Active Users:516 Time:01/11/2024 03:56:06 AM
Re: There's nothing in those quotes that even touches on who killed Asmodean. Logain Send a noteboard - 11/11/2009 07:53:19 PM
The only thing that is discussed is how far back the effects of balefire go. There's no definitive discussion on ANYthing else.

Notice something about Sanderson's comments. He said, 'let's say that the CK makes Rand 100x more powerful'. He's not saying it DOES - that's just his supposition. That's beautiful Aes Sedai misdirection.

---


But it does eliminate Graendal.

Graendal cannot reveal herself as Asmodean's killer directly (because she is balefired) or indirectly (by Asmodean reappearing). But we know that someone will reveal themselves as Asmodean's killer.

Ergo, somebody else killed Asmodean, not Graendal.
Reply to message
Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 05:18:48 PM 1642 Views
He didn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:27:34 PM 626 Views
I definately did not see conclusive evidence; in fact... - 11/11/2009 05:32:20 PM 692 Views
Yes, Brandon did. I edited my original message to add in another quote from Brandon...see above *NM* - 11/11/2009 05:33:27 PM 332 Views
That still doesn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:39:12 PM 598 Views
It eliminates for the following - 11/11/2009 05:44:29 PM 631 Views
That's quite a leap of logic... - 11/11/2009 06:31:21 PM 739 Views
Re: - 11/11/2009 07:46:15 PM 685 Views
You make a faulty assumption - 11/11/2009 08:06:52 PM 646 Views
NO! - 11/11/2009 09:07:39 PM 554 Views
Why? - 11/11/2009 06:32:10 PM 542 Views
Re: Why? - 11/11/2009 07:48:14 PM 562 Views
Logical? - 11/11/2009 09:16:18 PM 568 Views
Er? I think you're reading it wrong. - 11/11/2009 06:32:17 PM 565 Views
I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 06:33:41 PM 522 Views
Re: I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 07:47:27 PM 602 Views
I'm sorry but you are terribly wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:34:56 PM 555 Views
That is a fallacious leap of logic. - 11/11/2009 06:50:13 PM 571 Views
Yes, but... - 11/11/2009 07:49:39 PM 544 Views
That is still erroneous. - 11/11/2009 08:10:15 PM 527 Views
your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 05:47:53 PM 586 Views
Re: your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 07:51:01 PM 561 Views
I repeat, your interpretation is wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:15:43 PM 561 Views
I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 06:11:46 PM 647 Views
Re: I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 08:01:31 PM 625 Views
I'm not a writer... - 11/11/2009 08:48:25 PM 601 Views
Agree - 18/11/2009 11:22:09 PM 485 Views
There's nothing in those quotes that even touches on who killed Asmodean. - 11/11/2009 06:40:31 PM 561 Views
Re: There's nothing in those quotes that even touches on who killed Asmodean. - 11/11/2009 07:53:19 PM 501 Views
This logic is lacking as well - 11/11/2009 10:17:48 PM 604 Views
Your comments make sense. - 11/11/2009 11:29:29 PM 477 Views
Re: Your comments make sense. - 12/11/2009 04:48:19 AM 475 Views
Two Things - 11/11/2009 07:58:11 PM 520 Views
Re: Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 07:59:32 PM 577 Views
But do you agree that Graendal cannot reveal herself if she got balefired? *NM* - 11/11/2009 08:07:53 PM 304 Views
Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 11/11/2009 08:52:49 PM 610 Views
this is what happens when you get interrupted in the middle of a post *NM* - 11/11/2009 09:28:01 PM 290 Views
What? Did you double post? - 11/11/2009 09:49:15 PM 498 Views
According to Etzel, this is impossible - 12/11/2009 04:14:47 AM 545 Views
Why is it impossible? You can't have parallel timelines? *NM* - 12/11/2009 11:29:45 AM 278 Views
I don't say it's impossible... - 12/11/2009 03:11:17 PM 545 Views
This was done in the series before... - 12/11/2009 03:40:58 PM 491 Views
I meant... - 12/11/2009 04:02:33 PM 574 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 18/11/2009 11:32:03 PM 532 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 19/11/2009 01:57:48 AM 531 Views
that proved nothing. *NM* - 11/11/2009 10:46:15 PM 257 Views
Rather pointless, really. *NM* - 12/11/2009 01:08:14 AM 238 Views
Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:13:45 AM 526 Views
Re: Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:53:39 AM 533 Views
there was a bit more before it - 12/11/2009 05:03:20 AM 487 Views
Not so suspicious if he's read some fan reactions/theories. - 12/11/2009 11:48:30 AM 516 Views
Which he clearly said he did and LOL'd at. *NM* - 18/11/2009 11:33:58 PM 281 Views
Maybe I missed something. - 12/11/2009 03:02:59 PM 498 Views
Yeah, BS will reveal it either in ToM or AMoL. *NM* - 12/11/2009 03:12:16 PM 232 Views

Reply to Message