Active Users:384 Time:01/05/2025 06:49:12 AM
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 1071 Views
No. *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:36:16 PM 257 Views
No. *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:38:19 PM 236 Views
Sure why the hell not... *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:56:12 PM 245 Views
I like the way you think *NM* - 20/11/2009 12:17:01 AM 224 Views
Thank you *NM* - 26/11/2009 08:41:04 PM 236 Views
Meh. Yeah, why not? *NM* - 20/11/2009 04:17:46 PM 261 Views
because it's not true *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:59:38 PM 237 Views
Re: Mesaana == Silviana ... - 19/11/2009 11:07:56 PM 742 Views
That's not how speculation works. - 19/11/2009 11:41:55 PM 695 Views
Well, it's how speculation works. Plus, it has charisma! *NM* - 20/11/2009 01:18:48 AM 246 Views
Yes. It is. - 20/11/2009 03:06:04 AM 520 Views
Because I declared it to be so. That is sufficient reason. - 20/11/2009 03:33:54 AM 475 Views
This severely limits any discussion. - 20/11/2009 09:36:17 PM 506 Views
My point exactly . *NM* - 20/11/2009 10:12:06 PM 213 Views
Let me guess - 20/11/2009 12:07:46 AM 625 Views
Yes, the original post was dumb, but... - 20/11/2009 08:09:27 AM 667 Views
Perhaps - 20/11/2009 11:18:56 AM 523 Views
Fails the Sanderson confusion test - 20/11/2009 01:07:43 PM 503 Views
Oh, I see your reasoning. - 20/11/2009 03:14:11 AM 587 Views

Reply to Message