Active Users:777 Time:30/01/2026 11:14:57 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 1174 Views
No. *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:36:16 PM 306 Views
No. *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:38:19 PM 277 Views
Sure why the hell not... *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:56:12 PM 295 Views
I like the way you think *NM* - 20/11/2009 12:17:01 AM 263 Views
Thank you *NM* - 26/11/2009 08:41:04 PM 279 Views
Meh. Yeah, why not? *NM* - 20/11/2009 04:17:46 PM 301 Views
because it's not true *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:59:38 PM 279 Views
Re: Mesaana == Silviana ... - 19/11/2009 11:07:56 PM 832 Views
That's not how speculation works. - 19/11/2009 11:41:55 PM 791 Views
Well, it's how speculation works. Plus, it has charisma! *NM* - 20/11/2009 01:18:48 AM 294 Views
Yes. It is. - 20/11/2009 03:06:04 AM 623 Views
Because I declared it to be so. That is sufficient reason. - 20/11/2009 03:33:54 AM 567 Views
This severely limits any discussion. - 20/11/2009 09:36:17 PM 622 Views
My point exactly . *NM* - 20/11/2009 10:12:06 PM 256 Views
Let me guess - 20/11/2009 12:07:46 AM 723 Views
Yes, the original post was dumb, but... - 20/11/2009 08:09:27 AM 769 Views
Perhaps - 20/11/2009 11:18:56 AM 615 Views
Fails the Sanderson confusion test - 20/11/2009 01:07:43 PM 599 Views
Oh, I see your reasoning. - 20/11/2009 03:14:11 AM 683 Views

Reply to Message