Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cedric" data-source="post: 3161988" data-attributes="member: 2044">A lot of focus is being placed on this statement being "incorrect". Incorrect is not a valid judgment of the sentence. As the parent in this case, I was making the rules. Within the rules there is only one way to get the cookie, finish dinner. While there may be other ways to get the cookie, none of them satisfy the requirements that I laid down when I made the rules. They would be cheating.In order for a cookie to be obtained, within the rules, prior to finishing dinner...some aspect of the rules would have to change after the fact, specific to the situation. For instance, I make the statement, you can only get a cookie if you finish your dinner. However, my daughter then bites her tongue trying to chew her food and ends up crying because it hurt. In order to make her feel better, I allowed her to have her cookie even though dinner wasn't finished. Why was this allowed? Because an event that transpired after my declaration caused me to change the rules.Now...bringing this back around to Feeblemind. The author of Feeblemind clearly only intended for the four listed effects to cure the residual consequence of this spell. Those are the "rules".Had Break Enchantment been intended to function, it would have to be included in this very specific list, because the publication of both are concurrent to one another, neither follows the other. Now, after the fact, another spell (panacea) could be written that changes the rules, but it has to do so specifically.</blockquote>

Verification