Active Users:346 Time:27/04/2025 10:30:26 PM
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 1745 Views
He didn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:27:34 PM 719 Views
I definately did not see conclusive evidence; in fact... - 11/11/2009 05:32:20 PM 787 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 373 Views
That still doesn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:39:12 PM 710 Views
It eliminates for the following - 11/11/2009 05:44:29 PM 728 Views
That's quite a leap of logic... - 11/11/2009 06:31:21 PM 838 Views
Re: - 11/11/2009 07:46:15 PM 794 Views
You make a faulty assumption - 11/11/2009 08:06:52 PM 739 Views
NO! - 11/11/2009 09:07:39 PM 626 Views
Why? - 11/11/2009 06:32:10 PM 643 Views
Re: Why? - 11/11/2009 07:48:14 PM 659 Views
Logical? - 11/11/2009 09:16:18 PM 661 Views
Er? I think you're reading it wrong. - 11/11/2009 06:32:17 PM 670 Views
I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 06:33:41 PM 626 Views
Re: I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 07:47:27 PM 707 Views
I'm sorry but you are terribly wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:34:56 PM 651 Views
That is a fallacious leap of logic. - 11/11/2009 06:50:13 PM 664 Views
Yes, but... - 11/11/2009 07:49:39 PM 649 Views
That is still erroneous. - 11/11/2009 08:10:15 PM 630 Views
your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 05:47:53 PM 687 Views
Re: your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 07:51:01 PM 656 Views
I repeat, your interpretation is wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:15:43 PM 665 Views
I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 06:11:46 PM 749 Views
Re: I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 08:01:31 PM 701 Views
I'm not a writer... - 11/11/2009 08:48:25 PM 705 Views
Agree - 18/11/2009 11:22:09 PM 624 Views
There's nothing in those quotes that even touches on who killed Asmodean. - 11/11/2009 06:40:31 PM 662 Views
This logic is lacking as well - 11/11/2009 10:17:48 PM 702 Views
Your comments make sense. - 11/11/2009 11:29:29 PM 567 Views
Re: Your comments make sense. - 12/11/2009 04:48:19 AM 563 Views
Two Things - 11/11/2009 07:58:11 PM 618 Views
Re: Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 07:59:32 PM 675 Views
But do you agree that Graendal cannot reveal herself if she got balefired? *NM* - 11/11/2009 08:07:53 PM 346 Views
Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 11/11/2009 08:52:49 PM 696 Views
this is what happens when you get interrupted in the middle of a post *NM* - 11/11/2009 09:28:01 PM 332 Views
What? Did you double post? - 11/11/2009 09:49:15 PM 594 Views
According to Etzel, this is impossible - 12/11/2009 04:14:47 AM 645 Views
Why is it impossible? You can't have parallel timelines? *NM* - 12/11/2009 11:29:45 AM 324 Views
I don't say it's impossible... - 12/11/2009 03:11:17 PM 657 Views
This was done in the series before... - 12/11/2009 03:40:58 PM 585 Views
I meant... - 12/11/2009 04:02:33 PM 677 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 18/11/2009 11:32:03 PM 623 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 19/11/2009 01:57:48 AM 629 Views
that proved nothing. *NM* - 11/11/2009 10:46:15 PM 300 Views
Rather pointless, really. *NM* - 12/11/2009 01:08:14 AM 281 Views
Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:13:45 AM 638 Views
Re: Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:53:39 AM 629 Views
there was a bit more before it - 12/11/2009 05:03:20 AM 581 Views
Not so suspicious if he's read some fan reactions/theories. - 12/11/2009 11:48:30 AM 614 Views
Which he clearly said he did and LOL'd at. *NM* - 18/11/2009 11:33:58 PM 326 Views
Maybe I missed something. - 12/11/2009 03:02:59 PM 597 Views
Yeah, BS will reveal it either in ToM or AMoL. *NM* - 12/11/2009 03:12:16 PM 274 Views

Reply to Message