Active Users:2041 Time:18/06/2026 01:01:45 PM
That is still erroneous. RugbyPlayingAshaman Send a noteboard - 11/11/2009 08:10:15 PM
I think you're making quite a large leap in logic. Mainly because we have no way of knowing how this information would be conveyed or even if it would be conveyed.

In addition, in order for your leap to make any sense, we'd need to know if Graendal is dead or not, because quite simply, if she wasn't in the palace when the balefire stream hit it, she could still turn up and reveal herself as Asmodean's killer.

Even more damning to your claim is that Sanderson doesn't ever state whether or not Graendal is dead, let alone who Asmodean's killer is.

Sorry, but your claim just doesn't hold up.
"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 2015 Views
He didn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:27:34 PM 946 Views
I definately did not see conclusive evidence; in fact... - 11/11/2009 05:32:20 PM 1001 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 499 Views
That still doesn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:39:12 PM 990 Views
It eliminates for the following - 11/11/2009 05:44:29 PM 1006 Views
That's quite a leap of logic... - 11/11/2009 06:31:21 PM 1056 Views
Re: - 11/11/2009 07:46:15 PM 1031 Views
You make a faulty assumption - 11/11/2009 08:06:52 PM 973 Views
NO! - 11/11/2009 09:07:39 PM 874 Views
Why? - 11/11/2009 06:32:10 PM 846 Views
Re: Why? - 11/11/2009 07:48:14 PM 889 Views
Logical? - 11/11/2009 09:16:18 PM 883 Views
Er? I think you're reading it wrong. - 11/11/2009 06:32:17 PM 887 Views
I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 06:33:41 PM 825 Views
Re: I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 07:47:27 PM 921 Views
I'm sorry but you are terribly wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:34:56 PM 869 Views
That is a fallacious leap of logic. - 11/11/2009 06:50:13 PM 903 Views
Yes, but... - 11/11/2009 07:49:39 PM 884 Views
That is still erroneous. - 11/11/2009 08:10:15 PM 852 Views
your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 05:47:53 PM 892 Views
Re: your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 07:51:01 PM 899 Views
I repeat, your interpretation is wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:15:43 PM 911 Views
I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 06:11:46 PM 980 Views
Re: I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 08:01:31 PM 958 Views
I'm not a writer... - 11/11/2009 08:48:25 PM 903 Views
Agree - 18/11/2009 11:22:09 PM 842 Views
There's nothing in those quotes that even touches on who killed Asmodean. - 11/11/2009 06:40:31 PM 913 Views
This logic is lacking as well - 11/11/2009 10:17:48 PM 950 Views
Your comments make sense. - 11/11/2009 11:29:29 PM 820 Views
Re: Your comments make sense. - 12/11/2009 04:48:19 AM 790 Views
Two Things - 11/11/2009 07:58:11 PM 846 Views
Re: Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 07:59:32 PM 910 Views
But do you agree that Graendal cannot reveal herself if she got balefired? *NM* - 11/11/2009 08:07:53 PM 453 Views
Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 11/11/2009 08:52:49 PM 950 Views
this is what happens when you get interrupted in the middle of a post *NM* - 11/11/2009 09:28:01 PM 444 Views
What? Did you double post? - 11/11/2009 09:49:15 PM 819 Views
According to Etzel, this is impossible - 12/11/2009 04:14:47 AM 883 Views
Why is it impossible? You can't have parallel timelines? *NM* - 12/11/2009 11:29:45 AM 441 Views
I don't say it's impossible... - 12/11/2009 03:11:17 PM 902 Views
This was done in the series before... - 12/11/2009 03:40:58 PM 819 Views
I meant... - 12/11/2009 04:02:33 PM 885 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 18/11/2009 11:32:03 PM 847 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 19/11/2009 01:57:48 AM 865 Views
that proved nothing. *NM* - 11/11/2009 10:46:15 PM 419 Views
Rather pointless, really. *NM* - 12/11/2009 01:08:14 AM 377 Views
Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:13:45 AM 867 Views
Re: Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:53:39 AM 870 Views
there was a bit more before it - 12/11/2009 05:03:20 AM 808 Views
Not so suspicious if he's read some fan reactions/theories. - 12/11/2009 11:48:30 AM 852 Views
Which he clearly said he did and LOL'd at. *NM* - 18/11/2009 11:33:58 PM 442 Views
Maybe I missed something. - 12/11/2009 03:02:59 PM 835 Views
Yeah, BS will reveal it either in ToM or AMoL. *NM* - 12/11/2009 03:12:16 PM 407 Views

Reply to Message