From:	Angel <olds@******.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Battle?? Did I sleep through it?!?!
Date:	Wed, 27 Jan 93 02:48:32 EST

I know I shouldn't be getting involved in this, but oh well...

> ] It seems this discussion just doesn't want to end. What do you all think?
> ]Should we go for another round?
>
If ya want my honest opinion, no. It has been made quite apparent
that not everyone agrees with Jason here, but it is just as apparent
that as many more people dont agree with the Nightstalker/Flare
crowd either. What I dont understand is why you two have to go
back and forth at each other when you both have diametrically
opposing views that have been spoken in peace. I think all understand,
now that Flare gave you his explanation about the NightFox arg,
where each of the others are coming from and everybody has decided
what their own viewpoints are. Now if you two WANT to continue,
thats your biz.....

> What I was saying is that, if you accept the first part of the Nightfox
> argument, namely that "a quickening is a spell," then it follows that the
> latter half of it is not disproved. That's all. However, I was under the
> impression that you _could_ cast a spell at another spell. Please correct me
> if I'm wrong. Besides which, I do not understand quickenings to be "only"
a
> spell.
>
> --Flare <NULLSIG COURTESY OF DOOM>

Sorry to copy so much, but in closing I wanted to add to the "a
quickenings are not just a spell theory". I must say I agree with
Flare when he says that. It may not help much in this argument, but
if a quickening were "only" a spell, why the hell would initiate
powers be made out to be so awesome? There must be some reason
only the initiates of the world have the power, which should say
that there is something special about them, what that is, I will
let you decide for yourselves.....

QuickSilver, the Beastmaster
[disclaimer: these are my views and MHO, no offense
was intended to be shot at either side of this argument.]