I don't see any reason the Graendal theory is wrong from that.
Tom Send a noteboard - 14/11/2009 02:53:25 PM
If anything, the lack of shock indicates that Graendal is more likely. Of course, I still think it was Lanfear.
Political correctness is the pettiest form of casuistry.
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
Another blow to the Graendaldunnit-theory
- 14/11/2009 10:41:32 AM
1175 Views
I don't see any reason the Graendal theory is wrong from that.
- 14/11/2009 02:53:25 PM
621 Views
He has stated that they will put the mystery to rest in the final books...
- 14/11/2009 04:02:53 PM
730 Views
I actually figured a way that this could come up quite naturally without Graendal
- 14/11/2009 04:11:24 PM
737 Views
RJ said it will probably revealed in the killer's PoV
- 14/11/2009 04:46:20 PM
575 Views
And Brandon said Harriet gave him the freedom to tell the story as he wishes.
- 14/11/2009 06:05:40 PM
544 Views
We (you, me & RJ) agree that it would be best to reveal it in the killer's PoV
- 14/11/2009 06:40:33 PM
550 Views
Wait...wait...this is funny.
- 20/11/2009 02:05:26 AM
465 Views
I often explained it, because many don't seem to get it
- 20/11/2009 12:17:21 PM
419 Views
So maybe Graendal didn't care enough about Asmodean, either.
- 20/11/2009 02:07:02 PM
446 Views
Neither Graendal nor Slayer mention killing Asmo...
- 20/11/2009 02:46:40 PM
593 Views
It seems you think I don't read any posts and you certainly haven't read this board much.
- 14/11/2009 04:30:06 PM
521 Views
That's wrong
- 14/11/2009 04:45:02 PM
640 Views
Not one word of what I wrote is wrong.
- 15/11/2009 01:41:18 AM
532 Views
right here
- 15/11/2009 03:04:57 AM
512 Views
If Graendal's name is mentioned, then "Graendal" is in the book. *NM*
- 15/11/2009 12:13:57 PM
234 Views
BS just said that Graendal will be mentioned, not appear as a character in ToM. *NM*
- 15/11/2009 09:58:53 AM
224 Views
I never said "appear as a character." *NM*
- 15/11/2009 12:14:16 PM
210 Views
- 15/11/2009 12:44:07 PM
608 Views
- 15/11/2009 12:44:07 PM
608 Views
BS never would have figured it out himself that Graendal did it? *NM*
- 14/11/2009 05:20:19 PM
225 Views
Re: I don't see any reason the Graendal theory is wrong from that.
- 19/11/2009 12:07:25 AM
730 Views
I don't agree with this interpretation at all - your grasping for straws...
- 14/11/2009 07:34:58 PM
523 Views
Only if you make the assumption that she was the most obvious to Sanderson.
- 14/11/2009 07:37:39 PM
582 Views
No. Try again.
- 14/11/2009 11:35:59 PM
598 Views
Ok, I will stay alert for further blows to Graendaldunnit, if this didn't already convince you! 
*NM*
- 15/11/2009 10:02:26 AM
217 Views
*NM*
- 15/11/2009 10:02:26 AM
217 Views
Actually this is more against the Slayer theory
- 15/11/2009 01:49:08 PM
513 Views
Nonsense...
- 15/11/2009 02:06:04 PM
491 Views
Your tenacity is impressive. 
- 15/11/2009 03:14:50 PM
545 Views
- 15/11/2009 03:14:50 PM
545 Views
Absolut statements in such discussions...
- 15/11/2009 03:53:22 PM
471 Views
Re: Absolut statements in such discussions...
- 15/11/2009 05:57:25 PM
427 Views