Scythe Matters

[nerd4hire]

So there are no spells like the spells of Buffy in Wiccan religion? What the heck are we arguing about then?

In the Buffyverse we have these things called conduits, and the scythe can be one, because energy flows through a Buffyverse conduit. Energy can flow through the scythe.

This thread is going to be reaching it's post limit, and it will be closed soon. I'll open another where we can begin discussing dark energies. In the meantime we can play some more till then.

*

If someone presents himself as an expert, but refuses to present support, don't you suspect he might be a bit of a dilettante?

The light bulb is the conduit. That's what the magic expert said. Doesn't a light bulb have internal catalytic energy once you turn it on, and independent function beyond it's use as a conduit?

In a previous post you presented us your 2 laws of Buffyverse conduits. It was presented in a tone like Moses bringing down the tablets from the mount, so I'm going to assume you were serious. In it you proclaimed there were only 2 types of Buffyverse conduits. That was before I presented the transmogrification conduit of Shadow, but I'm going to assume it's still the case there are only 2 types of conduit. This means the rules applying to the Get It Done conduit have to apply to the transmogrification conduit, correct, because neither are communication conduits?

Crystals have many functions in the Buffyverse. They can be used in charm bag, money spells, for cleansing auras, inducing a hypnotic state, or memory spells. They can glow with internal energy, independent of the witch as the crystal in Tabula Rasa does. This crystal does not require the witch's continous attention to function. It can function independently. How does that make Crystal a neutral element.

If BTVS always agrees with your interpretation of Wicca, why is there no identifiable catalyst in the Get It Done spell. If it is a mistake, why must we believe it's Mutant Enemy that made it. Why couldn't the mistake be in your interpretation? Also if you say the catalyst omission is a mistake, but the rest of the spell agrees with your religion, aren't you just picking and choosing the bits of the text you want to believe in. In other words aren't you re-interpreting the facts to say what you want them to? Doesn't this mean the text doesn't so much agree with you, as you interpret it to believe with you

Let me double-check if I've got this right. Willow is a conduit, but she's not a conduit?

 

[The Arcane]

Willow and Anya discuss the basics of what a spell requires. During that discussion two terms are used. One is a conduit, the other is a catalyst.

I have already, on numerous occasions in this thread, shown you why those two terms cannot refer to the exact same object. However, because the text was spoken in a slightly ambiguous way, you are choosing to ignore my information and interpret it in such a way that works to your overall theory on the scythe.

I'm not an expert on witchcraft or wiccan belief. I never claimed to be. I have a fair amount of knowledge in the area and i chose to follow it as a faith system for a number of years. That is all. That doesn't make me an expert and i dare say i wouldn't stand a chance of debating the subject with somebody that had studied the topic properly.

However, i don't need to be an expert to understand what Willow and Anya were saying. It's nothing remotely difficult to understand. It certainly doesn't take a lifelong wicca to tell you that a catalyst is one thing whilst a conduit is another. But again, i've already done that and you have refuted me. Fine.

The Buffyverse writers have always taken magicks to the extremes of their imaginations on Buffy and Angel. They have shown Willow and the other spellcasters doing things that are totally out of the realms of anything possible in real life. Hell, even a locater spell or floating a pencil is pushing reality to extremes (although i am aware of some very basic real life examples of that kind of thing, if i'm honest).

Generally though, what you see happen through the use of magicks on Buffy and Angel is fantasy. The spells themselves are not real. The laws of witchcraft however are very real and no matter how far the writers stretched the possibilities they never altered the basics. Why then, all of a sudden and for no good reason, would they suddenly screw that up for a brief conversation in Get it Done? Why after nearly seven years would they choose to stuff the basics and say something so ludicrous such as that a single object could be both catalyst and conduit when the properties required of each item contradict one another?

Anya could have been written as saying anything at all in that conversation and the majority of fans wouldn't have known the difference. She could have said "We are going to need a catalytic conduit funk wand and floating wish bowl" and most viewers would have accepted it. However the writer chose to stick to terms that were accurate and used in real life wiccan spellcasting. Does it make sense to you that he would then go ahead and ignore what those terms meant?

As for the lack of a visible catalyst in the spell, whether or not the prop was forgotten or just not shown to us makes no difference to my point that a single object cannot act as catalyst and conduit in the sense you continue to to suggest. Did they forget to provide a prop? Was it ther but not actually referred to? Did Willow change her mind unknown to everybody else and do the spell without one? Who knows? All i can tell you is that if the dialogue between Anya and Willow is to be taken seriously at all then you need to realise that Anya spoke of two objects and not one.

You call it vanity for suggesting that my interpretation is correct when all i've done is continuously point out that which i know to be true. Don't you think that ignoring that information simply because you yourself don't fully understand it (and please don't claim you do because the very fact you continue to argue this point makes it clear you don't) is equally vain and ultimately makes your theory, however it turns out, a little empty?

Oh and in regard to your final question, Willow is a "conduit" in the sense that power passes through her. She is not, however, a mystical item designed for the exact purpose of channeling and directing magickal energy, which has the official designation of conduit. Anya is talking about the need for the specific item because every single spell ever cast uses the spellcaster as a "conduit" one way or another. If that was all Anya meant then why even mention the fact it was needed at all?

 

[nerd4hire]

Really, I did not know you were not an expert. I could have sworn you were telling me you were. So really, we are just two people with opinions, right. I am comfortable with that.

I have been doing a little research since I talked to you last. I hit the library first, then went to the book store, then wandered over to this occult book store across the street. I must have checked the index in at least 30 books on Wicca, paganism, druidry, witchcraft, spells, elementalism, and even Crowleyism.

Oh speaking of Crowleyism, here is an interesting little piece of OT info. It appears the term magick with the ck is not actually a Wicca term, it is a term Aleister coined to make a connection with the more traditional magic studies of the Magi.

Oh, but anyway back to those indexes. Now if someone tells me Resurrection is a basic law of Christianity, I know I can go check out the term ressurection in pretty much any serious book on Christianity, and I will find references to that term. This does not work with Wicca, and conduit neutrality. In fact I cannot even find anything on basic conduits in the indexes of Wicca books. I am sorry, but at this time I do not believe the neutrality of conduits is a basic law of Wicca or any form of magic I have seen so far. If you can produce superior references to what I have seen so far though, I will be willing to consider the possibility. I seriously doubt I am going to see anything though.

I have heard obscure references to Wiccan conduits on the internet however, although nothing so far as to their neutrality. At this time all I have been able to find on Wiccan conduits suggests to me they are generally used for some sort of communication, or meditation.

However, you tell me the communication conduits of the Buffyverse are not relevant to the use of a conduit to transfer energy in the way Willow and Glory do. So what we have left as far as I can see are meditation conduits. Is this what you are basing your theory of conduit neutrality in magic spells on, because no offense, but that would be silly.

Now as far as whether or not a catalyst and a conduit can exist in the same object, the only evidence I have been able to find so far suggests maybe they can. Again I offer up the model of the light bulb - something we both agreed was viable.

Luckily I do have access to a genuine, verifiable expert on light bulbs. Killer Dwarf is an electrician, also a science buff. So just tell me if you want me to, and I will contact him.

Until then I will tell you the way I see it. You tell me the way you see it, and we will see who comes closest.

First of all I hasten to point out once more a light bulb has function independent of its function as a conduit something you told me a magic conduit could not do.

Now, if I remember my high school science correctly it goes something like this.

Power enters the light bulb in the form of electricity. The electricity hits the filament within the bulb. (I believe it may be tungsten) The molecules are stimulated. Would this not be catalytic activity.

OK, so the molecules are stimulated, they fly off into the vacuum of the bulb becoming steadily more agitated. Heat is produced, also light.

You know what, as I read that, I think I may be less than a hundred per cent correct. I am going to contact KD, and do a little Googling. I do think I am close though. Give me your thoughts.

The Buffyverse appears to be more flexible when it comes to the generalized way it speaks of conduits. Something like a crystal can be a conduit. A crystal can have multiple internal functions, store its own energy, and transfer it, as the crystal does in tabula Rasa does, as well as the multi-funtioned crystals Giles speaks of in Helpless. Unlike the term transmogrification conduit, the term transmogrification crystal appears to refer to something beyond its designation. My interpretation is it is speaking of its internal self-perpetuating function upon stimulation. Your interpretation is no doubt different. Thats OK multiple interpretations should not be a problem. Joss does not appear to have a problem with them (eg. The snow in Amends - Christian or Atheist interpretation, does not matter to him).

One thing I continue to be mystified by, if Willow can be referred to as a conduit, and you believe she can do everything I suggest the scythe as conduit can do, what is the problem. Is it not just two different interpretations of the same event. You say Willow can be a conduit-catalyst container directing energy. I say the Scythe spell scene in Chosen can also be interpreted with the scythe doing the same thing.

In fact after having done the research I am going to make a bold statement. I am going to say there is nothing in Wicca, the Buffyverse, or common sense saying that cannot be the case.

Edit

Hey I just thought of another possible model. What I am proposing with the scythe is a kind of conduit chain. Think of a flame thrower. Gas passes through a conduit where a catalyst (spark) is applied. The Gas is turned into flame, producing heat as it exits.

 

[nerd4hire]

Actually here is how a light bulb works:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/light-bulb.htm

I am going to need an expert to interpret this for me. I am not 100% sure if my idea catalytic activity is happening within the light bulb is accurate or not.

Hang on though. I will work on it. 🙂

There is a lot of stuff happening within the bulb other than what can be explained by a simple conduit though. It is an object that can do conduit stuff, and other stuff as well. Its use as a conduit however allows it to be referred to as such.

 

[The Arcane]

I was just about to start typing out yet another long reply to your previous post, looking at all the ways that you have again chosen to miss my points when one paragraph that you typed yourself hit me as summing everything up very nicely.

One thing I continue to be mystified by, if Willow can be referred to as a conduit, and you believe she can do everything I suggest the scythe as conduit can do, what is the problem. Is it not just two different interpretations of the same event. You say Willow can be a conduit-catalyst container directing energy. I say the Scythe spell scene in Chosen can also be interpreted with the scythe doing the same thing.

The problem we are having is that you have continued to try and connect what Anya said in Get it Done in reference to one type of conduit to the comments i have made about Willow acting as another kind of conduit. You keep maintaining that the difference is irrelevant when it is not.

Now, if you want to refer to the scythe as a conduit in it's most basic sense, that being something that power can pass through in the same way it does the spellcaster, then that is fine by me. The word conduit is not tied to magick anymore than the word catalyst is and has a much broader meaning than the one i'm talking about.

However, Anya was talking about a specific type of conduit and, regardless of what you have been able to find out for yourself, it was always made very plain to me that a conduit object for use in a spell needs to be of strength but hold no power of it's own. What Anya and Willow discussed is a specific thing with it's own defined properties.

I've said before that you are looking too hard to connect the dots of season seven and in doing so you are seeing connections where none exist. If you want to hold to the theory that Willow used the scythe to channel slayer power then that is fine, in most ways we agree on that. However if you continue to try and connect that to a totally seperate and ultimately irrelevant conversation in another episode then you are making leaps of faith that leave holes in any final theory you come up with.

Ultimately i stand behind what i was taught and that makes it clear to me that the conversation Willow and Anya had in Get it Done cannot be connected to the spell in Chosen. More to the point i see absolutely no reason why you need it to do so in the first place. As i have previously explained, your theory works equally as well without confusing it by connecting totally seperate text from another episode of the show. Whilst i'd be the first to admit that much of what we hear and see on Buffy and Angel is relatable to future or past events, there is just as much dialogue written that has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than the conversation at hand. Everything i know tells me that this is the case here and that trying to connect Anya's comments about a conduit in Get it Done to the properties of the scythe seen in Chosen is a waste of time because there is simply no real reason to do so.

As for references to support my claims, you are correct in that you aren't going to see any. I was willing to have a quick Google and see if i could find a link or two to back up what i'm saying but i came up with very little. The thing is though that i didn't learn what i know from the internet and my awareness of online wiccan resources is slim at best.

AS for going out and looking around bookstores and libraries to research what i'm saying, well frankly i'm pleased that you have the time for that but i really do not. I barely have time to post here, let alone go out of my way to back up what i'm saying. When it comes to resources i know, say relating to Buffy information for example, then i'm more than willing to stick a link in a post to point out the source of my info but i'm certainly not going to spend time that i don't have trying to support something i already know to be true.

So it comes down to this. As i've said further up the thread, i have no interest in proving myself to you and i have no interest in derailing your theory for the sake of it. Basically, when i post something here i do so because i want to help, as was my intention with you. In response i'm basically being called a liar until i prove something to you. Truthfully i'm not used to having my word doubted and certainly not to the extent that somebody goes to a library to try and prove me wrong. However, if your theory is so important to you that you would rather believe that i'm making all this up to annoy you then why even bother dealing with me? Simply ignore my claims and move on.

I'm not going to spend any time searching for facts i already know to be true because it isn't going to serve any real purpose in my life. You either take my word that i'm telling you the truth or you don't. I frankly don't really care anymore.

 

[The Arcane]

Oh, and as far as all the time and effort you have put in to trying to prove your lightbulb thing, that has completely stunned me! A guy at a wiccan website attempts to make something slightly easier to visualize to a non-wiccan and you take that analogy (that he likely didn't mean to be held up to any real scrutinization in the first place) and dissect it to a point where you need to ask an actual electrician about the properties of the lightbulb?!?!?

Seriously, N4H, the guy used a quick description that works to help somebody get the point of a conduit. I seriously doubt that he really wanted that description taken to the electricity board to be proven correct.

This is where you need to back away from things a little bit. You seem obsessed with trying to connect dots that aren't there and make every single word used in Buffy (not to mention random websites you find) mean things that they don't mean just so you can make the entire show one big connected whole.

Connections do exist in the Buffyverse, we all know this, but sometimes a conversation is just a conversation and holds no real meaning to the greater whole. When it comes to the point where you are going to libraries to prove a theory at a posting board i think you need to back away a little and breath.

 

[nerd4hire]

But, you previously agreed the light bulb could be used as a model.

A basic thing about a light bulb is stuff happens in there independent of its possible use as a conduit.

And hey, as far as finding support for my arguement when someone tells me only his interpretation matters goes, all I can say is, friend you aint seen nothing yet. 🙂 You should see me argue with Jehovah Witnesses. I have had them return to my doorstep the following week with their experts to find me waiting with printed information, and books with assorted bookmarks in my two hands. I had one girl in tears one time, and the last time I saw her expert he was backing away from the steps threatening to do some very unchristian stuff upon my person. I translated that into àˆ so you know you are wrong then, and you know it. àˆ. I got a good chuckle out of that.

Speaking of Wicca...

I found some really interesting stuff at Wikipedia. It turns out Wicca under that term is relatively new. It was proposed by some guy named Gerald Gardner in 1954.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca

What he did as near as I can figure is he took a lot of stuff he had read, or discovered verbally from different sources, and put them all together to create a basic field of knowledge.

Wicca as it is practiced today is quite eclectic. There are many different schools of thought on it. Here are few.

* Alexandrian Wicca
* Blue Star Wicca
* Celtic Wicca
* Christian Wicca
* Correllian Nativist Church (Correllian Wicca)
* Dianic or Feminist Wicca
* Eclectic Wicca
* Faery Wicca
* Feri Tradition
* Gardnerian Wicca
* Kemetic Wicca
* Odyssean Wicca
* Pagans for Peace Tradition
* Seax-Wica
* Shakti Wicca
* Stregheria
* Universal Eclectic Wicca

It has many interpretations.

Quote

Many Dianic Wiccans taught that witchcraft was every woman's right and heritage to claim. This heritage might be best characterized by Monique Wittig words on the subject: "But remember. Make an effort to remember. Or, failing that, invent."

As far as basic laws go, even those are subject to interpretation. Some Wicca believe in a Mother Goddess, others believe in dualism, with the Mother Goddess, and a horned male god. Still other believe in polytheism with a Celtic Pantheon of multiple gods.

Quote

There is some difficulty in describing beliefs and practices because of the fact that there is a great deal of diversity within the religion: between individuals and between traditions. It is commonly understood that most Wiccans worship two deities: the Goddess and the God (sometimes known as the Horned God). Some traditions, such as the Dianic Wiccans, mainly worship the Goddess. In those traditions, the God plays either no role, or a diminished role. Many Gardnerian Wiccans do not claim to be dualist. They may practice some form of polytheism, often with particular reference to the Celtic pantheons. They may also be animists, pantheists, or indeed anywhere within the broad spectrum of Neopagan forms of worship.

I can still find nothing suggesting the neutrality of a conduit is basic to any Wicca sect however, although I would not be surprised to discover some obscure book somewhere mentions it. Again, I would really like to see it.

One concept that does seem to be well known in all of Wicca however is the idea of a magic circle.

I find that one interesting.


Quote

After the circle has been cast it is believed that if forms a "cone of power"; which starts on the ground as the circle shape and extends upwards to make a point, thus creating a cone shape (this is also where the shape for a "witches' hat" comes from). When magic is done being performed, the energy is then released through this point to enter the universe and serve its purpose.

This circle is also believed to be an area which straddles two dimensions or realities. It becomes a sacred space between the mudane world and the otherside. Also known as the "veil between worlds".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_circle_(Wicca)

Damn. I forgot to copy it down the bit about the sand, but the way it looks the sand in the Get It Done spell is actually just a barrier. It is the circle itself that can be seen as the conduit, although I could find no mention of the term conduit.

I do not know what the catalyst would be. My best guess would be it is the practioner inside the conduit cone. He or she is the spark.

This makes sense to me in reference to the Get It Done spell. By my interpretation, Anya tells Willow you need a catalyst-conduit - something to spark the energy, and something to move it. Willow, who has up until this point been reluctant to mess with magic, has a Eureka moment, and sees how she can use the concept of catalyst-conduit to create the spell needed to create the portal using the circle as conduit with herself inside the cone as catalyst.

With the scythe I am postulating a conduit-catalyst chain. Again I have as yet seen nothing in Wicca, or the Buffyverse to convince me this is not possible. To say it is not possible is a spurious arguement. It may sound good at first, if said with enough authority, and unsupported details which turn out not to be accurate, but all I have to do is keep pulling back the screen, and producing the facts to show there is more than one possible interpretation of what may be happening with the scythe.

 

[The Arcane]

Oh, where to begin ...

I'm actually quite loathe to even bother because it seems the more i try to simplify this issue for you the more you keep throwing in new details and information that takes us further and further away from the original point. Couple that with the fact that i think your original point was sort of pointless and you have me questioning exactly what i'm doing still posting in this thread.

You know what? If you go to enough places and use enough examples you can confuse and obscure any issue. Politicians do that every day with even the most simple of topics, throwing out words and numbers to get around actually dealing with the issue that they are there to discuss. Most of what you posted above was known to me, some details better than others, but i still wouldn't have brought any of it into this debate.

Why not? Because it is all meaningless to what i'm saying.

I agreed that the lightbulb idea made for a decent basic analogy when stretched a little but i never claimed that it was an exact description of what an item used as conduit does in magickal terms. It was a good visualisation, thats about it. I even agreed way back in the early pages of this thread that Willow could be described as a conduit in terms of what we see in Chosen in order to help make the issue workable to a certain degree. I've offered any number of alternate options where you could adapt your idea about the scythe around the terms of the text just so that you could avoid basing your idea on something that doesn't make sense.

And what has your response been, time and time again? To bring in more and more complications and barely related issues that don't actually relate to what i'm saying but instead confuse the issue just enough to make your idea a little more plausible.

All the above examples of terminology are open to debate when taking the various branches of wiccan beliefs into account. There are countless debates we could get into regarding countless issues but none have much to do with this threads subject.

I'm not going to even consider complicating this any further because nothing i say is going to change your mind. That goes without saying. If i do continue all i can expect is another post filled with yet more complications to the issue as a way to show that you can say whatever you want about the scythe.

Well, you know what? You can. You can call the scythe a toaster if you want and create a theory that the First wanted it to help make his breakfast in the morning because it won't matter. Go ahead with your idea and theorize all you want on whatever lines of text you desire because it won't make the slightest bit of difference to the fact i know you are incorrect.

But, for the sake of anyone else reading this thread who actually does want to understand properly, Anya never says anything at all about needing a "catalyst-conduit". The conversation goes ...

WILLOW
Magick works off physics.
ANYA
Not without a catalyst. If you're talking about transferring energies, you need some kind of conduit.
WILLOW
Like a Kraken's tooth...

It occurs to me that there is probably nobody actually reading this thread anyway outside of N4H and myself and he has already convinced himself of exactly what he needs to make this scythe idea of his work but i just wanted to clarify one more time that Anya was talking about two objects, not one. I'd hate for anyone else to become so delusional and actually think that this theory makes any sense! 😉

 

[nerd4hire]

you have me questioning exactly what i'm doing still posting in this thread.

Me too. Have you not swore you were leaving this thread twice already, only to return. 😀

And you are accusing me of confusing the issue. That is rich. First of all that is a pretty creative quote you have up there. That is not what the actual quote says at all. You have grabbed one bit from an earlier quote, and posted it in with a later one, to make it seem like a single quote. That is fanfic style quoting, if you ask me.

Now as far as going off the central idea of the thread with nit picks is concerned, who introduced this whole goofy idea of the writers having to remain true to the rules of Wicca as you see them, before they can create their fictional universe. I know it was not me. You introduced it. I am saying your interpretation of what you call a basic law of Wicca is innaccurate. Deal with it, or do not. It is no big never-mind to me.

 

[The Arcane]

Me too. Have you not swore you were leaving this thread twice already, only to return. 😀

Yeah, more fool me. Certainly won't be repeating that mistake.

And you are accusing me of confusing the issue. That is rich. First of all that is a pretty creative quote you have up there. That is not what the actual quote says at all. You have grabbed one bit from an earlier quote, and posted it in with a later one, to make it seem like a single quote. That is fanfic style quoting, if you ask me.

Erm, that "pretty creative" quote is direct from the script of the show. Admittedly only a part of the conversation but in no way altered from what was stated. Anyone who wants to find a transcript of this episode can see that for themselves. It does beg the question of how you can be so sure of your point of view when you don't recognise the text we have been debating ...

Now as far as going off the central idea of the thread with nit picks is concerned, who introduced this whole goofy idea of the writers having to remain true to the rules of Wicca as you see them, before they can create their fictional universe. I know it was not me. You introduced it. I am saying your interpretation of what you call a basic law of Wicca is innaccurate. Deal with it, or do not. It is no big never-mind to me.

I pointed out to you an error you were making and mentioned that the writers had always tried to maintain a basic level of consistency when dealing with real life magickal terminology then offered you several ways in which your theory could work regardless of the mistake you were (correction ... are) making. You then proceeded to bring in all manner of examples and irrelevant issues to prove your point which in fact has only served to make the actual issue even less clear, which i'm certain was your intent. Well done with that.

Anyway, in relation to the first sentence of my final reply in this thread ... i'm done! 🙂

 

[nerd4hire]

Yes, you are correct your quote is accurate. I apologize. I was zooming through, and read it wrong. Thanks for catching me.

You see how easy it is to admit a mistake. 🙂

In fact we should see that quote again -

Quote

WILLOW
Magic works off physics.
ANYA
Not without a catalyst. If you're talking about transferring energies, you need some kind of conduit.
WILLOW
Like a Kraken's tooth...

OK, so if I understand your interpretation correctly you are saying, because magic works of physics Anya could not be suggesting a conduit, and a catalyst could exist in the same object.

We should consider that for a sec. Do physical laws allow for catalytic activity to exist within a conduit. We could go back to the light bulb. We could discuss flame throwers. I could tell you about this friend of mine who had pipe with wire woven into to it, so he could introduce electric current, and unfreeze ice within in the winter.

Or we could avoid physical laws and go back to the buffyverse, to discuss whether or not we see catalytic activity in the Tabula Rasa crystal. Remember there is a transmogrification conduit made of crystal.

Now one thing I remain convinced is an error is this idea you have the neutrality of conduits is a basic law of Wicca, and even if it is how would you explain the use of crystal in a conduit. The existence of stored energy, and independent function in crystal, does seem to be a basic law of most magic disciplines. I know it does appear to be a rule of the Buffyverse. I have yet to see any proof a conduit must remain neutral, and have offered you multiple instances of support suggesting you are in error.

If you are mistaken do me the courtesy I did you, and admit it. If not show me proof.

 

[The Arcane]

You know, i really do have to learn not to bite, but what the hell ...

This is another prime example of nerd4hire's desire to have every single word uttered in Buffy and Angel mean something significant. I've been trying to point out how he is mistaking the grammar and structure of a couple of sentences spoken by pointing out the sentences used before and after and now we are somehow getting hooked on the word "physics" ... huh?

I haven't suggested that the word physics has anything whatsoever to do with my argument. I simply used that sentence first to try and show you how Anya could be answering one thing with one reply then go on to another.

I'll try it again ...

Dawn asks a broad question as to how a witch would go about carrying out a spell to retrieve Buffy ...

DAWN
Willow, how would you get Buffy back?
WILLOW
That's what I'm saying - I don't even know.
DAWN
OK, but if another witch was to do it, where would she start?

Willow replys with some basic principles of magick spells to which Anya responds that she is missing some details ... by the way, note what i highlight here ...

WILLOW
Uh, physics, principles, basic laws...
DAWN
Such as?
WILLOW
Uh, conservation of energies. You can't really create or destroy anything, only
transfer.
Anya scoffs.
DAWN
I'm sorry, are you helping?
ANYA
No, but at least I'm not galloping off in the wrong direction.

Willow now mentions that magick works off physics to which Anya responds that you also need a catalyst (some form of magickal power) to create the reaction. Anya then adds the need for a conduit to which Willow responds by suggesting a possible object ...

WILLOW
Magic works off physics.
ANYA
Not without a catalyst. If you're talking about transferring energies, you need
some kind of conduit.
WILLOW
Like a-a Kraken's tooth.

The conversation goes on but that is where the relevance ends.

Two statements and responses are made. The first is "Magic works off physics. Not without a catalyst", the second is "If you're talking about transferring energies, you need some kind of conduit. Like a-a Kraken's tooth.". These two statements and responses are said one after another but are still seperate details of the spell.

So frankly i never once suggested that Willow's use of the word "physics" had any bearing on this topic. Nor did i drag in all the other superfluous detail you have included in this matter.

I told you that Willow and Anya were discussing basic laws. I told you that Anya was discussin two seperate items and i told you why that was clear to me.

Honestly, you have yet to offer me a single instance where you have proved me wrong. You have offered me numerous and varied examples of the fact you don't know what you are talking about. The conduit used in Shadow, the being in the White Room, not to mention your idea for the scythe. None of these examples relate to what you are trying to prove for your idea. Some are totally different things, others are exactly what i've previously described.

I'm more than happy to admit when i'm wrong. In fact i admitted in this very thread when you pointed out to me that i was mistaken about the First actively desiring to become solid. In this matter however i'm not wrong. It is your good self that cannot see the wood for the trees in this matter.

And as if to prove my point ...

Or we could avoid physical laws and go back to the buffyverse, to discuss whether or not we see catalytic activity in the Tabula Rasa crystal. Remember there is a transmogrification conduit made of crystal.

What? Who? Where? For a start, what transmogrification crystal? Transmogrification is the act of turning one living thing into another. When did that happen in Tabula Rasa? The only crystal seen in that episode was the one Willow used to contain the spell. When the crystal was broken the spell was ended. There is no conduit involved here at all. Again with the throwing about of irrelevant information.

If it is the presence of the crystal that is making this an issue for you then again i'd have to point out that you are trying to make sense of a subject you don't know enough about. Are you thinking that because i said crystals can be used as conduits then that is all they can be used for? Nothing of the sort.

The very nature of crystals allows them to be used for a variety of purposes depending upon their structures or strength. Certain crystals can be used as conduits whilst others are appropriate for storing energies, as in Tabula Rasa. Others are supposed to be excellent for healing whilst other kinds can be great for focusing mental energy. This is determined simply by each type of crystals strengths and facets.

The point being that if you are going to start throwing every use of a crystal in Buffyverse history at me now then we could be here for a very long time.

N4H, i replied again to this in one final hope of you having a rethink and hopefully getting a more reasonable (less speculative) answer to what the First wanted to do with the scythe. Well, that and your mention of Tabula Rasa made me chuckle a little. I've said all i can say now, i'm absolutely incapable of telling you in any different way that i think you are barking up the wrong tree at the moment.

I think the basic idea has merit, you just need to start leaving some of the less important and speculative connections out and concentrate on the facts you can be certain of. There is more than enough there to make the idea work.

 

[nerd4hire]

This is another prime example of nerd4hire's desire to have every single word uttered in Buffy and Angel mean something significant.

Actually, no. That was another example of nerd4hire looking for support in the text rather than using the TW technique of - its true, because I said it is.

Quote=The Watcher

I've been trying to point out how he is mistaking the grammar and structure of a couple of sentences spoken by pointing out the sentences used before and after and now we are somehow getting hooked on the word "physics" ... huh? -end quote

Minor point, but I am always amused by TWs tendency to refer to opinions that differ from his own as mistakes.

Moving on though. Of course, the physics thing is important. Its important because, quote- Magic works off physics -endquote. Physics is the science of matter and energy,and their interactions. In other words magic at its core has to obey the physical laws of matter and energy.

Now I understand why TW does not want to get into this, of course. It contradicts everything he is saying. In physical law it appears a catalyst, and catalytic activity can exist within a conduit.

Once more.Suppose a physicist says a catalyst can exist within a conduit, but a Wicca (or more precisely someone from some obscure sect of Wicca) says it cannot. Which one is correct. Personally I say in the context of the buffyverse they both are, because neithers interpretation is superior to the other. TW disagrees with me on this though. So be it.

Quote = The Watcher

Honestly, you have yet to offer me a single instance where you have proved me wrong. - end quote

Let us be clear on what we are talking about here. I am saying it is possible for the scythe to be used as a conduit. You are saying it is impossible. In that situation who has to prove who wrong. Mine is just an opinion, yours is a statement of fact. A statement, I might add that seems to rely solely on the idea you said it for support.

Quote = The Watcher

The conduit used in Shadow, the being in the White Room, not to mention your idea for the scythe. None of these examples relate to what you are trying to prove for your idea. Some are totally different things, others are exactly what i've previously described. -end quote.

Simple country folk that I am, perhaps I do not understand what a really good example of support looks like.

Support must be precious on your side of this discussion, because I notice you never give it. All I ever hear is, you said it, so it is true.

Just give us one though, just give us one tiny example of support for your idea a conduit must be neutral. A reference would be nice. I want to see what really good textual support for an idea looks like.

Actually I think the problem you have with my examples may be you do not understand the way they connect to each other. That is OK. I will draw the lines for you to connect the dots.

Originally Posted by nerd4hire
Or we could avoid physical laws and go back to the buffyverse, to discuss whether or not we see catalytic activity in the Tabula Rasa crystal. Remember there is a transmogrification conduit made of crystal. - end quote.

Quote = The Watcher
What? Who? Where? For a start, what transmogrification crystal? = end quote.

What is referred to as the transmogrification conduit in Shadow is actually forged from something referred to as transmogrification crystals.

Quote
Transmogrification is the act of turning one living thing into another. When did that happen in Tabula Rasa? - end quote

Of course it is, and it did not happen in Tabula Rasa. What did happen in Tabula Rasa was we saw an example of a crystal which contained its own energy. It glowed when Willow was not around. Random occurences external from the witch would catalyze the energy within the crystal. It acted independently and had its own internal power.

Quote
The only crystal seen in that episode was the one Willow used to contain the spell. When the crystal was broken the spell was ended. There is no conduit involved here at all. Again with the throwing about of irrelevant information. - end quote.

It has no relevance if you refuse to see it. It is relevant in that it shows how a Buffyverse crystal can have internal power, and independent function.

TW tells me there are only 2 types of conduits in the Buffyverse. He proclaims this like it is an immuteable law. Very well, if the transmogrification conduit in Shadow is not a communication conduit, then by your own law it must be of the same family of conduits we see in Get it done.

The conduit in Shadow is forged from something they call transmogrification crystals. We saw in Tabula Rasa, a Buffyverse crystal can have internal energy, and internal catalytic activity.

This suggests to me the possibility. the crystal in the Shadow conduit could also have internal power. The fact, the Shadow crystal is referred to as transmogrification crystal suggests it does have some kind of purpose, function, power.

I propose it may be possible to use the crystal conduit as a possible example of a conduit with its own internal power much as I further propose could be the case with the scythe.

Please note the continual use of the word possible. I am not saying this is the one true and only way to interpret things. That is what you are saying. Again I ask why is it only me offering support. The only support I hear for your arguement is you think it true, so it is true, or you read a book somewhere, some time, you do not know what is called that told you a conduit must be neutral.

So before you are dissing my support I think you want to be looking at your own. Let us look at the following for example.

Quote
The very nature of crystals allows them to be used for a variety of purposes depending upon their structures or strength. Certain crystals can be used as conduits whilst others are appropriate for storing energies, as in Tabula Rasa. Others are supposed to be excellent for healing whilst other kinds can be great for focusing mental energy. This is determined simply by each type of crystals strengths and facets. end quote

All points agreeable to me, except for one major exception to what I understand as being the accepted metaphysical knowledge on crystals. I know we are not supposed notice. We are just supposed to accept it as fact, because you said it. I am talking about something which is the key insinuation of your little crystal lecture, and I really want to see some support for it. I doubt I will, because I do not think its true. Hell I am pretty much sure its not true.

What is it, you ask.

It is the idea never actually said, but insinuated which suggests some crystals are completely devoid of energy, and suitable only for use as conduits. I am unaware of any sect of occultism who believe that. If it exists offer support. Show me evidence of that idea existing any place - Buffyverse, Wicca, paganism, druidry, Magiism, animism, Crowleyism, Satanism, anyplace - other than your own imagination.

Edit

I apologise for the screwy quote tags, grammar and spelling. Ièm having problems with my computer fonts.

 

[The Arcane]

Firstly, i'll deal with the "support" issue that seems to be a sticking point, despite the fact that i've already done so.

I haven't got any. I'm not getting this information from the internet or currently from a book. This is personal knowledge that i have held for well over a decade. Information that, whilst i quite possibly could track down given enough time and effort, is currently stored only in my head.

Now, as i've said before, i'm not used to being called a liar and i don't go around making things up just to disagree with you. I'm a thirty year old man that has made a point in life to try and deal in facts for the sake of facts. I'm telling you what i know and if my word on that isn't good enough then i'm afraid that is just too bad. I have a life to live and a business to run. I come here to have a little fun and enjoy a little discussion on Buffy, not in order to find myself a research project.

Whilst i may not have lots of time to find handy links to supporting text i have at least bothered to explain the issues to you that you aren't understanding and have tried to point out where you are going wrong in each example.

Take the crystal example. It should be plain just by watching Buffy that crystals can be used for any number of functions of magick on the show. The crystal used in Tabula Rasa may well have had infused energies prior to the spell but then that crystal was not a conduit and therefore absolutely irrelevant to this debate.

The crystal used in Shadow as a conduit was exactly that. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it had any internally stored energy though, certainly nothing seen prior to the point Glory used in in the spell. The crystal was an ideal conduit for transmogrification energy. All this i have been through before and in more depth previously in the thread.

Some crystals we have seen used for storage, others for meditation (Real Me), others still as conduits. the ones seen to be used as conduits have all fallen within the area of my description of that use.

I'm not exactly sure what type of people you are used to debating with, N4H, but you need to understand that if i tell you something then it's because i know it to be true. I don't lie, i don't make up stories and i don't have any interest in pissing you off just for the fun off it.

One last thing. You posted this previously ...

Or we could avoid physical laws and go back to the buffyverse, to discuss whether or not we see catalytic activity in the Tabula Rasa crystal. Remember there is a transmogrification conduit made of crystal.

Now, i took that as being one long statement, which is what led me to believe that you were saying that the transmogrification crystal was seen in Tabula Rasa. Now you are telling me that you were talking about two seperate items, it was just that the structure of the sentences melded together to make it look like you were talking about one single item ...

Not without a catalyst. If you're talking about transferring energies, you need some kind of conduit.

See where i'm going with this?

You knew that you were talking about two different crystals but the text didn't make that clear the way you wrote it. Same goes for Anya. My prior knowledge of the fundamental difference between a conduit and a catalyst meant that when i heard Anya say that i understood what she was saying correctly. You, having not had that prior experience, heard it differently and that led you to make an incorrect assumption about something else. Easily done.

Again, i'm not doing this to annoy you, i'm doing it because i know i'm correct. You only have my word on this but as far as the text goes i have never once found an example of the writers ignoring basic wiccan ideas and this is no different.

Now, you either take me at my word and go with what i'm telling you or you call me a liar and ignore everything i've said. Start a new thread and i'll keep well out of it. Up to you.

 

[nerd4hire]

So I think I get it. You're saying you're a guy with what you feel is specialized knowledge and an opinion about it.

No problem. In fact step right up, grab a flute, and join the frickin band. You just described a big chunk of Buffy Boards. I'm one of them.

Personally I'm a big fan of the idea personal opinion, and interpretation is valid until proven otherwise.

Now it's when we say "proven" we can run into problems. Some self-described online expert might come onto a thread, post a couple of posts of questionable strength, and claim, "Well, that tedious point has been thankfully eliminated, but it's OK, you can now sit back to be enthralled and edified by the wonder and the glory that is me."

In other words he's saying "If I said it it's true. Your opinion doesn't matter. Let's move on."

We can't have that in a free society. This why anyone who's ever tried that kind of crap with me hasn't had a lot of luck with it. I consider it my duty as a citizen, to walk up to the guy, look him in the eye, and say, "not today boy".

The right to opinion however, I will defend, even when it contradicts my own. Here's an example.

You do not believe there is any support for the idea the crystal conduit of Shadow contains independent energy, or function.

I disagree. I say when the writers call something a transmogrification crystal they are saying to me this is a crystal with power and function. I say when Glory is doing the spell and she says something like "the gem is fire and energy", she is most likely talking about the crystal amulet. She is saying it has power, and she's going to use it.

You listen. You disagree. You take my support, and re-interpret it.

Still...no problem. You have an opinion. I have an opinion. We disagree.

Now, not that you would do this of course, but if you or anyone else were to do something assinine like proclaim my opinion is incorrect and unsupported based on the idea you said so, and your interpretation of my support invalidates it as mine, and now makes it your support...OK, now we have a problem.

You see you can tell me the writers have always portrayed events accurately according to your understanding of Wicca. No Problem.

Personally I think a lot of that has to do with a person's willingness to interpret the facts to fit his or her beliefs, but that's just my opinion.

The thing is you feel like they're following you around almost, checking with you first, to see what they can use for their created fictional universe. No problem. If that's what gets you through the day rock on.

For me I appreciate the little bits of Wicca lore in Buffy, but I don't think the writers are going to slash their wrists if they don't make the thirty-nine different flavours of Wicca 100% happy with the Buffy presentation of magic.

You and me though we'll only have a problem if you try to tell me I have to believe as you do when you interpret your understanding of Wicca in Buffy terms. If you tell me something becomes a fact, because you know the religion better than anyone, and only your interpretation matters I'm sorry but I won't drink that Kool-aid.

The neutrality of conduits is not a "basic law of Wicca. It is not because if you go to the nearest book store, pick up a book, go to the index, and look up "conduit neutrality" it's unlikely you will find the terms there. If you click on that Wicca link I gave you to Wikipedia you won't find it there. If it was a basic law it would be all over the place. You could find information on it anywhere. Wicca isn't underground. It's everywhere. Any basic law, you should be able to find information on easily.

Insisting it is a basic law, then telling me it disproves my opinion without any possibility of arguement, and offering this up on nothing more than your word...I'm sorry but that just won't fly. That's no longer just you're opinion. That's become something unacceptable.

(Edited for spelling).

 

[The Arcane]

First up, and as i've said before, i never claimed to be an expert. I have known experts. In fact i have known people that have more knowledge on the various wiccan and paganistic beliefs than you and i have collective knowledge of everything else. I would not dream of classing myself at that level, not here or anywhere else.

I have knowledge that i thought you might like to learn. Knowledge that i believed would help you to answer some questions about the scythe. You have taken that knowledge and not only rejected it but gone out of your way to make me look like an idiot for some unknown reason. I'm not entirely sure why that is but then i don't much care. See, for all your efforts to disprove me you are still missing that one small detail. I know i'm right.

What you need to understand is that helping you, or at least trying to, is not a priority in my life and i did so because i wanted to. I frankly have never known anyone be so confrontational over somebody trying to help them get something right.

I may not be an expert but i do know of what i'm talking about here. You may not find any mention of the need for a conduit to be powerless on the web and in books simply because it kind of goes without saying to anyone with the slightest clue what they are talking about. Conduits are supposed to direct and amplify, that is all. Nobody creating a website on wicca would likely mention it needed to be free of it's own power because it would be a waste of time. It would be like somebody building a website about gardening and mentioning that if you put in a water feature then the water shouldn't be electrically charged. Some things just go without saying.

You know, maybe i shouldn't have used the term "basic law" because that has got you searching for a list of the ten commandments of wicca" when in truth it's simply a common sense fact. A conduit object is powerless in itself and directs the energy only.

Ask yourself this. If you go to a website instructing you on the use of a television and the website didn't mention that it needed to be plugged in to work, would that be an issue for you or would you say "well, that is obvious anyway!". This is the same kind of thing with this matter for anyone who understands spellcasting. It's obvious and pointless to mention.

Anyway, all that is beside the point. You have made it clear that you aren't interested in what i have to say on this matter and i have absolutely no interest in sticking my nose into anywhere i'm not welcome.

One last thing though. As i said before, i don't appreciate the insinuation that i'm making this up. I find it insulting that you feel it necessary to even ask me if i'm being honest with you and i really don't see what you think i'm getting out of this whole debate if i'm making it up. I don't back down when i know i'm correct on an issue and i certainly don't feel any need to prove my word to you or anyone else. I have more than enough confidence in my own judgement and knowledge to not require the validation of your approval of my words.

Quite honestly and without trying to sound rude your opinion of me simply isn't that important. I know i'm telling you the truth and i know i'm correct, that's good enough for me. As i said before, if my word isn't good enough for you then move on and start again without my input. I'm only interested in helping those who actually trust my judgement. I can't make that any simpler.

 

[The Arcane]

Oh, and just in case there was any doubt from my last post, this is really where i'm stepping out of this thread. I've no doubt that N4H will post again in an attempt to further tarnish my reputation but i'm way past caring.

It's a real shame that you are so untrusting, N4H. There are actually people in this world that are out to help you with no ulterior motives and with no reason to spend time at posting boards making crap up just to debunk a theory of yours. Maybe the next time you come across somebody like that you might choose to just believe them instead of saying "thanks ... but unless you prove to me you aren't a lying S.O.B. then i'm gonna totally ignore your information".

Now and again, a person may just tell you the truth and expect to be believed because they are trustworthy folk who aren't normally asked to prove their words with documents, papers and physical evidence.

I won't waste anymore of your time with my obviously fabricated tales and made up facts.

 

[nerd4hire]

Eureka. I finally get it. The neutrality of conduits is something you can't read about, nobody talks about, yet everyone knows.

Jeez, that makes so much sense.

OK I admit it. That was me being sarcastic. I guess you were right about one thing on this thread. I was definitely going to do that.

In all seriousness though, you've told me you were going to take your ball, and go home before, yet you came back, so I'm going to assume that can happen again.

I have to put on my "reasonable" hat now. The moderators of this thread will want to close it soon for exceeding the post limit. I have made a request of them that you and I both get a post a piece for summation.

Generally in organized debates what happens is the summation must not contain rebuttal of the preceeding summation.

In all fairness I will offer you this opportunity to sum up your arguement without rebuttal of anything you say in your final post. I haven't heard from the moderators yet, but I will offer you this anyway.

The summation will be on the question can the scythe be used as a conduit.

If you agree to this I will allow you to decide whether you want to go first, or last, and will promise to keep personal innuendo out of my final remarks. We must only sum our arguements, and stick to the issue. That's the rule.

The mods may decide to just close this thread, but until I get the final decision I'm going to say this has to be decided on, and done by tomorrow.

 

[The Arcane]

I was very close to "taking my ball" and not bothering to reply (for reasons i will shortly come to) but after reading that last post i felt it important to say something. The only thing is that it has nothing to do with summing up my argument. It has everything to do with the lack of respect and basic distrust i see online every day.

I post in exactly two places online nowadays. When i first got a computer it was the cool thing to do so i'd general chat in quite a few forums. However as i got older and my life became busier i started to lose interest. One, because of time constraints and two, because i tired of the constant bickering and name calling that i saw between one poster or another. It was as if people only came online to wind other people up or to prove a point. That wasn't my style so i started to be a little more picky about where i would spend my time.

I found this place last year thanks to my cousin, Jason. He posted here for a while whilst he was staying here with me and kept telling me to check the place out, which i finally did. It seemed like a very decent place to hold a good conversation so eventually i got around to joining up. Something i'm very glad about, just in case anyone doubts that. I really enjoy this place for the most part.

However, this thread has been a series of insults and accusations the like of which i have never had thrown at me before. I originally posted in here because i saw that nerd4hire was going off on the wrong track a little based on a slight misunderstanding of one piece of dialogue and because i dared to try and point that out i have had my entire history and belief system called in to question, for all intents and purposes. It may not seem like that to others but as far as i'm concerned that is what i've been defending.

I do not lie, i do not make things up and i do not get my jollys by pissing others off. I also do not go out of my way to defend my statements when i make them.

Anyone that knows me properly knows that if i do something or say something it is with the best intentions and that i do so with the hope of being even remotely useful. They do not question my word, nor do they say "go get me proof". See, i'm a grown up in the grown up world and no longer living by the rules of the playground. Thankfully those that know me realise this and grant me the respect of not questioning my honour.

Nerd4hire has very "politely" offered me the chance to "summarise my argument" but this has never been a debate to me, at least not in the way he seems that he wants to end things now. I haven't been debating anything, i've been trying to inform. I've been forced to prove that information as best i can, over and over again, but i'm not debating here. What i've said is correct and i would hold up my years of study and beliefs against his occasional trips to the bookstore and library any day of the week.

Ultimately, the best summary i can offer is for anyone to read what i've posted previously and understand that i'm telling the truth, something nerd4hire cannot seem to grasp. When you offer your word to somebody that you are telling the truth and all you get in return is ...

Eureka. I finally get it. The neutrality of conduits is something you can't read about, nobody talks about, yet everyone knows.

Jeez, that makes so much sense.

... then you finally have to accept that this person is not willing to listen to you and has absolutely no faith that some people in this world don't give a damn about pointless debating and winning arguments. They just want to offer a little help and expect a little gratitude in return.

Nerd4hire, if you honestly believed that you could insult me and then expect me to give a damn about whether or not the scythe could be used as a conduit or not, then you really don't know me. You really expect me to care about the thread topic and stick to the rules of debate, politely summarising my argument as if that was all it mattered?

Whatever you believe about the scythe matters very little to me. I could honestly care less if i have convinced you of the truth of Anya's words or not. I know i'm right, that's enough for me.

What matters is that you need to understand that you can't simply go around trying to make people look like liars simply so that you can prove a theory about a television show. This is supposed to be a fun way to pass a little free time and you take it far too seriously.

Just try and understand, you are trying to prove a rough theory about an aspect of a television show that won't matter to anyone in the great scheme of things. In the process of that you have taken somebody elses beliefs and ridiculed them. Not to mention questioned their integrity and done all you can to make me out a liar just so that you can call a fictional weapon a conduit.

My word is being doubted so that you can theorise about a tv show. I hope you can appreciate why that would piss me off a little.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

I was very close to "taking my ball" and not bothering to reply (for reasons i will shortly come to) but after reading that last post i felt it important to say something. The only thing is that it has nothing to do with summing up my argument. It has everything to do with the lack of respect and basic distrust i see online every day.

I post in exactly two places online nowadays. When i first got a computer it was the cool thing to do so i'd general chat in quite a few forums. However as i got older and my life became busier i started to lose interest. One, because of time constraints and two, because i tired of the constant bickering and name calling that i saw between one poster or another. It was as if people only came online to wind other people up or to prove a point. That wasn't my style so i started to be a little more picky about where i would spend my time.

I found this place last year thanks to my cousin, Jason. He posted here for a while whilst he was staying here with me and kept telling me to check the place out, which i finally did. It seemed like a very decent place to hold a good conversation so eventually i got around to joining up. Something i'm very glad about, just in case anyone doubts that. I really enjoy this place for the most part.

However, this thread has been a series of insults and accusations the like of which i have never had thrown at me before. I originally posted in here because i saw that nerd4hire was going off on the wrong track a little based on a slight misunderstanding of one piece of dialogue and because i dared to try and point that out i have had my entire history and belief system called in to question, for all intents and purposes. It may not seem like that to others but as far as i'm concerned that is what i've been defending.

I do not lie, i do not make things up and i do not get my jollys by pissing others off. I also do not go out of my way to defend my statements when i make them.

Anyone that knows me properly knows that if i do something or say something it is with the best intentions and that i do so with the hope of being even remotely useful. They do not question my word, nor do they say "go get me proof". See, i'm a grown up in the grown up world and no longer living by the rules of the playground. Thankfully those that know me realise this and grant me the respect of not questioning my honour.

Nerd4hire has very "politely" offered me the chance to "summarise my argument" but this has never been a debate to me, at least not in the way he seems that he wants to end things now. I haven't been debating anything, i've been trying to inform. I've been forced to prove that information as best i can, over and over again, but i'm not debating here. What i've said is correct and i would hold up my years of study and beliefs against his occasional trips to the bookstore and library any day of the week.

Ultimately, the best summary i can offer is for anyone to read what i've posted previously and understand that i'm telling the truth, something nerd4hire cannot seem to grasp. When you offer your word to somebody that you are telling the truth and all you get in return is ...



... then you finally have to accept that this person is not willing to listen to you and has absolutely no faith that some people in this world don't give a damn about pointless debating and winning arguments. They just want to offer a little help and expect a little gratitude in return.

Nerd4hire, if you honestly believed that you could insult me and then expect me to give a damn about whether or not the scythe could be used as a conduit or not, then you really don't know me. You really expect me to care about the thread topic and stick to the rules of debate, politely summarising my argument as if that was all it mattered?

Whatever you believe about the scythe matters very little to me. I could honestly care less if i have convinced you of the truth of Anya's words or not. I know i'm right, that's enough for me.

What matters is that you need to understand that you can't simply go around trying to make people look like liars simply so that you can prove a theory about a television show. This is supposed to be a fun way to pass a little free time and you take it far too seriously.

Just try and understand, you are trying to prove a rough theory about an aspect of a television show that won't matter to anyone in the great scheme of things. In the process of that you have taken somebody elses beliefs and ridiculed them. Not to mention questioned their integrity and done all you can to make me out a liar just so that you can call a fictional weapon a conduit.

My word is being doubted so that you can theorise about a tv show. I hope you can appreciate why that would piss me off a little.

I've read this 'discussion', all the way through. I have an opinion on the Scythe, but i'll save that for somewhere else. I want to comment on this.
For all intents and purpose, no one here knows anyone. So why should someone just take something as 'gospel' because you say you know it to be true.
Now, i'm not questioning your honour or integrity, i'm questioning the fact that you have come into this discussion with someone who has admitted a lack of knowledge in a certain area and expected him to believe every word you have said without bringing forth something tangible for him to read...other then 'i have studied it, i know its true.'
Obviously N4H has spent alot of time honing his 'theory' with the evidence and support he had. You say that this is wrong based on your findings, well all it would have taken is a few reference books, a couple of links or a name of someone to verify, instead, you told him he had to believe you.
Yes it is quite true that the internet could be resourced to prove almost any theory correctly, even if wrong or flawed, N4H has used it thusly to answer his doubts. Is he wrong, maybe, maybe not.
Your indignation at the way N4H has descended to the sarcasm should also be aimed, in part, at your own stance of 'i know, thus its true'. A few times N4H has asked for links to back up your theory, not i believe, to cast doubt, BUT to help him further understand what he knows and how that correlates with your 'evidence' and his subsequient theory.
If i call a Spade a Fork and say, through my years of learning from intellectuals i now know this to be true, am i correct? No, but if i brought evidence to back up my claims(and N4H has brought what he believes to be strong enough evidence for his theory), then it would be up to the 'Spades a Spade' man to show the evidence he has to change my view point.
Its not Playground to want evidence to back your comments up, every part of the adult world requires evidence and i'm sure everyone on here has met people who claim to 'know what is true', yet have no idea, both online or in person.
I applaud you for being an honest man, i do, but why should people believe that, when they have no obvious reason to.
All it would have taken was a simple link to any source, for N4H to verify this.
Granted, N4H may have looked for a tiny flaw in that logic and stuck to it, or he may found it perfectly sound and changed his theory to include the new information, BUT you would have had your 'evidence' on full view for the few people who still read this thread, and this could have ended 50 posts ago.