Active Users:979 Time:13/11/2026 01:13:06 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 1309 Views
No. *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:36:16 PM 378 Views
No. *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:38:19 PM 345 Views
Sure why the hell not... *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:56:12 PM 356 Views
I like the way you think *NM* - 20/11/2009 12:17:01 AM 324 Views
Thank you *NM* - 26/11/2009 08:41:04 PM 337 Views
Meh. Yeah, why not? *NM* - 20/11/2009 04:17:46 PM 360 Views
because it's not true *NM* - 19/11/2009 10:59:38 PM 342 Views
Re: Mesaana == Silviana ... - 19/11/2009 11:07:56 PM 979 Views
That's not how speculation works. - 19/11/2009 11:41:55 PM 932 Views
Well, it's how speculation works. Plus, it has charisma! *NM* - 20/11/2009 01:18:48 AM 358 Views
Yes. It is. - 20/11/2009 03:06:04 AM 759 Views
Because I declared it to be so. That is sufficient reason. - 20/11/2009 03:33:54 AM 701 Views
This severely limits any discussion. - 20/11/2009 09:36:17 PM 770 Views
My point exactly . *NM* - 20/11/2009 10:12:06 PM 310 Views
Let me guess - 20/11/2009 12:07:46 AM 861 Views
Yes, the original post was dumb, but... - 20/11/2009 08:09:27 AM 921 Views
Perhaps - 20/11/2009 11:18:56 AM 760 Views
Fails the Sanderson confusion test - 20/11/2009 01:07:43 PM 745 Views
Oh, I see your reasoning. - 20/11/2009 03:14:11 AM 829 Views

Reply to Message