Active Users:1800 Time:23/09/2026 10:01:39 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 2085 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 1069 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 1071 Views
It eliminates for the following - 11/11/2009 05:44:29 PM 1064 Views
That's quite a leap of logic... - 11/11/2009 06:31:21 PM 1111 Views
Re: - 11/11/2009 07:46:15 PM 1091 Views
You make a faulty assumption - 11/11/2009 08:06:52 PM 1029 Views
NO! - 11/11/2009 09:07:39 PM 936 Views
Why? - 11/11/2009 06:32:10 PM 901 Views
Re: Why? - 11/11/2009 07:48:14 PM 963 Views
Logical? - 11/11/2009 09:16:18 PM 942 Views
Er? I think you're reading it wrong. - 11/11/2009 06:32:17 PM 948 Views
I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 06:33:41 PM 903 Views
Re: I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 07:47:27 PM 979 Views
I'm sorry but you are terribly wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:34:56 PM 930 Views
That is a fallacious leap of logic. - 11/11/2009 06:50:13 PM 978 Views
Yes, but... - 11/11/2009 07:49:39 PM 948 Views
That is still erroneous. - 11/11/2009 08:10:15 PM 924 Views
your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 05:47:53 PM 967 Views
Re: your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 07:51:01 PM 970 Views
I repeat, your interpretation is wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:15:43 PM 984 Views
I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 06:11:46 PM 1069 Views
Re: I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 08:01:31 PM 1044 Views
I'm not a writer... - 11/11/2009 08:48:25 PM 972 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 975 Views
This logic is lacking as well - 11/11/2009 10:17:48 PM 1016 Views
Your comments make sense. - 11/11/2009 11:29:29 PM 882 Views
Re: Your comments make sense. - 12/11/2009 04:48:19 AM 855 Views
Two Things - 11/11/2009 07:58:11 PM 911 Views
Re: Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 07:59:32 PM 967 Views
But do you agree that Graendal cannot reveal herself if she got balefired? *NM* - 11/11/2009 08:07:53 PM 483 Views
Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 11/11/2009 08:52:49 PM 1007 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 884 Views
According to Etzel, this is impossible - 12/11/2009 04:14:47 AM 934 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 969 Views
This was done in the series before... - 12/11/2009 03:40:58 PM 888 Views
I meant... - 12/11/2009 04:02:33 PM 941 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 18/11/2009 11:32:03 PM 917 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 19/11/2009 01:57:48 AM 937 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 941 Views
Re: Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:53:39 AM 925 Views
there was a bit more before it - 12/11/2009 05:03:20 AM 868 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 896 Views
Yeah, BS will reveal it either in ToM or AMoL. *NM* - 12/11/2009 03:12:16 PM 443 Views

Reply to Message