually having diminutive human form and magic powers So we have a definition right? But notice the word choices here. Mythical. Folklore. Usually. Now we could then go into the definitions of those words, but suffice it to say they are self referential (mythical for instance is "occuring in or characteristic of myths, idealized, ficticious). So what was really defined? Can we then if a fairy suddenly did actually exist, say it meets these requirements? And if it does meet these requirements, is it truly a fairy? The concepts to use to define the fairy are not concrete. They are not measurable because they are trying to come up with a rough approximation of what people can recognize so they have something to discuss. So then we take it further and go to a source such as wikipedia, or a library source on fairy. The definition of that is then: A fairy (also fata, fay, fae, fair folk; from faery, faerie, "realm of the fays") is a type of mythical being or legendary creature in European folklore (and particularly Celtic, Slavic, German, English, and French folklore), a form of spirit, often described as metaphysical, supernatural, or preternatural. (I copied pasted to make it easier than retyping it). So what does this definition really tell us? Is it actually defining a fairy? Or is it defining what other people who believe in fairies have or do define a fairy as? It lists all the currently known words for fairy. It lists the types of cultures that usually believe in them.But is it defining what a fairy is? I believe the answer is no. It is citing those people's definition. The person writing that article, or section in the dictionary is not defining fairy. They are providing references to those that do. So let us take another concept. Gravity. It is a theory. We have a definition for it. Can one day a new knowledge, or technology arise that changes that definition? Of course. It is a theory. It is to be questioned. It is to be worked on, altered, tested and retested. If someone writes what gravity is, and someone else comes across and says "that is not true, gravity does not exist". The original person can say "ok, well here are the tests I used that brought about my conclusions.". The person that disagrees then attempts to replicate those tests. They can determine if those tests are accurate or not. They can run their own tests. And their tests can be tested for accuracy. To an atheist, God cannot. To take things further, we can make conclusions based on the theory of gravity. Conclusions that then can be tested and replicated. Conclusions that result in real definable and actionable results. We get things like airplanes, and cars. We get airbags. All things that function based on an understanding of what gravity is. It does not matter if one person believes it, 100, 1000. It does not matter if 100 believe it 10 years ago, but one believes it now. If the test yields the results, the test yields the results. If you can then act on those results, and derive further results, then it does not matter if that one person, or everyone believes it, it still is. Because it was tested. It occurred. It was measured. If we go back to the whole Almighty discussion where Jasnah says morals are outside of the almighty's purview, so the character Taravangian replies that she has removed all need for the Almighty's existence, and Jasnah said indeed. If we say that is then Jasnah's definition of god, that implies that if a being was revealed to provide morals, then that being would be god. That if someone could present Jasnah with a being that could provide morals, Jasnah would then be required to call that being god. So let us take this example and run it fully through. So now we have a being that provides morals. At Jasnah's current knowledge and technological level she cannot disprove this beings capability to or to not provide morals. So then the being is god? Ok then lets say that. Then lets say 1000 years pass. Jasnah has lived and died and become dust. Someone one day find a way to make a moral sensor. It can detect the source of morals. It is solid scientific work. It is tested. It is proven. That person then holds the sensor up to the entity, and the sensor says nope. This is not the source of morals. Does the being that was believed to provide morals, and that criteria making it god, cease to be god? And if it ceases to god, does it mean back when Jasnah was alive, that being at that time was or was not god? Which is why the question becomes (for the atheist Jasnah), are we terming god to be a being that we just cannot prove wrong yet? For Jasnah, a person of logic and reason, that is trying to prove a negative. In Jasnah's words, that is irrelevant and pointless. In Jasnah's words, god does not exist. So in Jasnah's words, why try to prove a negative? (side note. I am emphasizing in Jasnah's words, to indicate it is Jasnah's perspective. I am not personally saying religion is irrelevant and pointless. Honestly I do not believe even she is saying that. She is saying in regards to herself it is irrelevant and pointless. But that does not mean Shallan believing in Shallan's god is irrelevant and pointless. Shallan is perfectly entitled to believe. Jasnah is not intending to mock or diminish Shallan's beliefs. She is only stating why they are not hers. ) edit: I think I found another way to say it. Jasnah would rather assert god does not exist, and spend her time researching and working on fabrials, the desolation, and survival, than continually coming up with a new proof that god does not exist. One pursuit she feels is actionable and will yield results. The other pursuit is (to her/atheists) just a continual sliding metric that by its nature can never yield actionable definable results. Personally based on the quote that Jasnah said an unseen, unknown, and unknowable entity is in her words "an exercise in futility". I do not believe her definition of god would include it. But to each their own. edit: To clarify, I am not intending to say you cannot believe that that is her definition. Just going back to the earlier part you quoted me on, and the earlier quotes I posted from the books, I personally do not think that is the case. Also not intending to say you are wrong in believing as you do. Just I personally do not believe that.

I selected Chaotic Neutral. Brandon has stated that Kelsier has evil tendencies within him. It is the circumstances that determine whether it comes out or not. That for him the real question is what Kelsier would do in those circumstances, and for myself what lengths would kelsier go to stop someone who is doing good from stopping him? For instance, not saying this were to occur, but if Kelsier and Wax were to end up at cross purposes.

Interesting thoughts! From what I read of Brandon's concern, is because there was only one female character, he made her "super". As in the best and most of everything. There wasn't a gradation in which to show numerous female voices. Not saying whether I personally think this or not, but from what I recall of the WoB, that was what he was concerned about. The problem if we make just Yeden, or just Dockson female for instance, they are both in capacities that are seen as lesser than Kel. So it could potentially create problems. Not saying not to gender bend them. Just additional gender bends might aid it. Such as the others suggestions below which I will elaborate on there. I agree with this. Either Spook or Ham have powers. Ham has his family, and views Kelsier as although a leader, he is still an equal. He sees Kelsier as a friend, not an idealized version. This would allow Spook to also be gender bent, because Spook could offer the counter point of someone of the opposite sex idolizing an elder, but potentially without a sexual aspect of it. Spook is seeking attention and validation from Kelsier, but as a means to prove "her" worth to the group. So that Spook could belong. I realize this to a degree was Vin, but she never idolized Kelsier. He was a mentor, but he was a "real" one. Spook's view of Kelsier through most of the book was very much unrealistic. An idolized kelsier. Well yeah Kelsier did not plan for Yeden to do what he did, but Kelsier did plan to set up the skaa on that plantation in the beginning to get thrown into a situation where they were forced to flee or face death. He then forgot they existed. It was not till he ran into the old man again later that Kelsier even found out they survived, and he was surprised for it. He fully expected the old man, if not all of them, to have died from the actions he took. I think Marsh is a great idea. It could demonstrate a very interesting dichotomy. It could also dispel a sense that Marsh would have to be "feminine". Marsh could still be ole "iron eyes". Strong, and unyielding. It could also add depth to Spook's idolization of Kelsier.

Because defining something is stating something is something. So for one individual a fairy is a little woman with wings. For another a fairy may be an old crone. For another a fairy could be a human sized individual with pointed ears. For another it could be a fox. For each person, the other people's definition is wrong, because that is not a fairy to them. An atheist asserts that none are right, none are wrong, because for an atheist a fairy does not exist. So there cannot be an accurate definition. Asserting such does not state that it is wrong for any of those three individuals to believe as they do. It only asserts for the atheist that the atheist believes they do not exist and thereby cannot be defined. Ricky Gervais made a humorous but very accurate point when discussing religion with Steven Colbert. He said something to the effect of "You don't believe in 2,299 religions. I just don't believe in one more". Why is it one can assert one religion is the "right" one, thereby stating all other religions are the "wrong" one, but someone cannot assert hat religion and god don't "exist" so other religions existence or non existence does not matter to that individual? Jasnah said she does not need company to hold to her convictions. She does not need other people to denounce they religion and join her. She is content in her own beliefs that there is no god. That does not invalidate or confront anyone else's beliefs. Now if someone approaches her, and states why their belief in god is the right way, and that she should revise her belief to coincide with that belief because that belief is the "right" way, then Jasnah will respond why that specific belief is not something she would believe. That does not make it the metric for something she would call god. Because for her god does not exist. So she would not try to define it. She would not even intend to try and define it by what it is "not". If that was the case, then as I have said before, based on every religion she has covered, God to her is nothing. Because it is not animal, mineral, planet, etc. It is not a one and all powerful god. It is not a myriad of gods. It is not an emotion. It is not etc. For Jasnah, god does not exist. Because that is the scientific method. You make a hypothesis. Fairies are little winged women. We attempt to find real physical proof. We cannot. So we research witness statements. We try to find corroboratory information. There is not. We can state "these people define fairy as a little woman with wings". We can come up with a generic word "supernatural" or "divine" to describe what they are referring to. But that does not mean that if the thing then is suddenly shown, that changes things. Ok let me put it this way. The definition of "divine" is "of, from, or like God". So if someone were to call something divine, then it depends on that person what god is to that person. If someone calls something "supernatural" then it is defined as a "force beyond scientific understanding or laws of nature". If fairy suddenly pops up that is a little winged woman, it ceases to be supernatural. We can then observe it. Test it. If those tests confirm every single thing that person's definition of fairy stated, then that still does not mean that a minute later, a day, a week, a month, a year later, that information or new technological advances could not occur to result in that definition being proven incorrect. The Almighty has a specific definition to Vorinism. And for thousands of years, it was accepted as such by the individuals that prescribed to Vorinism. Till one day it was no longer. Till one day that specific definition of that specific entity was shown to be inaccurate. Prior to that reveal, was the Almighty God? Just because at that time, the people who followed the Almighty did not know the definition was inaccurate, is the Almighty God? That is why I said prior, are we to say God is of the gaps? Anything we do not know is God? Till we know it, then God is further away? And it will continue and continue and continue till we know everything? But we cannot know everything. It is an impossibility. How do you definitively prove everything? Everything that has ever been and ever was? A theist would take that as a sign of god. Because for a theist, god does know everything and is all possible. For an atheist, it is not. The only conclusion the Atheist can make is god does not exist.

So here is the thing. This situation with Honorless is not isolated to this situation, nor is is isolated to me. Honorless has done this with other individuals. This is the fifth(?) time I believe regarding myself. Now it could be said, well that means its "me" and I am doing something wrong. But each time it has been over something different and unrelated to the subject. One of the reasons was because I bold for emphasis. Not capitalize mind you (which I believe is accepted widely on the internet as yelling). Bolding. So I explained why I bolded. That it was not intended as yelling or any other condescension. It was for calling attention to a point. A point that could be misconstrued or taken differently if that specific word or phrase was not read. I then stopped bolding, and highlighted instead. I changed my behavior, but did another behavior I hoped still accomplished the original intended goal but made Honorless happy. I do not say to whom so ever I speak to "You are dense. You lack reading comprehension to see what I wrote" (not saying I would say that, nor that I think that, nor that it is acceptable to say that, nor am I implying it makes other impolite ways of speaking polite by proxy. See? I am going to extra mile to clarify my statements to avoid offense). What I actually do is say "I think you misunderstood me. Let me take another tact. Or say it another way. Perhaps that will clarify". Again to me, I am going the extra mile to clarify my intentions. I did this in the bolding instance, as well (to me) in other instances. It has however reached a point for myself, that instead of wondering every time I post, if there will be an issue unrelated to what is being discussed that bothers Honorless, that Honorless would follow the site guild lines and if the systemic issue really does lie with me, then an impartial third party in the form of a moderator could step in, and the three of us discuss via PM what precisely is the issue for Honorless, and how we can go about resolving it. So for the fifth(?)(I put a question mark because I have not searched all my posts to locate specifically how many times this has occurred, so it is a rough estimate) time Honorless disregarded my statement, and told me to change what I said instead of replying to what I said, I thought I followed the forum's rules. I did not further engage. I did not attack. I did not troll. I requested Honorless follow forum guide lines by reporting my post, and involving a moderator to adjudicate. Rather than potentially derailing the topic via discussion over how my post came across.

Found the WoB. The problem is it involves the words shard and spren, and there are a whole lot of WoB with those two words in it. Turns out throwing the word "call" in there helped. Jasnah is responding to the discourse with Shallan. She is stating observations. The only assertion she has made in that entire quote is that she would not call the almighty god, nor worship it. Shallan is the one assuming assertions. Shallan states that Jasnah is so sure the Almighty is not real. Jasnah only responds that she has no more proof of any other religions being true. Shallan then asks if Jasnah thinks the heralds existed, and Jasnah says she does not know. That there is even some evidence that other entities could exist. Key word, could. To which Shallan asserts then that means they exist. Jasnah clarifies she never said they don't exist. She only asserted that the Almighty is not god to her and she would nor worship it. The Almighty as per Vorinism is proven to be false completely separate and having nothing to do with Jasnah. Dalinar is the one that proved Vorinism false. He is the one that asserted it so. He stated he was told by the Almighty in a vision that the Almighty is dead. The reality is a being called Honor. Rosharans would term the entity that is honor as a spren. A category that Jasnah already replied to in this exact quote. Not god to her. Vorins can continue to worship as they see fit. The Almighty is not god. Honor is not god. The Almighty and Honor can exist or not exist. Live or die, and that does not change her assertion that she is atheist and god does not exist. They are not god, so their existence or non-existence offers no commentary on her atheism. Questioner Speaking of the Stormfather, would the Nightwatcher and the giant water spren be on the same level of spren as the Stormfather? Brandon Sanderson ...The Nightwatcher, yes. Um... There are, I would say, a level below the Stormfather and the Nightwatcher who are also much-- a much bigger deal than something like one of the sapient spren, and that's what Cusicesh is. Questioner So the Nightwatcher is a spren you'd say? Brandon Sanderson The Nightwatcher-- I mean, they call the Nightwatcher a spren. Everyone in the books thinks the Nightwatcher is a spren. That's what they would call-- that's what they would call, if they knew what Honor was, they would call Honor a spren. A spren is Investiture that is alive. Bystander Nightblood? Brandon Sanderson So they would call Nightblood a spren. They would call-- That's the word for what all of these things are. They would probably've called Adonalsium a spren… Moderator What would Hoid call one of those? Brandon Sanderson What would Hoid call the Nightwatcher? *laughter* What would Hoid call one of what? Moderator Yeah what would Hoid call the Nightwatcher? Brandon Sanderson Um… *long pause/laughter* Moderator If Hoid were to use a non-proper noun? Brandon Sanderson Unpleasant names. *laughter* JordanCon 2016 (April 23, 2016) Thank you! Thank you! The only thing disproved was Vorin's definition of the Almighty.

As per brandon, will follow up with the WoB, rosharans would term the shards as spren. Nothing jasnah said in that quote is inaccurate.

She literally said she never stated it did not exist. Just that she does not consider it god. I quoted that two or three times now

This is potentially true and can be verified. This we do not know. Some will and have debated this. It is not the only criteria. It is some of the criteria for the Vorin Faith. Jasnah is responding to the Vorin faith. Not her own. Her offering commentary (when pressed) that disproves Vorinism does not mean she would worship a god that can provide morals. She is stating the Vorin god can exist without providing morals. She has no need of it. She at no point says Taravangian cannot worship such a being that to him is god. Just to her it is not. The existence of the Almighty is entirely subjective. There can always be a sliding scale. Proof this aspect of Vorinism wrong, and the devout can state god is not that, so god still exists. An Atheist asserts god does not exist. So the Almighty can require worship or not, it is still not god. At what point has Jasnah stated to anyone else, ever, that they are wrong to believe in what they believe in? At what point did she ever tell anyone they are wrong to believe the Almighty is their god? All she has stated is it is not her god. As she cannot have a god, because she believes god does not exist, so she cannot have something that does not exist To put it another way. If Jasnah were to define what god is, when god does not exist, then it would be asserting a truth that would invalidate other people's definition of god. It would be saying their definition is verifiably wrong, because her definition is right and if your definition is not her definition, then you are wrong. This cannot be true because her definition nor yours can be verifiably right. To which one would respond "then what was she doing with Taravangian?! She said his definition of god was wrong!". No she did not. She stated Taravangian's belief is not her own. You can not verify something that does not exist. You cannot prove a negative. So it would be distinctly odd thing for Jasnah as a scientist to define what she believes god is. She can based on Taravangian's belief structure say why what Taravangian believes in is not god to her, but that does not mean that what Taravangian's god is not, is the definition of god. As there cannot be a definition to that which she believes does not exist.

And I can find 100 other people and cultures with different definitions of fairy than you. What makes your definition correct? It does not exist, so we cannot compare. We cannot take your definition and put it side by side with what a fairy actually is, because it does not exist. So we cannot confirm that your definition is correct or accurate. edit: to expand on the example. Let us say you define fairy as a tiny woman with wings. Then a tiny woman with wings appears. You say "see! I was right! Right here is one!" Someone from Russia, or Africa, or the Artic will look at you and go "that's not a fairy!". They have a different definition of fairy, so regardless the existence of that "fairy" that you call a fairy, it is still not a fairy. Then let us say the tiny woman with wings is revealed to be the result of a holographic projection (the method or cause is immaterial, just the result) thus proving that thing you called a fairy is not a fairy. That did not suddenly make the Russian, or African, or Inuit right by you being wrong. That does not make their fairys exist any more or less than before. It could just as easily come to pass that their definition of fairy spontaneously appears validating their definition, and then that fairy is definitively proven to not be a fairy invalidating their definition. Just in that instance what your definition of that entity was inaccurate. You either revise that definition so in your mind it is accurate, till it is again potentially revealed to be inaccurate, or you assert fairies do not exist. There will always be a possibility that whatever definition you come up with for fairies will be wrong or disproved. That does not mean fairies exist. It just means that specific definition is proven wrong.

All I am asking you is to follow forum guidelines. If you take issue with what I say, report me as per the rules.