It is good to see that someone out there thinks critically about what I have written, however I find some of his 
comments intrinsically flawed due to a misunderstanding of the facts. In short, don't respond to something that still 
confuses you.  But, in an effort to clarify, I shal "re-respond."

>>For example, the correct balance of Air, Earth, and Water forms
>>the typical thunderstorm.

>Actually, its the correct balance of all elements to form the typicalthunderstorm. Without fire, theres no lightning,
>without shadow, its light out, without force, theres nothing (at least no motion)

Nope.  One who looks at the outline of what each element covers will see explicitly that lightning is a subcategory of 
Earth.  And in this case we have a misunderstanding between what I mean when I say "Shadow"... I will explain that later.

>>called an Air Elementalist or an Aeromancer. With their control 
>>of Air, they have power over the winds, breath, and all
>>types of clouds.

>All types of clouds? not actually so. cloud is a mix of 1 part air , 1 part water, very small amounts of the other
>elements. the ideal Aeromancer has 50% control over your average cloud 

Ah, but in elemental terms a cloud is under the control of Air. Reguardless of what science tells us clouds are made 
 of, they are representative factors of Air, and therefore are grouped in that section.  This is another "Science vs Magic" debate that could rage if one wanted to make it.

>>Earth is the most present of the elements. Practically everything
>>we see is fully or partially related to Earth

>(everything that is except the other elements) but what exactly is earth? is it the soft dirt beneath us, or the hard
>stones that break our bones? [authors note: please excuse the poetic insert]

I believe I said what Earth was: Minerals, Plants, and Lightning.  This is what is representative of the element Earth, and is why I said what I did.

>>Fire is the factor of change. It destroys without utter 
>>destruction. Whatever it acts upon is transformed into another
>>form.

>Fire has an obvious weakness to water, if fire is the factor of change then does is not also have an innate
>weakness also to earth on which it feeds and air with witch it FUELS

Fire is one of those symbiotic elements.  But it does change other factors into new things.  For example, water becomes steam, wood becomes ash, and air becomes smoke.

>>With Fire, they gain control of all forms of Fire, Light, and
>>Heat (this typically includes standard fire, microwaves, lava, 
>>and plasma).

>not microwaves. microwaves are not heat or fire-like, they are waves just like radio waves. they way it works,
>why it is associated with heat that is, is by being on the exact same frequency as water, thus transfering all its
>energy into water, creating heat from energy because when you add energy to an atom, it moves faster which
>increases kinetic energy which produces heat and sometimes light. but i wont go into all that...
>As for plasma, all elementalists have control over plasma by simply raising the kinetic energy of any of thier
>elements until it attains "plasmatic" state : )

Perhaps you should re-read the above quote from my original document.  Fire controls forms of Fire, Light, and Heat.  
For clarity we shall no longer group microwaves with Heat but Light.  Light, Radio, Microwave, Infrared, Ultraviolet, and so on are all forms of Light. What we call "light" is visible light.  As for plasma... true, raising kinetic energy will do it, but that means any elementalist can CREATE plasma,not control it fully.

>>The element Water is the second most present element...

>I'd personally stay away from saying any one element is more present than another element

I meant present in its visible representations.

>>Someone who specializes in Water can be called a Water 
>>Elementalist or an Aquamancer. They control the three aspects of
>> Water: Water, Ice, and Cold. 

>Not so (sorry to say) but no elementalist has control over cold (though an aquamancer may have an advantage
>as far as causing it)

Just as Fire controls Heat, Water controls Cold.  It is a given.  They are the opposite ends of the bias spectrum, and therefore control opposite factors.

>>Lightning can also burn off clouds.

>I have no idea how this would be possible.

Lightning is a massive source of raw energy - thus it is capable of changing the state of the water you previously mentioned was in clouds. Besides, have you never heard of heat burning off a fog?  This is the same principle.

>>Air and Earth are slightly less biased against each other...

>I'd have to say they have about the same amount of bias between eachother as fire and water, its just at a
>different level. volume as opposed to temperature perhaps

Wrongo.  Bias is determined through interaction of representations.  Air and Earth work better together than Fire and Water, hence the "lesser" bias.

>>The Fifth Element: Shadow

 >Shadow, or darkness or whatever, is the opposite of light. Logically, light is then an element also if Shadow is
>one

Shadow is partially the lack of light, but again, if you had paid
attention to the entire document you would have noticed the outline of what Shadow controls.  The shadows you think of are but one facet of Shadow, and light is already covered in Fire.

>>The fifth element is the opposite of the first four.

>I would like to point out that earlier earth was the opposite of air and fire was the opposite of water, now
>shadow is opposite of all four. This creates 3-way opposites, which may not be possible, its something someone
>might want to write a reply on...

Correct.  This 3-way is why the topic of the elements is so hard to grasp above the four main elements.

>About this analogy: Inside the element Earth, there is nothing but shadow...wouldn't this cause anything with
>earth to instantly attain total internal combustion? You'd probably replysomething like "but the force is all
>throughout earthe*, thus keeping shadow at bay". But what about the other elements... fire then doesn't need
>force because it creates light, and air and water only need force when no fire is present. This means that force
>would have to favor earthe... such an ominously binding element as Force shouldnt favor any one element...so i
>suggest there is a flaw in the logic.
>* I decided that earthe = the element earth, to help rid of confusion 

Your flawed understanding of Shadow is fueling this misconception.  The force of Shadow acting on the "matter" is 
not shadow, but the decaying factor Shadow has.  That is why everything needs Force in it, even Fire.

>Final note to Estlor: Perhaps you should rethink Shadow as the fifth element,and have Light and Dark as the
>fifth and sixth elements (not necessarily that order). Then have Force as a seventh element, which not only
>protects the first four elements from darkness consuming them but also stops light from destroying them
>(perhaps by overheating, or hazardous bombarding of photons or something...you know) 

I think I covered this already.  Re-read the document I originally wrote critically in light of some of this clarifications and it will make more sense.