Active Users:2115 Time:18/06/2026 02:24:24 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 2016 Views
He didn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:27:34 PM 947 Views
I definately did not see conclusive evidence; in fact... - 11/11/2009 05:32:20 PM 1002 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 991 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 1032 Views
You make a faulty assumption - 11/11/2009 08:06:52 PM 973 Views
NO! - 11/11/2009 09:07:39 PM 875 Views
Why? - 11/11/2009 06:32:10 PM 848 Views
Re: Why? - 11/11/2009 07:48:14 PM 890 Views
Logical? - 11/11/2009 09:16:18 PM 885 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 853 Views
your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 05:47:53 PM 893 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 981 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 843 Views
There's nothing in those quotes that even touches on who killed Asmodean. - 11/11/2009 06:40:31 PM 914 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 791 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 454 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 820 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 886 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 378 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 871 Views
there was a bit more before it - 12/11/2009 05:03:20 AM 809 Views
Not so suspicious if he's read some fan reactions/theories. - 12/11/2009 11:48:30 AM 853 Views
Which he clearly said he did and LOL'd at. *NM* - 18/11/2009 11:33:58 PM 443 Views
Maybe I missed something. - 12/11/2009 03:02:59 PM 836 Views
Yeah, BS will reveal it either in ToM or AMoL. *NM* - 12/11/2009 03:12:16 PM 408 Views

Reply to Message