Active Users:1720 Time:25/03/2026 06:20:37 PM
Fails the Sanderson confusion test Asha'man Warder Send a noteboard - 20/11/2009 01:07:43 PM
I think this "foreshadowing" was misdirection. The biggest argument against Silviana is that Sanderson would not have questioned whether we have seen Mesaana's persona. He could not have forgotten Silviana, so she can't be Mesaana.
Reply to message
Mesaana == Silviana ... - 19/11/2009 10:34:45 PM 1203 Views
No. *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:36:16 PM 316 Views
No. *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:38:19 PM 288 Views
Sure why the hell not... *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:56:12 PM 301 Views
I like the way you think *NM* - 20/11/2009 12:17:01 AM 275 Views
Thank you *NM* - 26/11/2009 08:41:04 PM 287 Views
Meh. Yeah, why not? *NM* - 20/11/2009 04:17:46 PM 311 Views
because it's not true *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:59:38 PM 286 Views
Re: Mesaana == Silviana ... - 19/11/2009 11:07:56 PM 857 Views
That's not how speculation works. - 19/11/2009 11:41:55 PM 823 Views
Well, it's how speculation works. Plus, it has charisma! *NM* - 20/11/2009 01:18:48 AM 304 Views
Yes. It is. - 20/11/2009 03:06:04 AM 642 Views
Because I declared it to be so. That is sufficient reason. - 20/11/2009 03:33:54 AM 583 Views
This severely limits any discussion. - 20/11/2009 09:36:17 PM 642 Views
My point exactly . *NM* - 20/11/2009 10:12:06 PM 260 Views
Let me guess - 20/11/2009 12:07:46 AM 743 Views
Yes, the original post was dumb, but... - 20/11/2009 08:09:27 AM 791 Views
Perhaps - 20/11/2009 11:18:56 AM 637 Views
Fails the Sanderson confusion test - 20/11/2009 01:07:43 PM 626 Views
Oh, I see your reasoning. - 20/11/2009 03:14:11 AM 706 Views

Reply to Message