Active Users:722 Time:13/05/2026 06:38:41 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 1227 Views
No. *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:36:16 PM 328 Views
No. *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:38:19 PM 296 Views
Sure why the hell not... *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:56:12 PM 317 Views
I like the way you think *NM* - 20/11/2009 12:17:01 AM 283 Views
Thank you *NM* - 26/11/2009 08:41:04 PM 298 Views
Meh. Yeah, why not? *NM* - 20/11/2009 04:17:46 PM 321 Views
because it's not true *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:59:38 PM 297 Views
Re: Mesaana == Silviana ... - 19/11/2009 11:07:56 PM 892 Views
That's not how speculation works. - 19/11/2009 11:41:55 PM 845 Views
Well, it's how speculation works. Plus, it has charisma! *NM* - 20/11/2009 01:18:48 AM 316 Views
Yes. It is. - 20/11/2009 03:06:04 AM 672 Views
Because I declared it to be so. That is sufficient reason. - 20/11/2009 03:33:54 AM 610 Views
This severely limits any discussion. - 20/11/2009 09:36:17 PM 669 Views
My point exactly . *NM* - 20/11/2009 10:12:06 PM 272 Views
Let me guess - 20/11/2009 12:07:46 AM 766 Views
Yes, the original post was dumb, but... - 20/11/2009 08:09:27 AM 814 Views
Perhaps - 20/11/2009 11:18:56 AM 664 Views
Fails the Sanderson confusion test - 20/11/2009 01:07:43 PM 659 Views
Oh, I see your reasoning. - 20/11/2009 03:14:11 AM 741 Views

Reply to Message