Active Users:3208 Time:23/01/2025 02:50:51 AM
That is still erroneous. RugbyPlayingAshaman Send a noteboard - 11/11/2009 08:10:15 PM
I think you're making quite a large leap in logic. Mainly because we have no way of knowing how this information would be conveyed or even if it would be conveyed.

In addition, in order for your leap to make any sense, we'd need to know if Graendal is dead or not, because quite simply, if she wasn't in the palace when the balefire stream hit it, she could still turn up and reveal herself as Asmodean's killer.

Even more damning to your claim is that Sanderson doesn't ever state whether or not Graendal is dead, let alone who Asmodean's killer is.

Sorry, but your claim just doesn't hold up.
"Those who think they have no time for bodily exercise will sooner or later have to find time for illness."
Reply to message
Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 05:18:48 PM 1684 Views
He didn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:27:34 PM 659 Views
I definately did not see conclusive evidence; in fact... - 11/11/2009 05:32:20 PM 734 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 346 Views
That still doesn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:39:12 PM 646 Views
It eliminates for the following - 11/11/2009 05:44:29 PM 673 Views
That's quite a leap of logic... - 11/11/2009 06:31:21 PM 780 Views
Re: - 11/11/2009 07:46:15 PM 737 Views
You make a faulty assumption - 11/11/2009 08:06:52 PM 679 Views
NO! - 11/11/2009 09:07:39 PM 590 Views
Why? - 11/11/2009 06:32:10 PM 580 Views
Re: Why? - 11/11/2009 07:48:14 PM 602 Views
Logical? - 11/11/2009 09:16:18 PM 608 Views
Er? I think you're reading it wrong. - 11/11/2009 06:32:17 PM 612 Views
I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 06:33:41 PM 567 Views
Re: I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 07:47:27 PM 645 Views
I'm sorry but you are terribly wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:34:56 PM 596 Views
That is a fallacious leap of logic. - 11/11/2009 06:50:13 PM 612 Views
Yes, but... - 11/11/2009 07:49:39 PM 591 Views
That is still erroneous. - 11/11/2009 08:10:15 PM 568 Views
your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 05:47:53 PM 631 Views
Re: your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 07:51:01 PM 603 Views
I repeat, your interpretation is wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:15:43 PM 607 Views
I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 06:11:46 PM 694 Views
Re: I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 08:01:31 PM 659 Views
I'm not a writer... - 11/11/2009 08:48:25 PM 642 Views
Agree - 18/11/2009 11:22:09 PM 567 Views
There's nothing in those quotes that even touches on who killed Asmodean. - 11/11/2009 06:40:31 PM 602 Views
This logic is lacking as well - 11/11/2009 10:17:48 PM 648 Views
Your comments make sense. - 11/11/2009 11:29:29 PM 513 Views
Re: Your comments make sense. - 12/11/2009 04:48:19 AM 512 Views
Two Things - 11/11/2009 07:58:11 PM 557 Views
Re: Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 07:59:32 PM 622 Views
But do you agree that Graendal cannot reveal herself if she got balefired? *NM* - 11/11/2009 08:07:53 PM 321 Views
Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 11/11/2009 08:52:49 PM 648 Views
this is what happens when you get interrupted in the middle of a post *NM* - 11/11/2009 09:28:01 PM 310 Views
What? Did you double post? - 11/11/2009 09:49:15 PM 539 Views
According to Etzel, this is impossible - 12/11/2009 04:14:47 AM 586 Views
Why is it impossible? You can't have parallel timelines? *NM* - 12/11/2009 11:29:45 AM 298 Views
I don't say it's impossible... - 12/11/2009 03:11:17 PM 590 Views
This was done in the series before... - 12/11/2009 03:40:58 PM 526 Views
I meant... - 12/11/2009 04:02:33 PM 615 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 18/11/2009 11:32:03 PM 572 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 19/11/2009 01:57:48 AM 571 Views
that proved nothing. *NM* - 11/11/2009 10:46:15 PM 278 Views
Rather pointless, really. *NM* - 12/11/2009 01:08:14 AM 254 Views
Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:13:45 AM 575 Views
Re: Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:53:39 AM 573 Views
there was a bit more before it - 12/11/2009 05:03:20 AM 530 Views
Not so suspicious if he's read some fan reactions/theories. - 12/11/2009 11:48:30 AM 554 Views
Which he clearly said he did and LOL'd at. *NM* - 18/11/2009 11:33:58 PM 302 Views
Maybe I missed something. - 12/11/2009 03:02:59 PM 540 Views
Yeah, BS will reveal it either in ToM or AMoL. *NM* - 12/11/2009 03:12:16 PM 250 Views

Reply to Message