Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Arjan

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 238
76
Harry's had so many people wandering around in his head he needs a traffic cop to keep order. It's overused and Butcher needs to give it a rest. But currently he seems not to be disposed that way.
It is a consequence of his world building and how Harry blunders around everything. As soon as you give part of yourself spiritual mass and agency it can potentially split of and become something else.

77
DF Spoilers / Re: Battle Ground foreshadowing
« on: April 09, 2022, 02:39:12 PM »
Chichen Itza when the stars are right most likely. The stone table for sure.

78
DF Spoilers / Re: Are Soul gazes inherently subjective?
« on: April 09, 2022, 05:55:33 AM »
Also you don’t want to soul gaze too many warlocks. It can be bad for your mental health.

79
DF Spoilers / Re: Are Soul gazes inherently subjective?
« on: April 08, 2022, 09:27:35 AM »
Very very little "hard objective" data... like, is this person a Whampire, or not?  Yeah, you can get that as objective data (and such data can be important (e.g. may have saved Ramirez's life)).

But don't discount the idea that you can still get a very great deal of very "good hard objective data" from a 'gaze!

Repeating elements of the Dresden Files include that the "facts" (the "hard data") don't always tell the whole story; and that "objectivity" is more often a fools' errand than not.

  I think the White Council relies (much!) too heavily on the results of a Soulgaze.  But I think calling them "worthless" is even further off-base.  They are the single most penetrating way to look into who a person is, down deep.  And AFAIK we see no signs that a 'gaze can be substantively defeated, or defended-against (other than refusing to engage).
 I seem to remember (unless I mis-remember?) that Warden SOP is to get at least 3 'gazes on someone who's on trial.  That right there would go a long way toward circumventing any DuMornes who would subvert the system that way (if I am misremembering, then clearly they should do it!):  if the Warden corps are so corrupt that 3 random individual Wardens can reliably be presumed to deliver any pre-determined testimony you want, then it's game-over and the Bad Guys have already won.
They only do a soul gaze when they think it necessary and they easily execute you without a trial if they are convinced enough you should die. Remember Molly's trial. Harry did a soul gaze but nobody else did and if it was left to the merlin she would have been executed without a trial which was clearly a waste of time and effort.

I am quite sure lots of warlocks are executed without trial or soul gaze, that is the impression I get. Partly because if they have any idea they will fight to the death anyway, partly because they are dangerous enough not to take the risk and partly because the wardens have serious manpower issues.

No doubt the council has an important task and we would be worse off without it but there are serious problems as well. The story would be too simple without them.

80
Remember Tessa in small favor? She got a killing blow but just fell apart in many insects and they recombined again. Something like that would work.

81
DF Spoilers / Re: Are Soul gazes inherently subjective?
« on: March 30, 2022, 08:05:23 AM »
Apparently a lot as far as the White Council is concerned.. Let's not forget that a Warden is required to do a soul gaze on a defendant, then give testimony about what he or she saw in a trail that could cost the defendant his or her head.  Also the Merlin, in Proven Guilty told Harry that he, himself soul gazed the Korean Kid and that he was not redeemable, thus deserved the chop.
But that is double subjectivity. First there is the soul gaze itself and then there is the merlin communicating it. Maybe the Korean boy could have been saved.

82
DF Spoilers / Re: Are Soul gazes inherently subjective?
« on: March 28, 2022, 07:49:22 PM »
Yes, but given the inherent subjectivity… how much good hard objective data really comes from a “soulgaze”?
Nothing that can be measured, published and gets you a Phd in science😊

83
DF Spoilers / Re: Are Soul gazes inherently subjective?
« on: March 28, 2022, 08:25:34 AM »
Of course they are subjective. That does not meat it is false.

84
The Bar / Re: Weird? Pretty much.
« on: March 17, 2022, 01:40:19 PM »
I did a course on learning and communicating at university and watching yourself on video and then discussing it with the other students was obviously very useful but not something I like to repeat.

85
The Bar / Re: Weird? Pretty much.
« on: March 05, 2022, 08:24:57 PM »
Corona. I have visited the office only four or five times since it began. It is only 16km from home so I usually take my bike. There is a bus connection but that does not save me time.

86
DF Spoilers / Re: Question of the day.
« on: February 15, 2022, 07:10:17 PM »
I have four cats and each considers themselves to be the White God.
That is normal. Cats have a totally different attitude to religion.

87
DF Spoilers / Re: Question of the day.
« on: February 15, 2022, 03:03:08 PM »
What?  That Mister is not a Malk but a kick ass vanilla tom cat?  What's wrong with that? Talk about heresy! :o
MSTR is fully cat and fully white god. That is the mystery of the holy duality. No room for a malk.

88
DF Spoilers / Re: Question of the day.
« on: February 15, 2022, 09:34:54 AM »
Mister most likely just a huge old cat, I doubt that he has any maulk in him.. That could be resolved with a DNA test I suppose, but would it show up?
Heresy!

89
DF Spoilers / Re: Question of the day.
« on: February 13, 2022, 06:04:51 AM »
Fix was a mortal  until he chose.  And I didn't say Eb didn't gaze him. But the statement is ambiguous. I would also point out that Margaret had a baby with Raith. And just as obviously she didn't share that with Eb. If Butcher is to be believed she was under a death sentence from the Council and running.  Eb's knowledge would appear suspect.  Which isn't to say you are wrong.

@Conspiracy Theorist

According to the Demon that Harry deals with in the early books she was on her way to Hell.  But found redemption. She had a baby with Raith. She threw Thomas under the bus. And managed to find the time to find Malcolm, cuddle up, and make a baby all while on the run from both the Council and a curse. She had had broken the first law.  A women of many talents.
We got some facts about Margaret but the chronology is unclear and we might get a completely different spin later. We don’t know when she broke the first law and when the council discovered that, it could have been relatively late.

I don’t know about throwing Thomas under the bus. He was a white court vampire and taking him with her would have been disastrous. She probably did what she thought best for him.

90
DF Spoilers / Re: Harry should have trusted Ramirez
« on: February 09, 2022, 03:05:24 AM »
She doesn't have to do that, as long as Harry or anyone else directly touches the coin, it can be locked away in a cell in maximum security on Demonreach.  I don't think binding of any kind is needed.  However having said that, more information is needed as to how the coins that were sent to the Vatican got back in circulation again.
IMDb not think that is a big mystery. Somebody got corrupted.
Quote
Only if she was pulling a double cross of come kind, she cannot use it to bargain with, the last thing she wants is for Namshiel to be loose on the world once again.
She knows the coin will get into circulation sooner or later, that is how they work. Also I suspect there are certain rules and understandings about the interaction between heaven/hell and the Sidhe and in if Namshiel himself (not his host) oversteps those Mab will have more options.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 238