The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Mar 5, 2007 9:12:04 GMT -5
TC: What you said in your post was, indeed, very harsh. It was not clear that it was 'just your opinion' even less so than Requisite's was clear it was 'just his opinion'. You took a very, very hard line. I do not know what he sent you in PM, but that should be handled in PM NOT in open forum. You do not have to debate the topic if you are not so inclined. Oh, and Requisite did not move this thread nor request it be moved. The moderators moved it in response to YOUR inquiry about the legitimacy of Magick as a topic for discussion.
We would all be wise to watch our phrasing. Debate and Discussion is rough enough without this kind of phrase-war.
Requisite: I will modify this post to respond to a few of your comments when I have a moment or two longer. I am not ignoring it.
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
Requisite
New Member
Of the Unnamed Disciple
Posts: 48
|
Circles
Mar 5, 2007 12:06:48 GMT -5
Post by Requisite on Mar 5, 2007 12:06:48 GMT -5
DA: Thank you very much for your kindness, and for your future responses.
TC: I'd like to say that, first of all, kindness can easily be exchanged on the Debate forum. Though people may disagree, I believe that we should always show kindness and respect to other members. There is no reason why we cannot debate AND remain civil.
Note from Lady Hawke: The content of the PMs was not relevent to the discussion at hand. If there are further issues they should be addressed through PM or directly to staff.
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Circles
Mar 5, 2007 14:25:56 GMT -5
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Mar 5, 2007 14:25:56 GMT -5
Requisite: He does not have to participate if he does not choose to.
As for circles. I have scanned several, though mostly ones you have identified to me as such, and there seems to be a linguistic ambiguity. That is the things you pointed out to me as 'circles' were not all the same thing. Yours was purely psionic. There was no bleed over from any other discipline. It had similar structure to what you describe in the 'blended' but had more force behind it. It was still weaker than a well constructed shield. It seemed similar to a much deeper 'bubble' shield. The 'blended' ones had more energy invested in them, but were actually, structurally less durable than the psionic, and if my preliminary scans were any indication they would be easier to bypass.
The commonality was the general broad-spectrum protection they gave (however weak that protection was.) They protected on a wide variety of 'levels' empathic, telepathic, and astral just to name a few. If the purely psionic version could be re-configured to have more internal structural integrity it might be useful.
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
Requisite
New Member
Of the Unnamed Disciple
Posts: 48
|
Circles
Mar 5, 2007 16:35:22 GMT -5
Post by Requisite on Mar 5, 2007 16:35:22 GMT -5
Ahhhh, alright, thank you DA for the information.
I take it that there are no others interested in posting?
|
|
|
Post by wolfdancer on Mar 6, 2007 0:01:09 GMT -5
Oh, I'm following very closely. I just haven't had anything terribly useful to add. DA has summed up my impressions of the general effectiveness of the shields, though my impression was based purely on what I was picking up through conversation and not multiple scans and types of shields. (I hope that didn't confuse anyone).
|
|
Requisite
New Member
Of the Unnamed Disciple
Posts: 48
|
Circles
Mar 6, 2007 10:59:37 GMT -5
Post by Requisite on Mar 6, 2007 10:59:37 GMT -5
*nod* No confusion here. Alright, thank you.
Namasate
|
|