Active Users:1547 Time:23/09/2026 09:05:49 AM
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 2084 Views
He didn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:27:34 PM 1020 Views
I definately did not see conclusive evidence; in fact... - 11/11/2009 05:32:20 PM 1067 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 539 Views
That still doesn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:39:12 PM 1069 Views
It eliminates for the following - 11/11/2009 05:44:29 PM 1062 Views
That's quite a leap of logic... - 11/11/2009 06:31:21 PM 1110 Views
Re: - 11/11/2009 07:46:15 PM 1089 Views
You make a faulty assumption - 11/11/2009 08:06:52 PM 1027 Views
NO! - 11/11/2009 09:07:39 PM 936 Views
Why? - 11/11/2009 06:32:10 PM 899 Views
Re: Why? - 11/11/2009 07:48:14 PM 962 Views
Logical? - 11/11/2009 09:16:18 PM 940 Views
Er? I think you're reading it wrong. - 11/11/2009 06:32:17 PM 946 Views
I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 06:33:41 PM 901 Views
Re: I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 07:47:27 PM 977 Views
I'm sorry but you are terribly wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:34:56 PM 928 Views
That is a fallacious leap of logic. - 11/11/2009 06:50:13 PM 976 Views
Yes, but... - 11/11/2009 07:49:39 PM 947 Views
That is still erroneous. - 11/11/2009 08:10:15 PM 922 Views
your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 05:47:53 PM 965 Views
Re: your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 07:51:01 PM 968 Views
I repeat, your interpretation is wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:15:43 PM 982 Views
I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 06:11:46 PM 1067 Views
Re: I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 08:01:31 PM 1042 Views
I'm not a writer... - 11/11/2009 08:48:25 PM 970 Views
Agree - 18/11/2009 11:22:09 PM 928 Views
There's nothing in those quotes that even touches on who killed Asmodean. - 11/11/2009 06:40:31 PM 974 Views
This logic is lacking as well - 11/11/2009 10:17:48 PM 1014 Views
Your comments make sense. - 11/11/2009 11:29:29 PM 880 Views
Re: Your comments make sense. - 12/11/2009 04:48:19 AM 855 Views
Two Things - 11/11/2009 07:58:11 PM 909 Views
Re: Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 07:59:32 PM 965 Views
But do you agree that Graendal cannot reveal herself if she got balefired? *NM* - 11/11/2009 08:07:53 PM 482 Views
Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 11/11/2009 08:52:49 PM 1006 Views
this is what happens when you get interrupted in the middle of a post *NM* - 11/11/2009 09:28:01 PM 475 Views
What? Did you double post? - 11/11/2009 09:49:15 PM 882 Views
According to Etzel, this is impossible - 12/11/2009 04:14:47 AM 933 Views
Why is it impossible? You can't have parallel timelines? *NM* - 12/11/2009 11:29:45 AM 474 Views
I don't say it's impossible... - 12/11/2009 03:11:17 PM 968 Views
This was done in the series before... - 12/11/2009 03:40:58 PM 886 Views
I meant... - 12/11/2009 04:02:33 PM 939 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 18/11/2009 11:32:03 PM 915 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 19/11/2009 01:57:48 AM 935 Views
that proved nothing. *NM* - 11/11/2009 10:46:15 PM 454 Views
Rather pointless, really. *NM* - 12/11/2009 01:08:14 AM 406 Views
Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:13:45 AM 939 Views
Re: Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:53:39 AM 923 Views
there was a bit more before it - 12/11/2009 05:03:20 AM 866 Views
Not so suspicious if he's read some fan reactions/theories. - 12/11/2009 11:48:30 AM 914 Views
Which he clearly said he did and LOL'd at. *NM* - 18/11/2009 11:33:58 PM 473 Views
Maybe I missed something. - 12/11/2009 03:02:59 PM 895 Views
Yeah, BS will reveal it either in ToM or AMoL. *NM* - 12/11/2009 03:12:16 PM 443 Views

Reply to Message