From:	Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date:	Sat, 16 May 1998 22:39:22 EDT

In a message dated 5/16/98 3:24:11 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
mc23@**********.COM writes:

> >Because in SR, "spells" are the basis of
"Anchorings/Quickenings/Spell
> >Locks", which are "magical items."
>
> Anchorings and Quickenings are not items in any sense. They are the
> product of Sorcery not Enchanting. Spell Lock's worth only becomes
> apparent when a spell is locked by them. Basicly put, a Spell Lock is
> still not a stand alone "magic item." A lot of people still seem to be
> under the misinterpretation of how that works.

No, there are just a TON of House Rules flying around that are still being
sorted through. For example, as time has passed, Binder has developed the
ability to "Anchor" and "Quicken" spells, as long as they are treated
in a
particular manner. Basically, his -only- spells he would cast -HAD- to be
Anchorings/Quickenings (he personally hates Spell Locks). It was a way to
further develop the character and show a growing understanding of
"enchantments".

> >You know, the more and more I keep reading these responses lately, the
more
> >and more I really begin to think everyone doesn't relate to anyone else.
>
> That's a pretty open ended statement to leave lying around like that.

Really? And just how did -you- pick up on it then??? ;/
-K