Active Users:397 Time:17/06/2025 07:19:41 PM
That's quite a leap of logic... fionwe1987 Send a noteboard - 11/11/2009 06:31:21 PM

According to Brandon, at the most, Rand could burn somebody out of the pattern a full week back. That's using the Choedan Kal, etc. Because Asmodean died more than a week ago (it was something like 6 months ago in Randland time) then Graendal could not have been Asmo's killer.

Why does your final statement follow from he first?
Asmodean is out of reach of Rand's balefire. That means Graendal could have killed him, but the balefire won't being him back. That's all.
If it is true that Graendal died by balefire, then she did not kill Asmodean, end of story.

Very well, by that logic, Graendal never killed anyone, never erformed any atrocity, and was a honorable ascetic for all her life! What crap!
Reply to message
Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 05:18:48 PM 1780 Views
He didn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:27:34 PM 736 Views
I definately did not see conclusive evidence; in fact... - 11/11/2009 05:32:20 PM 813 Views
Yes, Brandon did. I edited my original message to add in another quote from Brandon...see above *NM* - 11/11/2009 05:33:27 PM 379 Views
That still doesn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:39:12 PM 741 Views
It eliminates for the following - 11/11/2009 05:44:29 PM 742 Views
That's quite a leap of logic... - 11/11/2009 06:31:21 PM 858 Views
Re: - 11/11/2009 07:46:15 PM 811 Views
You make a faulty assumption - 11/11/2009 08:06:52 PM 756 Views
NO! - 11/11/2009 09:07:39 PM 643 Views
Why? - 11/11/2009 06:32:10 PM 660 Views
Re: Why? - 11/11/2009 07:48:14 PM 679 Views
Logical? - 11/11/2009 09:16:18 PM 680 Views
Er? I think you're reading it wrong. - 11/11/2009 06:32:17 PM 687 Views
I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 06:33:41 PM 643 Views
Re: I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 07:47:27 PM 725 Views
I'm sorry but you are terribly wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:34:56 PM 672 Views
That is a fallacious leap of logic. - 11/11/2009 06:50:13 PM 682 Views
Yes, but... - 11/11/2009 07:49:39 PM 671 Views
That is still erroneous. - 11/11/2009 08:10:15 PM 645 Views
your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 05:47:53 PM 705 Views
Re: your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 07:51:01 PM 674 Views
I repeat, your interpretation is wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:15:43 PM 684 Views
I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 06:11:46 PM 763 Views
Re: I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 08:01:31 PM 721 Views
I'm not a writer... - 11/11/2009 08:48:25 PM 720 Views
Agree - 18/11/2009 11:22:09 PM 640 Views
There's nothing in those quotes that even touches on who killed Asmodean. - 11/11/2009 06:40:31 PM 679 Views
This logic is lacking as well - 11/11/2009 10:17:48 PM 720 Views
Your comments make sense. - 11/11/2009 11:29:29 PM 582 Views
Re: Your comments make sense. - 12/11/2009 04:48:19 AM 581 Views
Two Things - 11/11/2009 07:58:11 PM 637 Views
Re: Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 07:59:32 PM 692 Views
But do you agree that Graendal cannot reveal herself if she got balefired? *NM* - 11/11/2009 08:07:53 PM 358 Views
Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 11/11/2009 08:52:49 PM 726 Views
this is what happens when you get interrupted in the middle of a post *NM* - 11/11/2009 09:28:01 PM 342 Views
What? Did you double post? - 11/11/2009 09:49:15 PM 614 Views
According to Etzel, this is impossible - 12/11/2009 04:14:47 AM 665 Views
Why is it impossible? You can't have parallel timelines? *NM* - 12/11/2009 11:29:45 AM 334 Views
I don't say it's impossible... - 12/11/2009 03:11:17 PM 676 Views
This was done in the series before... - 12/11/2009 03:40:58 PM 608 Views
I meant... - 12/11/2009 04:02:33 PM 692 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 18/11/2009 11:32:03 PM 639 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 19/11/2009 01:57:48 AM 654 Views
that proved nothing. *NM* - 11/11/2009 10:46:15 PM 312 Views
Rather pointless, really. *NM* - 12/11/2009 01:08:14 AM 289 Views
Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:13:45 AM 653 Views
Re: Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:53:39 AM 649 Views
there was a bit more before it - 12/11/2009 05:03:20 AM 599 Views
Not so suspicious if he's read some fan reactions/theories. - 12/11/2009 11:48:30 AM 638 Views
Which he clearly said he did and LOL'd at. *NM* - 18/11/2009 11:33:58 PM 337 Views
Maybe I missed something. - 12/11/2009 03:02:59 PM 611 Views
Yeah, BS will reveal it either in ToM or AMoL. *NM* - 12/11/2009 03:12:16 PM 284 Views

Reply to Message