Active Users:433 Time:18/09/2025 12:53:36 AM
That is a fallacious leap of logic. RugbyPlayingAshaman Send a noteboard - 11/11/2009 06:50:13 PM
Basically, you can't prove that there is a connection between how Graendal died and how Asmodean died, especially since it seems no amount of balefire can remove a month or more from the Pattern. Rand used an incredible amount of saidin, more than anyone else could use unaided, and all he could manage was 15 minutes burned from the Pattern. Basically, Asmodean wouldn't come back even if Graendal was hit with balefire because he was killed too long ago.

And, even moreso, B.S. says nothing about the identity of Asmodean's killer.
"Those who think they have no time for bodily exercise will sooner or later have to find time for illness."
Reply to message
Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 05:18:48 PM 1830 Views
He didn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:27:34 PM 795 Views
I definately did not see conclusive evidence; in fact... - 11/11/2009 05:32:20 PM 859 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 409 Views
That still doesn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:39:12 PM 813 Views
It eliminates for the following - 11/11/2009 05:44:29 PM 798 Views
That's quite a leap of logic... - 11/11/2009 06:31:21 PM 912 Views
Re: - 11/11/2009 07:46:15 PM 871 Views
You make a faulty assumption - 11/11/2009 08:06:52 PM 815 Views
NO! - 11/11/2009 09:07:39 PM 692 Views
Why? - 11/11/2009 06:32:10 PM 711 Views
Re: Why? - 11/11/2009 07:48:14 PM 732 Views
Logical? - 11/11/2009 09:16:18 PM 731 Views
Er? I think you're reading it wrong. - 11/11/2009 06:32:17 PM 739 Views
I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 06:33:41 PM 684 Views
Re: I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 07:47:27 PM 783 Views
I'm sorry but you are terribly wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:34:56 PM 735 Views
That is a fallacious leap of logic. - 11/11/2009 06:50:13 PM 749 Views
Yes, but... - 11/11/2009 07:49:39 PM 724 Views
That is still erroneous. - 11/11/2009 08:10:15 PM 694 Views
your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 05:47:53 PM 757 Views
Re: your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 07:51:01 PM 723 Views
I repeat, your interpretation is wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:15:43 PM 741 Views
I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 06:11:46 PM 820 Views
Re: I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 08:01:31 PM 773 Views
I'm not a writer... - 11/11/2009 08:48:25 PM 774 Views
Agree - 18/11/2009 11:22:09 PM 701 Views
There's nothing in those quotes that even touches on who killed Asmodean. - 11/11/2009 06:40:31 PM 744 Views
This logic is lacking as well - 11/11/2009 10:17:48 PM 772 Views
Your comments make sense. - 11/11/2009 11:29:29 PM 651 Views
Re: Your comments make sense. - 12/11/2009 04:48:19 AM 633 Views
Two Things - 11/11/2009 07:58:11 PM 683 Views
Re: Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 07:59:32 PM 742 Views
But do you agree that Graendal cannot reveal herself if she got balefired? *NM* - 11/11/2009 08:07:53 PM 381 Views
Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 11/11/2009 08:52:49 PM 785 Views
this is what happens when you get interrupted in the middle of a post *NM* - 11/11/2009 09:28:01 PM 367 Views
What? Did you double post? - 11/11/2009 09:49:15 PM 662 Views
According to Etzel, this is impossible - 12/11/2009 04:14:47 AM 713 Views
Why is it impossible? You can't have parallel timelines? *NM* - 12/11/2009 11:29:45 AM 367 Views
I don't say it's impossible... - 12/11/2009 03:11:17 PM 733 Views
This was done in the series before... - 12/11/2009 03:40:58 PM 670 Views
I meant... - 12/11/2009 04:02:33 PM 738 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 18/11/2009 11:32:03 PM 699 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 19/11/2009 01:57:48 AM 706 Views
that proved nothing. *NM* - 11/11/2009 10:46:15 PM 345 Views
Rather pointless, really. *NM* - 12/11/2009 01:08:14 AM 309 Views
Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:13:45 AM 718 Views
Re: Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:53:39 AM 705 Views
there was a bit more before it - 12/11/2009 05:03:20 AM 660 Views
Not so suspicious if he's read some fan reactions/theories. - 12/11/2009 11:48:30 AM 705 Views
Which he clearly said he did and LOL'd at. *NM* - 18/11/2009 11:33:58 PM 362 Views
Maybe I missed something. - 12/11/2009 03:02:59 PM 665 Views
Yeah, BS will reveal it either in ToM or AMoL. *NM* - 12/11/2009 03:12:16 PM 323 Views

Reply to Message