Active Users:814 Time:07/11/2025 01:38:00 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 1123 Views
No. *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:36:16 PM 286 Views
No. *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:38:19 PM 263 Views
Sure why the hell not... *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:56:12 PM 273 Views
I like the way you think *NM* - 20/11/2009 12:17:01 AM 249 Views
Thank you *NM* - 26/11/2009 08:41:04 PM 263 Views
Meh. Yeah, why not? *NM* - 20/11/2009 04:17:46 PM 285 Views
because it's not true *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:59:38 PM 262 Views
Re: Mesaana == Silviana ... - 19/11/2009 11:07:56 PM 796 Views
That's not how speculation works. - 19/11/2009 11:41:55 PM 751 Views
Well, it's how speculation works. Plus, it has charisma! *NM* - 20/11/2009 01:18:48 AM 273 Views
Yes. It is. - 20/11/2009 03:06:04 AM 579 Views
Because I declared it to be so. That is sufficient reason. - 20/11/2009 03:33:54 AM 526 Views
This severely limits any discussion. - 20/11/2009 09:36:17 PM 563 Views
My point exactly . *NM* - 20/11/2009 10:12:06 PM 238 Views
Let me guess - 20/11/2009 12:07:46 AM 681 Views
Yes, the original post was dumb, but... - 20/11/2009 08:09:27 AM 725 Views
Perhaps - 20/11/2009 11:18:56 AM 575 Views
Fails the Sanderson confusion test - 20/11/2009 01:07:43 PM 558 Views
Oh, I see your reasoning. - 20/11/2009 03:14:11 AM 643 Views

Reply to Message