Active Users:1163 Time:13/11/2026 01:04:41 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 1308 Views
No. *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:36:16 PM 377 Views
No. *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:38:19 PM 344 Views
Sure why the hell not... *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:56:12 PM 355 Views
I like the way you think *NM* - 20/11/2009 12:17:01 AM 323 Views
Thank you *NM* - 26/11/2009 08:41:04 PM 336 Views
Meh. Yeah, why not? *NM* - 20/11/2009 04:17:46 PM 359 Views
because it's not true *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:59:38 PM 341 Views
Re: Mesaana == Silviana ... - 19/11/2009 11:07:56 PM 978 Views
That's not how speculation works. - 19/11/2009 11:41:55 PM 931 Views
Well, it's how speculation works. Plus, it has charisma! *NM* - 20/11/2009 01:18:48 AM 357 Views
Yes. It is. - 20/11/2009 03:06:04 AM 758 Views
Because I declared it to be so. That is sufficient reason. - 20/11/2009 03:33:54 AM 700 Views
This severely limits any discussion. - 20/11/2009 09:36:17 PM 769 Views
My point exactly . *NM* - 20/11/2009 10:12:06 PM 309 Views
Let me guess - 20/11/2009 12:07:46 AM 860 Views
Yes, the original post was dumb, but... - 20/11/2009 08:09:27 AM 920 Views
Perhaps - 20/11/2009 11:18:56 AM 759 Views
Fails the Sanderson confusion test - 20/11/2009 01:07:43 PM 744 Views
Oh, I see your reasoning. - 20/11/2009 03:14:11 AM 828 Views

Reply to Message