Why Graendal killed Asmodean
Jazza
Graendal is not even mentioned as a possible candidate for Asmo's killer
(the version I could find didn't, anyway). Which is strange, because she
fits all the requirements listed there (could be recognized by him, able
to dispose of the body, etc). But more importantly, she fits the reason
as to *why* Asmodean was killed. The FAQ lists at some length the
argument that Asmo was killed simple because he stumbled into someone he
recognized, and was killed to hide a breach in Rand's security. So why
does it seem that no-one has realized that Graendal has agents in
Caemlyn? She reveals this several times, such as when she tells Sammael
that she knows his emissary is dead, and in a couple of other places.
Furthermore, RJ has said that we have all the clues to figure out who
killed Asmodean. If this claim is correct, then the killer must be
someone who has mentioned Asmo's demise or who is otherwise connected to
him in some way. The only people to mention Asmo's death are Demandred,
Sammael and Graendal. We know Demandred didn't kill him, and Sammael
didn't know for sure that Asmodean was dead. But Graendal definitively
stated, twice, that Asmodean was dead. Hence, Graendal killed Asmodean.
Rick Moen
>Furthermore, RJ has said that we have all the clues to figure out who
>killed Asmodean. If this claim is correct, then the killer must be
>someone who has mentioned Asmo's demise or who is otherwise connected to
>him in some way. The only people to mention Asmo's death are Demandred,
>Sammael and Graendal.
You're forgetting the "or are connected to him in some way" part. Lots
of folk are arguably connected with him in some way, from Lanfear on down.
(Admittedly, many will claim that Lanfear's out of the picture.) Motive,
opportunity, etc., will have to be the key to this.
>We know Demandred didn't kill him, and Sammael didn't know for sure that
>Asmodean was dead. But Graendal definitively stated, twice, that
>Asmodean was dead. Hence, Graendal killed Asmodean.
Demandred can be ruled out, since we know he's told the DO that Asmo.
mysteriously vanished (and would hardly lie to the DO). Sammael has
only _said to Graendal_ that he doesn't know what happened to Asmo.,
which is not as conclusive. I'll grant that it's probably true, since
we know Sammael's generally a straight-forward sort, compared to, say,
Graendal.
Cheers, My pid is Inigo Montoya. You kill -9 my
Rick Moen parent process. Prepare to vi.
ri...@hugin.imat.com
aka Rick, son of Artur (no kidding!), son of Arne
Tanya Tompkins
While I know the FAQ says a lot about this subject, what bugs me is that
Graendal is not even mentioned as a possible candidate for Asmo's killer
(the version I could find didn't, anyway). Which is strange, because she
fits all the requirements listed there (could be recognized by him, able
to dispose of the body, etc).
The only people to mention Asmo's death are
Demandred, Sammael and Graendal. We know Demandred didn't kill him, and
Sammaeldidn't know for sure that Asmodean was dead. But Graendal definitively
stated, twice, that Asmodean was dead. Hence, Graendal killed Asmodean.
I don't think Asmodean's death fits Graendal's modus operandi. Also, what
motive did she have for being in Caemlyn? Also, if Graendal or
anyone using the OP gated in, killed Asmodean and gated out, wouldn't
Rand have noticed?
Something I have noticed is that Shai's presence tends to
be very strong whenever the Dragon actively seeks to engage any of the
Forsaken (the exception being Lanfear: perhaps that battle was not supposed to
be decisive either way). IMO that perhaps one of Shai's other minions offed
Asmodean - maybe the super-fade.
Aside:
I know this has been addressed in other threads but what is the consensus on
the super-fade? IMO that SF = 'He who is dead yet lives' LoC -273) - if
that is the case then it supports the notion that SF is a born-again Forsaken.
Kenneth G. Cavness
ttom...@ucla.edu (Tanya Tompkins) wrote:
> I don't think Asmodean's death fits Graendal's modus operandi. Also, what
> motive did she have for being in Caemlyn? Also, if Graendal or
> anyone using the OP gated in, killed Asmodean and gated out, wouldn't
> Rand have noticed?
This is my biggest problem with the Graendal-offed-Asmo theory.
In most murder mysteries, Character, Motive, and Means are the most
used points. Motive and Means Graendal had, but Character she did
not. It's proven over and over that Graendal likes to be safe, to
work from behind -- she's actually a bit like Moghedien, in that
she pretty much lurks until there's a huge opportunity for her to
move up.
Graendal wants to be Nae'blis as much as any of the other Chosen,
but she had already stated that if Rand were chosen as Nae'blis, she'd
have eternity to get rid of him -- so she's patient. What on earth
would she have as a motive to kill Asmodean?
The fact that he betrayed the Dark One? Well, Aginor frees Moghedien,
when Moghedien was forced into the same position as Asmo -- we find
out when an Asmo-POV is displayed that Asmodean still considers the
Dark One the "Great Lord" -- so he hasn't really changed. It was all
lip service.
The Dark One knew of both Moghedien's and Asmodean's circumstances,
yet he freed Moghedian and gave Asmodean the "final death". Graendal
had gone to Shayol Ghul, indeed -- but Demandred did as well, and
his chances of being the one who killed Asmodean are pretty slim.
Both could have heard of Asmodean's "dying the final death" in much
the same way.
This whole situation is totally confusing to me, but I'm pretty
much self-assured that Graendal was _not_ the one to kill Asmodean.
It just isn't _like_ her.
--
K'K'K'Kenn(eth) G. Cavness
mailto:cav...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
aux. addr.: az...@mail.utexas.edu, az...@menzo.sojourn.com,
star...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
Raven
>> I don't think Asmodean's death fits Graendal's modus operandi. Also, >>what motive did she have for being in Caemlyn? Also, if Graendal or
>> anyone using the OP gated in, killed Asmodean and gated out, wouldn't
>> Rand have noticed?
>
>This is my biggest problem with the Graendal-offed-Asmo theory.
> Motive. and Means Graendal had, but Character she did
>not. This whole situation is totally confusing to me, but I'm pretty
>much self-assured that Graendal was _not_ the one to kill Asmodean.
>It just isn't _like_ her.
And besides, I think Asm saw death coming. He shouts "NO!" As though his
mere words could ward off whatever it is he saw.
This hints at something. It was either sadin, which he could see, even
in his weakened state, or a weapon ie. sword, dagger. Now I've said it
before and I'll say it again, I don't think anything short of the power
could have killed him withj the speed in which he went. It must have been
sadin. How about this. Taim killed him because he knew, somehow, Asm was
teaching Rand and wanted him out of the way so he would be more important
to Rand when he made his entrance. Oh well...
===================================================================
Raven
dgi...@ccinet.ab.ca
Death is lighter than a feather, duty heavier than a mountain.
Shienarian Proverb.
===================================================================
Andrew R. Sundaresan
couple of possibilities, and maybe you or someone can either shoot down
or support these ideas.
1. Moraine knew that Jasin Natael was Asmodean. She says so in her
'final' letter to Rand. Perhaps she told Taim, and he either viewed
a Forsaken as a grave risk to Rand and killed him, killed him because
Taim was Demandred and was infuriated with Asm. Or, perhaps when '
Moraine thought Rand knew enough of the OP she told Taim to kill him.
2. Like you said, I highly doubt Grendal killed Asm, unless under direct
orders/threats from the DO. She just wouldn't risk herself.
3. I don't even think the DO wanted Asm dead, but really didn't care
when he was killed. Maybe the renegade DF Fain, or a pissed off
chance meeting with Demandred/Taim, or a loyal protective Taim offed
him.
Just my thoughts, for better or worse. Replies/criticism welcomed.
Andrew "Defender" Sundaresan
Bjorn Christianson
<ar...@cwru.po.edu> wrote:
> Raven, I like your idea of Taim killing Asmodean. Let me throw out a
> couple of possibilities, and maybe you or someone can either shoot down
> or support these ideas.
Only too happy to oblige. :-)
> 1. Moraine knew that Jasin Natael was Asmodean. She says so in her
> 'final' letter to Rand. Perhaps she told Taim [snip]
Moiraine never met Taim, that we know of. Moreover, Moiraine has not had
a chance to meet Taim (ie, we've been aware of her whereabouts) since tGH,
IIRC. Taim was busy running away from AS up till that point. It is
theoretically possible that they might have met, but pretty bloody
unlikely. Besides, as others have said before in different circumstances,
RJ would not likely have let something that important happen off camera.
> 2. Like you said, I highly doubt Grendal killed Asm, unless under direct
> orders/threats from the DO. She just wouldn't risk herself.
No arguement, but no arguement for Taim, either.
> 3. I don't even think the DO wanted Asm dead, but really didn't care
> when he was killed. Maybe the renegade DF Fain, or a pissed off
> chance meeting with Demandred/Taim, or a loyal protective Taim offed
> him.
Well, as far as I can see, the opportunity of "a loyal protective Taim" is
out, since Asm wouldn't recognize him. Similarly, it wasn't Demandred,
since Dem was surprised when the DO told him that Asm had died.
Fain as Asm's killer is a fairly popular idea, but I have problems with
it- mainly logistical:
a) Do we know Fain was in Caemlyn at that point? If there is no direct
textual evidence, wouldn't it make more sense for him to arrive in Caemlyn
later, after he knew where al'Thor was?
b) Why kill Asm? Fain had no way of knowing that there was a Forsaken
at Rand's side. At best, Fain's Darkfriend sense might have tipped him
off, but he needs to see the DF for that to work. That is, he couldn't
have known about Asm until he'd seen him. And with Fain's al'Thor sense,
why would he have been wandering around the basement looking for Rand?
Nathan Maling
>
>Raven, I like your idea of Taim killing Asmodean. Let me throw out a
>couple of possibilities, and maybe you or someone can either shoot down
>or support these ideas.
>
>
> Andrew "Defender" Sundaresan
>
Myrelle?
Jazza
Graendal is not even mentioned as a possible candidate for Asmo's killer
(the version I could find didn't, anyway). Which is strange, because she
fits all the requirements listed there (could be recognized by him, able
as to *why* Asmodean was killed. The FAQ lists at some length the
argument that Asmo was killed simple because he stumbled into someone he
recognized, and was killed to hide a breach in Rand's security. So why
does it seem that no-one has realized that Graendal has agents in
Caemlyn? She reveals this several times, such as when she tells Sammael
that she knows his emissary is dead, and in a couple of other places.
killed Asmodean. If this claim is correct, then the killer must be
someone who has mentioned Asmo's demise or who is otherwise connected to
Karl-Johan Noren
cav...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kenneth G. Cavness) writes:
> In article <ttompkin.1...@ucla.edu>,
> ttom...@ucla.edu (Tanya Tompkins) wrote:
> > I don't think Asmodean's death fits Graendal's modus operandi.
> > Also, what motive did she have for being in Caemlyn? Also, if
> > Graendal or anyone using the OP gated in, killed Asmodean and
> > gated out, wouldn't Rand have noticed?
We have no real reason to expect Rand (or Aviendha) to
have noticed Asmodean being killed with the OP. While the
Forsaken's ability to detect channeling is _very_ impressive
(Moghedien detecting Elayne channeling in the Tarabon street
brawl in TSR, Veils), neither Rand nor Aviendha has their
experience and training.
I agree that Graendel killing Asmodean doesn't fit her
character, but remember that she is (probably) by far the
most deceptive of the Forsaken. It also doesn't cover the
case of the DO _ordering_ her to kill Asmodean.
We know that Graendel thinks the DO has promised her the
Nae'blis-hood. It's plausible that the DO gave Graendel
instructions and orders on the same occasion, just as
Demandred was given his.
I saw some mention earlier that Graendel had spies in
Caemlyn, and thus had a reason to be there even if she was
not ordered to kill Asmodean. I would like to see some
reference to that, if such exists, but even given that, I
don't deem it probable. The good thing to do when Rand jumps
Rahvin is to slip quietly away while they're busy, not
hiding in a closet.
[ munching some of Kenneth's post ]
> Graendal wants to be Nae'blis as much as any of the other Chosen,
> but she had already stated that if Rand were chosen as Nae'blis,
> she'd have eternity to get rid of him -- so she's patient. What on
> earth would she have as a motive to kill Asmodean?
"WOULD YOU BE NAE'BLIS, GRAENDEL"
"If you give me that honor, Great Lord"
"THEN SEEK AND PUNISH THE TRAITOR"
Seems pretty a good motive to me.
> The fact that he betrayed the Dark One? Well, Aginor frees
> Moghedien, when Moghedien was forced into the same position as Asmo
> -- we find out when an Asmo-POV is displayed that Asmodean still
> considers the Dark One the "Great Lord" -- so he hasn't really
> changed. It was all lip service.
Yes, but remember that Lanfear did spread some white
lies(tm) about Asmodean's going-over to Rand. And IIRC,
there's some dreams of Asmodean's about Rand being
victorious in TFoH, noted by Egwene in all likelihood.
It might have been so that Aran'gar was sent to Salidar with
the mission: "Find Moghedien. If she's a prisoner, release
her. Otherwise kill her." Ie, the DO contemplated the
possibility of killing Moghedien as well.
> The Dark One knew of both Moghedien's and Asmodean's circumstances,
> yet he freed Moghedian and gave Asmodean the "final death". Graendal
> had gone to Shayol Ghul, indeed -- but Demandred did as well, and
> his chances of being the one who killed Asmodean are pretty slim.
> Both could have heard of Asmodean's "dying the final death" in much
> the same way.
Yes. But we have two people here who we know have had direct
contact with the DO, both being promised Nae'blis-hood. Both
ought to have been given a mission, just not one.
I'm still not sure it was Graendel who killed Asmodean,
but I'm becoming to believe it more and more. She's lack
any real draw-backs except character, and we know that she
might have got direct orders from the DO.
--
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Karl-Johan Norén e-mail: k-j-...@dsv.su.se |
| WWW: http://www.dsv.su.se/~k-j-nore/ |
| "To believe that people are as stupid as one believe |
| is stupider than one can believe" |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Jeff Smith
>ttom...@ucla.edu (Tanya Tompkins) wrote:
>
>> I don't think Asmodean's death fits Graendal's modus operandi. Also, what
>> motive did she have for being in Caemlyn? Also, if Graendal or
>> anyone using the OP gated in, killed Asmodean and gated out, wouldn't
>> Rand have noticed?
>
>used points. Motive and Means Graendal had, but Character she did
>not. It's proven over and over that Graendal likes to be safe, to
>work from behind -- she's actually a bit like Moghedien, in that
>she pretty much lurks until there's a huge opportunity for her to
>move up.
>have eternity to get rid of him -- so she's patient. What on earth
>would she have as a motive to kill Asmodean?
to good at OP--he just offed Rahvin.
It is important to realize Asmo's death was _not_ premeditated--it was a
surprise to the killer as well as Asmo. This fits Graendal's MO. She was
plotting with Rahvin, she _could_ kill Asmo with no danger, he walked into
where she was hiding from Rand and _splat_.
Graendal's my gal, until I hear otherwise from RJ.
Jeff Smith
True Names
: Raven, I like your idea of Taim killing Asmodean. Let me throw out a
: or support these ideas.
: 1. Moraine knew that Jasin Natael was Asmodean. She says so in her
: 'final' letter to Rand. Perhaps she told Taim, and he either viewed
: a Forsaken as a grave risk to Rand and killed him, killed him because
: Taim was Demandred and was infuriated with Asm. Or, perhaps when '
: Moraine thought Rand knew enough of the OP she told Taim to kill him.
But why was Taim hiding in a pantry?
: 2. Like you said, I highly doubt Grendal killed Asm, unless under direct
: orders/threats from the DO. She just wouldn't risk herself.
The real question with Graendel is not whether she would risk facing
Asmo directly, but whether she would risk snooping around the palace.
If she were caught by surprise...
: 3. I don't even think the DO wanted Asm dead, but really didn't care
: when he was killed. Maybe the renegade DF Fain, or a pissed off
: chance meeting with Demandred/Taim, or a loyal protective Taim offed
: him.
If Demandred is Taim, then Taim didn't do it. Demandred did not know
anything about Asmo until LoC.
Fain I considder possible. He is certainly the type that would be
sneaking about the palace. He is pulled to Rand, after all. Other
people have argued that Fain simply did not have the time to get
to the palace from Tar Valon, but I don't know how their arguments
work.
--
Through the darkness of future past ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The Magician longs to see. > Dave OHearn <
One chants out between two worlds, > ohe...@max.tiac.net <
"Fire, walk with me." - David Lynch, _Twin Peaks_ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
True Names
: One other possibility. Where is Lan at this point in his journey towards
: Myrelle?
Lan wouldn't be hiding in a closet. He was compelled to proceed to
Myrelle in a straight line no matter what.
Wallaby88
really believe it was Taim/Demandred. Graendal is in constant hiding.
And about Taim not knowing? If Taim is Demandred, which after 4 or 5
re-readings of LOC, I have to believe confidently that he is, and since
all the forsaken except for Sammael were at the table in T'A'R when
Nynaeve and Birgette were eavesdropping in FoH, when Moghedien said "He
has a teacher now" then why wouldn't he know?
May the light illumine you always,
Babbitt
True Names
: This is my biggest problem with the Graendal-offed-Asmo theory.
: In most murder mysteries, Character, Motive, and Means are the most
: used points. Motive and Means Graendal had, but Character she did
: not. It's proven over and over that Graendal likes to be safe, to
: work from behind -- she's actually a bit like Moghedien, in that
: she pretty much lurks until there's a huge opportunity for her to
: move up.
The first thing I ask myself is, "Why would an assassin hide in a
pantry?" It's not a very smart thing to do. There is no guarantee
Asmo would be the one to open in, and there is no guarantee Asmo
would open it at all. I think whoever killed Asmo was not expecting
him. Because of this, I rule out all the "Dark One's Assassin"
theories as well as all planned assassinations. Whoever did it was
snooping, not planning murder.
In a situation like this, Character isn't so important. Graendel
certainly wouldn't plan Asmo's murder, but if she was hiding in that
pantry and Asmo saw her, she would have to kill him.
Graendel isn't the only one who could have done it, either. I have
just ruled out most of the others through process of elimination.
True Names
: And besides, I think Asm saw death coming. He shouts "NO!" As though his
: This hints at something. It was either sadin, which he could see, even
: in his weakened state, or a weapon ie. sword, dagger. Now I've said it
: before and I'll say it again, I don't think anything short of the power
: could have killed him withj the speed in which he went. It must have been
: sadin. How about this. Taim killed him because he knew, somehow, Asm was
: teaching Rand and wanted him out of the way so he would be more important
: to Rand when he made his entrance. Oh well...
Be'lal shouts "No!" before Moiraine balefires him. You don't have
to see the flows to know what it means when a woman holds her hands
out and points them at you.
Your Taim theory is plausable, though it only works if Taim !=
Damendred and if Taim knew Asmo was teaching Rand. I don't like
this for the same reason I don't like the Shadar Haran theories.
It is considdered extremely bad form in murder mysteries to
introduce the murderer after the murder has occured. I would
be very disappointed if Jordan did that.
Huisman
>In article <cavness-2209...@smf-c6.facsmf.utexas.edu>
>cav...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kenneth G. Cavness) writes:
>
>
> "WOULD YOU BE NAE'BLIS, GRAENDEL"
>
> "If you give me that honor, Great Lord"
>
> "THEN SEEK AND PUNISH THE TRAITOR"
>
>Seems pretty a good motive to me.
Motive O.K., but I do not believe it.
I don't find the very sudden death of Asmodean a real punishment. I think (and
we have seen in several occasions) that minions of the DO have far more cruel
ways of punishment. This death was too quick and clean. With the low level of
power Asmodean was able to handle, any forsaken could have taken him and
punished (read: tortured) him thouroughly somewhere else. (Shayol Ghul seems
nice).
I still am a (lonely?) supportes of the theory that Asmodean's killer was one
of Rand's allies, who found who he was.
Hans Huisman
hans.h...@aio.beng.wau.nl
Shadowfax...
Nathan Maling <73747...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>One other possibility. Where is Lan at this point in his journey towards
>Myrelle?
Lan is nowhere close. Remeber, Asmodean was killed _the_same_day_ that
Moiraine and Lanfear went through the doorway. It would be impossible
for Lan to travel to Caemlyn from Cairhein in less than a day.
Due to the incredibly short time between the Dock and Asmodean's death,
I think it also puts Lanfear and Moiraine out of the picture. Neither
of them had enough time to escape 'Finn land, and Lanfear didn't even
know that Rand was going to Caemlyn.
john...
--- .sig ---
"Smooth words make smooth companions."
- Robert Jordan "Wheel of Time"
Shadowfax...
The vicious, deadly, blood-draining Raven <dgi...@ccinet.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>And besides, I think Asm saw death coming. He shouts "NO!" As though his
>mere words could ward off whatever it is he saw.
> This hints at something. It was either sadin, which he could see, even
>in his weakened state, or a weapon ie. sword, dagger.
>
Well Raven, I must agree whole-heartedly with you on this point. I
also think there is a bit to be learned from Asmodean saying "YOU!",
as opposed to "LANFEAR!" or "SAMMAEL!" or "GRAENDAL!". Asmodean was
very well acquainted with the rest of the forsaken, and I extremely
doubt that if he saw any of them, he would refer to them as "YOU!"
as opposed to their name. When someone refers to an attacker as
"YOU!", it usually means that they know who their attacker is, but
probably not all that well. They might not even remember their
attacker's name. Asmodean certainly knew all the other forsaken well
enough not to forget their names or refer to them as "YOU!".
As a result, I don't think it was a Forsaken that killed him.
ob-who-dun-it-theory: Moiraine might have told one of the wise-ones
or one of the Aiel she could trust that Jason Natael was actually
a darkfriend, and if she (Moiraine) should ever unexpectedly die,
kill him (Asmodean). Asmodean would recognize most of the big-shot
Aiel enough to say "YOU!", and he certainly would know he was going
to die as he sees a spear homing in on his heart.
john...
BTW, I think it was Fain, but the above ob-who-dun-it-theory isn't bad.
--- .sig ---
"Men often fight when they should run. Fools often fight when
they should run. But I didn't need to repeat myself." - Faile
Emma Pease
>I don't find the very sudden death of Asmodean a real punishment. I think (and
>we have seen in several occasions) that minions of the DO have far more cruel
>ways of punishment. This death was too quick and clean. With the low level of
>power Asmodean was able to handle, any forsaken could have taken him and
>punished (read: tortured) him thouroughly somewhere else. (Shayol Ghul seems
>nice).
Being a dead friend of the dark (unless killed by balefire) doesn't
mean you escape torture. The DO is lord of the grave and from the
thoughts of Osan'gar it is obvious that he had a nasty time while
dead.
>I still am a (lonely?) supportes of the theory that Asmodean's killer was one
>of Rand's allies, who found who he was.
But why would Asmodean be shocked if he found one of Rand's allies?
The options for why the killing seem to be
1. The person was there intending to kill Asmodean because of orders
from the Dark One and did so.
2. The person was discovered by Asmodean and killed Asmodean to
prevent him from telling others.
3. The person was of the light, discovered who Asmodean was, and
killed him for being a forsaken. Note that this does not mean the
person was an ally of Rand's. Elaida would probably be just as quick
to kill an forsaken if she could as any of Rand's allies.
We also know the person was recognized by Asmodean and could kill very
rapidly (whether by the one power or because they were trained to kill
rapidly with blade or other weapons).
I don't think it was Taim in part because it was some time (about 30
days) before Taim actually showed up in the palace. Where was Taim
during that time?
Emma
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease (net spinster) unsolicited commercial email will
|_\/ em...@csli.stanford.edu be returned to sender and postmaster
Julie Kangas
>In article <44a43e$r...@sundog.tiac.net>, True Names <ohe...@tiac.net> wrote:
>>Nathan Maling (nma...@nmaling.seanet.com) wrote:
>>: One other possibility. Where is Lan at this point in his journey towards
>>: Myrelle?
>>
>>Myrelle in a straight line no matter what.
>
>he has met up with Myrelle. It's in the last chapter of LoC. (I think.)
That's right. There was that touching scene
in FoH when Lan told Nyn that he came out of the
closet, and...
Oh, I better let Mark finish this. He has such a way with words.
Julie
Barracuda Sister, Most Arrogant Fish on the Net
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Roly poly fish <>< <>< /--------\ /
heads told me what to write. <>< <>< /o)))))))))\-/
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< >--)))))))))/-\
<>< <>< <>< <>< \---------/ \
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Gold
>Nathan Maling (nma...@nmaling.seanet.com) wrote:
>: One other possibility. Where is Lan at this point in his journey towards
>: Myrelle?
>
>Lan wouldn't be hiding in a closet. He was compelled to proceed to
>Myrelle in a straight line no matter what.
Now *that* raises some interesting possibilities...
"What's taking Lan so long?"
"Well, he has to go in a straight line, you see, and all these *trees*
keep getting in the way... "
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Gold | "... society is tradition and order
russ...@netaxs.com (preferred) | and reverence, not a series of cheap
russ...@acm.org | bargains between selfish interests."
russ...@boeing.com |
Mike 'Tracks' Hoye
>Nathan Maling (nma...@nmaling.seanet.com) wrote:
>: One other possibility. Where is Lan at this point in his journey towards
>: Myrelle?
>
>Lan wouldn't be hiding in a closet. He was compelled to proceed to
>Myrelle in a straight line no matter what.
Lan's _not_ hiding in a closet. He's there. We already know that
he has met up with Myrelle. It's in the last chapter of LoC. (I think.)
FireWalker
--
============================= Mike Hoye ==============================
That was one of the best scenes in the book, too.
==================== <mh...@descartes.waterloo.ca> ===================
Nicholas Eull
Taim. Taim did appear in Camelyn, taking full relief of Rand's amnesty.
Demandred could be seeking to get "close" to Rand, as his confidant, as
a means of eventually turning him over to the DO. But Asmodeam would
have, sooner or later (or even right away perhaps), recognized Demandred
as Taim, so perhaps it was he who disposed of Asmodeam. Just a
thought...
Nick..
Nicholas Eull
Nicholas Eull
mls...@ibm.net
>That's right. There was that touching scene
>in FoH when Lan told Nyn that he came out of the
>closet, and...
>
>Oh, I better let Mark finish this. He has such a way with words.
Stop threatening us like this! Please?
<laughing like a fiend>
===================================================================
Marc Sanders (mls...@ibm.net)
"A good insult is like a good knife: short, sharp, and pointed."
===================================================================
Kenneth G. Cavness
k-j-...@dsv.su.se (Karl-Johan Noren) wrote:
> In article <cavness-2209...@smf-c6.facsmf.utexas.edu>
> cav...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kenneth G. Cavness) writes:
> [ munching some of Kenneth's post ]
>
> > Graendal wants to be Nae'blis as much as any of the other Chosen,
> > but she had already stated that if Rand were chosen as Nae'blis,
> > she'd have eternity to get rid of him -- so she's patient. What on
> > earth would she have as a motive to kill Asmodean?
>
> "WOULD YOU BE NAE'BLIS, GRAENDEL"
>
> "If you give me that honor, Great Lord"
>
> "THEN SEEK AND PUNISH THE TRAITOR"
>
> Seems pretty a good motive to me.
We could easily use this analysis for every single action that
could ever be done for every single living Forsaken, Karl. If you're
going to throw that out, you're going to have to live with the
understanding that in doing so, you shut off discussion and shout
out a RAFO.
> > The Dark One knew of both Moghedien's and Asmodean's circumstances,
> > yet he freed Moghedian and gave Asmodean the "final death". Graendal
> > had gone to Shayol Ghul, indeed -- but Demandred did as well, and
> > his chances of being the one who killed Asmodean are pretty slim.
> > Both could have heard of Asmodean's "dying the final death" in much
> > the same way.
>
> Yes. But we have two people here who we know have had direct
> contact with the DO, both being promised Nae'blis-hood. Both
> ought to have been given a mission, just not one.
We have heard Graendal's thoughts, remember? If something so important
and _unlike_ Graendal had happened, she would have thought about it
during her discussions with Sammael, and silently clicked her tongue
in vexation.
_Graendal gives no indication that she has killed Asmo._
--
K'K'K'Kenn(eth) G. Cavness, mailto:cav...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~cavness <--- Not a very good page, yet
"What're ya gonna do, k-k-k-Ken? K-k-k-kill me?"
-- Otto to Ken, "A Fish Called Wanda"
John C. Fowler
>In article <44a43e$r...@sundog.tiac.net>, True Names <ohe...@tiac.net> wrote:
%>: One other possibility. Where is Lan at this point in his journey
%>: towards Myrelle?
%>
%>Lan wouldn't be hiding in a closet. He was compelled to proceed to
%>Myrelle in a straight line no matter what.
%
%Lan's _not_ hiding in a closet. He's there. We already know that
%he has met up with Myrelle. It's in the last chapter of LoC. (I think.)
%
%FireWalker
COME ON PEOPLE! WAKE UP!!!
Asmodean died on the _very_ _same_ _day_ that Moiraine went through
the doorway Ter'angreal with Lanfear. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR LAN TO
BE ANYWHERE NEAR CAEMLYN IF HE LEFT CAIRHIEN ON THE SAME DAY!!!!
John...
Ford
(David Hemming) wrote:
+ If it's one of Rand's allies, why is Asmodean surprised enough to say,
+ 'You? No!' - apart from them beng in a closet, of course. Maybe it was
+ Rhuarc snogging Berelain, and he offed Asmodean out of embarrassment.
Ahem. They're not in a closet. Asmodean is on his way to find the
wine-cellar. We don't know what (and we certainly don't know who) was
behind that door... I suppose it could've been a closet, but it seems a
bit unlikely...
"He pulled open a small door, intending to find his way to the pantry.
There should be some decent wine. One step, and he stopped, the blood
draining from his face. "You? No!" The word still hung in the air when
death took him."
Hmmm... Typing it in, I just noticed the bit about "the blood draining
from his face" -- could that be of any help? (I'm not suggesting
vampirism; I know this line implies great shock on Asmodean's part.)
<shrug> Probably not, but I'd never really paid attention to that line
before...
_________________<http://www.netspace.org/~ford/>_________________
|Daniel "Ford" Sohl |"Being flamed is the equivalent of a drive- |
|Fort...@brown.edu| by shooting. It's unpleasant, but on the |
| The ____est Man | Internet, there's no blood. You live to use|
| on the Net | cyberspace another day." -- Unknown |
Scott E Benfield
Even though I agree with your point...hasn't anyone told you that
it is impolite to shout.
You can be just as effective by stating your point in a calm and
rational manner. Besides, people may be more inclined to respond
in an equally appropriate manner, instead of commenting on your
rudeness.
In any event the person you were responding to was saying that it
couldn't be Lan for an entirely valid reason, much like your own.
It would have served your purpose better to have responded to the
initial post.
Be more careful in the future.
-Cal
David Wren-Hardin
David Hemming <surf...@waverider.co.uk> wrote:
>If it's one of Rand's allies, why is Asmodean surprised enough to say,
>'You? No!' - apart from them beng in a closet, of course.
Asmodean wasn't in the closet, he was in the wine-cellar.
--
David Wren-Hardin | Confusion will be my epitaph.
bd...@quads.uchicago.edu | As I crawl a cracked and broken path.
http://student-www.uchicago.edu | If we make it we can all sit back and laugh.
/users/bdh4/ | -King Crimson on Grad School
Ford
fort...@brown.edu (Ford) wrote:
+ "He pulled open a small door, intending to find his way to the pantry.
+ There should be some decent wine. One step, and he stopped, the blood
+ draining from his face. "You? No!" The word still hung in the air when
+ death took him."
Another comment about this line -- I poohpoohed the idea that it was a
closet... However, thinking about it, the idea is growing on me a bit.
Picture the following scenario:
Rand & Co. (including Asmodean) are all gathered together in Caemlyn at
the end of TFOH. Now, X (Asmo's killer) is skulking about Caemlyn, in the
palace. X notices somebody coming, and ducks into a closet to hide. Asmo
doesn't know his way around the palace, and opens the "small door",
looking for the pantry. Asmo clearly recognizes X, and is scared to death
of X. X has been found out, it's clear that Asmo may yell or otherwise
attract unwanted attention if X doesn't do something right then and there,
so X does the only thing possible: kills Asmo.
All this theory requires is that Asmo knows X, and that X is obviously
against Asmo & Rand (at that point). A lot of the theories I've seen
posted concerning this topic have been trying to assign some reason that X
killed Asmodean, specifically. I think it may be a lot simpler: X didn't
want to be found. Had Aviendha opened that door and seen X there, she'd be
dead. Anybody would. Asmo needn't be a specific target of assassination.
Of course, this is only begging the question: Who would be skulking
about Caemlyn palace, trying to avoid discovery?
Ford
+ "He pulled open a small door, intending to find his way to the pantry.
+ There should be some decent wine. One step, and he stopped, the blood
+ draining from his face. "You? No!" The word still hung in the air when
+ death took him."
This is mentioned in the FAQ as a possibility, and it's one that's
beginning to grow one me:
Michael D. Steeves
= Asmodean wasn't in the closet
<Dry Voice>
So that rules out Loial.....
</Dry Voice>
-darkelf
--
Death before dishonor / Drugs before lunch
-Aspen Gun and Drug Club
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.uml.edu/~msteeves | mste...@cs.uml.edu
Richard Boye'
and went to Caemlyn to off Asmo. The only reasons I think it is her is
because she alone, of the female Forsaken knew of Asmo.'s "alliance" with
Rand, thus knew where to look. Furthermore, according to the passage,
Asmodean shuddered before opening the door, IMHO the involuntary reaction
of a male channeler in the presence of Female channeling( i.e. Rand's
goosebumbs around Elayne and Egwene in the Stone), which unfortunately
for Asmodean happened to be Lanfear embracing Saidin on the otherside of
the door.
Where's Angela Lansbury when you need her?
Richard Boye' SZX...@prodigy.com>>>>>
)
Joel A Hafvenstein
> My own pet theory is of course, that Lanfear Traveled out the 'Finn tower,
> and went to Caemlyn to off Asmo. The only reasons I think it is her is
> because she alone, of the female Forsaken knew of Asmo.'s "alliance" with
> Rand, thus knew where to look.
I'm sure that I'm not the first person to bring this up, but...
Given the circumstances of Lanfear's disappearance (have you ever heard
the song "You Ought To Know" by Alanis Morrisette?), I'm pretty sure she
would NOT stop at killing pitiful, weaselly little Asmodean if she
actually was in Caemlyn. Aviendha was in the city at the time, as was
Rand/Lews Therin "I never loved you, Mierin" himself. Why would Lanfear
show up, kill Asmo, and leave without doing any more damage (given all of
LoC to do it in?) I see absolutely no reason for her psycho "Fatal
Attraction" syndrome to have died down during that brief foray into
Aelfland.
IMHO, she's still stuck there, and will be until Thom and Mat
inadvertantly free her.
jhaven
John Novak
>Asmodean wasn't in the closet, he was in the wine-cellar.
That's right, he'd come out of the closet by that point...
--
"There are thousands of Novaks," I pronounced. "All are addressed as
Mister. But I am Novak of Novak, head of house and sept, first of the
family, chieftain of the clan. I am addressed as Novak. Not `Mister`
Novak. Novak."
Ford
+ In article <44s450$f...@melody.waverider.co.uk>,
+ David Hemming <surf...@waverider.co.uk> wrote:
+
+ >If it's one of Rand's allies, why is Asmodean surprised enough to say,
+ >'You? No!' - apart from them beng in a closet, of course.
+
+ Asmodean wasn't in the closet, he was in the wine-cellar.
Is this a troll?
ALEXANDER, DYLAN FLYNN
}In article <DFzon...@midway.uchicago.edu>, bd...@midway.uchicago.edu wrote:
}
}+ Asmodean wasn't in the closet, he was in the wine-cellar.
}
}Is this a troll?
Yes. I think his rule is to post this bait about 20 times for
every one time I call him "Wren-Harding."
Dylan
Karl-Johan Noren
cav...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kenneth G. Cavness) writes:
> In article <K-J-NORE.95...@albert.dsv.su.se>,
> k-j-...@dsv.su.se (Karl-Johan Noren) wrote:
[ About why Graendel would kill Asmodean ]
> > "WOULD YOU BE NAE'BLIS, GRAENDEL"
> > "If you give me that honor, Great Lord"
> > "THEN SEEK AND PUNISH THE TRAITOR"
> >
> > Seems pretty a good motive to me.
>
> We could easily use this analysis for every single action that
> could ever be done for every single living Forsaken, Karl. If you're
> going to throw that out, you're going to have to live with the
> understanding that in doing so, you shut off discussion and shout
> out a RAFO.
I do not shut off discussion, Kenneth.
I do not throw out a RAFO, Kenneth.
What I do is providing a motive why Graendel would seek out
Asmodean and kill him - and a motive that is possible, maybe
even _probable_.
I do not shut off discussion, it's you who does it.
What is "We could easily...living Forsaken" for an argument?
Yes, we can use that argument for _every_ single action the
Forsaken makes (or almost all, Be'lal does not comply to
this, eg), but that does refute the strength or the
possibility of the scenario? No!
And we _know_ that Graendel has been "offered" Nae'blis-hood
by the DO (at least in her opinion). Killing Asmodean
_might_ be the price for that.
Give evidence to why Graendel couldn't kill Asmodean, yes.
Give evidence for other scenarios, yes.
Give evidence for other killers, yes.
But do not use the argument of "you shut off discussion",
because I DO NOT! With that argument, it's you who's guilty
of that.
> We have heard Graendal's thoughts, remember? If something so important
> and _unlike_ Graendal had happened, she would have thought about it
> during her discussions with Sammael, and silently clicked her tongue
> in vexation.
Do we see everything the POV person thinks? Probably not,
we see only what RJ chooses us to see.
> _Graendal gives no indication that she has killed Asmo._
Neither have anybody else of those suspect's thought we
have seen, eg Padan Fain, Sammael or Semirhage.
That Graendel _knows_ that Asmodean is dead is the strongest
indication we have from _any_ suspect. It's not strong, but
it's the _only_ _one_.
--
Karl-Johan Norén (Noren with acute e) -- k-j-...@dsv.su.se
http://www.dsv.su.se/~k-j-nore
- To believe people are as stupid as one believes is
stupider than one can believe
Dave O'Hearn
: Hmmm... Typing it in, I just noticed the bit about "the blood draining
: from his face" -- could that be of any help? (I'm not suggesting
: vampirism; I know this line implies great shock on Asmodean's part.)
: <shrug> Probably not, but I'd never really paid attention to that line
: before...
That is very interesting, because it rules out most of the theories that
one of Rand's allies figured out who Asmo was. It implies that not only
did he recognize his murderer, but he knew he was going to die from the
moment he say him/her/it. To scare him like that, I think it would have
to be a Forsaken or shadowspawn, and shadowspawn would not produce the
response "You?"
Lanfear, Graendel or Sammael? Hm... I have no clue.
--
Through the darkness of future past ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The Magician longs to see. > Dave OHearn <
One chants out between two worlds, > ohe...@max.tiac.net <
"Fire, walk with me." - David Lynch, _Twin Peaks_ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dave O'Hearn
[snip]
: Where's Angela Lansbury when you need her?
That woman is a ta'veren Darkfriend. How else do you explain the
coincidence that every Sunday, no matter where she is, someone around
her dies?
Michael Young
>
>
>
>: Where's Angela Lansbury when you need her?
>
>That woman is a ta'veren Darkfriend. How else do you explain the
>coincidence that every Sunday, no matter where she is, someone around
>her dies?
>
Exactly...That little town in New England that she comes from must have
the highest per capita murder rate in the entire nation. Whenever she
shows up at a dinner party, her close, dear (but never hereto-before seen
nor spoken of) friend gets offed, and it's a damn good thing she was
there to figure out who killed him. She should have been on the O,J.
investigation dammit!!!
-
MICHAEL YOUNG SZX...@prodigy.com
Kenneth G. Cavness
k-j-...@dsv.su.se (Karl-Johan Noren) wrote:
> In article <cavness-0210...@smf-l12.facsmf.utexas.edu>
> cav...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kenneth G. Cavness) writes:
>> In article <K-J-NORE.95...@albert.dsv.su.se>,
>> k-j-...@dsv.su.se (Karl-Johan Noren) wrote:
> [ About why Graendel would kill Asmodean ]
>>> "WOULD YOU BE NAE'BLIS, GRAENDEL"
>>> "If you give me that honor, Great Lord"
>>> "THEN SEEK AND PUNISH THE TRAITOR"
>>> Seems pretty a good motive to me.
>> We could easily use this analysis for every single action that
>> could ever be done for every single living Forsaken, Karl. If you're
>> going to throw that out, you're going to have to live with the
>> understanding that in doing so, you shut off discussion and shout
>> out a RAFO.
>
> I do not shut off discussion, Kenneth. I do not throw out a RAFO, Kenneth.
>
> What I do is provid[e] a motive why Graendel would seek out
> Asmodean and kill him - and a motive that is possible, maybe
> even _probable_.
>
> I do not shut off discussion, it's you who does it.
How have I shut off discussion, Karl?
I am not the one who decided to use Graendal's _very_ hypothetical
situation of the suggestion of Naeblis being granted to her (we'll
get to that in a moment) as being a reason for her killing Asmodean.
That's right. _You_ did it.
> What is "We could easily...living Forsaken" for an argument?
> Yes, we can use that argument for _every_ single action the
> Forsaken makes (or almost all, Be'lal does not comply to
> this, eg), but that does refute the strength or the
> possibility of the scenario? No!
Karl, Be'lal does no longer live. He is not in this discussion
any more. Neither is Rahvin. They are not _Living_.
> And we _know_ that Graendel has been "offered" Nae'blis-hood
> by the DO (at least in her opinion). Killing Asmodean
> _might_ be the price for that.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to have text and reference
to the fact that we _know_ Graendal was offered Naeblishood.
We did not see Graendal go to Shayol Ghul.
We did not see what the Dark One told Graendal.
In fact, we only know that she _went_ to Shayol Ghul.
In fact, she thinks that perhaps Sammael may have been offered
Nae'blishood in one of their meetings, and she speculates that
if Rand is to be made Nae'blis, she'll have time to get rid
of him later.
Are those the type of thoughts that will run through the mind
of a Forsaken that has been offered Nae'blishood for killing
another Forsaken? She doesn't seem very solid in her assurance
that she will be made Nae'blis, Karl. In fact, she seems
downright uncertain.
> Give evidence to why Graendel couldn't kill Asmodean, yes.
> Give evidence for other scenarios, yes.
> Give evidence for other killers, yes.
>
> But do not use the argument of "you shut off discussion",
> because I DO NOT! With that argument, it's you who's guilty
> of that.
Once again, show how I have shut off discussion.
As I said, if we use the "WOULD YOU BE NAE'BLIS" argument,
_any_ living forsaken could have been given the charge to
kill Asmodean! That means that it could be Demandred, Sammael,
Graendal, Mesaana, Balthamel, Aginor, or Semirhage.
So, what do we do with the hypothetical situation you have
given, Karl? Any one of these people could have been given
the offer of Naeblis. Demandred, we know has. We don't know
whether anyone else has. So, if we use this argument with
Graendal, not knowing whether her meeting in Shayol Ghul was
about becoming Naeblis, we have to use that same line of reasoning
for Forsaken we also know have been to Shayol Ghul.
Pure speculation in this route, Karl, _Will_ force a Read And
Find Out path, because until we _KNOW_ who was told to kill
Asmodean as a way to show devotion to the Dark One and be made
Naeblis, any one of these forsaken could have done what they had
done.
Naeblis is enough to make Demandred use balefire. Naeblis is
enough for any forsaken to do anything, outside of their character.
This is why I say that I must have solid proof that Graendal was
offered Naeblis in return for killing Asmodean (or even on the path
to killing Asmodean) before I can accept this theory.
I was not personally attacking you, Karl, I was trying to show
that your speculation in this matter is too far and too broad
for us to do much of anything with it
> > We have heard Graendal's thoughts, remember? If something so important
> > and _unlike_ Graendal had happened, she would have thought about it
> > during her discussions with Sammael, and silently clicked her tongue
> > in vexation.
>
> Do we see everything the POV person thinks? Probably not,
> we see only what RJ chooses us to see.
She thinks directly about Asmodean. There would have been _something._
> > _Graendal gives no indication that she has killed Asmo._
> Neither have anybody else of those suspect's thought we
> have seen, eg Padan Fain, Sammael or Semirhage.
None of these people have thought about Asmodean while we were in
their Point of View, and it only strengthens my point that we
really have _no_ idea who the killer actually is, and that the
evidence in favour of Graendal is no more (and in my opinion, less)
than for any other character.
--
K'K'K'Kenn(eth) G. Cavness, mailto:cav...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~cavness <--- It got bettah!
Dave O'Hearn
: As I said, if we use the "WOULD YOU BE NAE'BLIS" argument,
: _any_ living forsaken could have been given the charge to
: kill Asmodean! That means that it could be Demandred, Sammael,
: Graendal, Mesaana, Balthamel, Aginor, or Semirhage.
I realize this wasn't your point, but Balthamel and Aginor were
dead at the time and Demandred didn't do it.
Lee Ann Holland
>
[Quote from Asmo's death scene munched]
>
[snip]
>Picture the following scenario:
>
>Rand & Co. (including Asmodean) are all gathered together in Caemlyn at
>the end of TFOH. Now, X (Asmo's killer) is skulking about Caemlyn, in the
>palace. X notices somebody coming, and ducks into a closet to hide.
I know that you are not making assumptions about who X is in this
scenario, but if X is a Forsaken, why hide in a closet? Why not
jump into T'A'R or use an invisibility weave and mask his/her ability
to channel? In fact, any skulking Forsaken would probably be
disguised already and have no need to hide. Hiding would be a
normal, human reaction, but channelers have more resources at
their disposal.
>Asmo doesn't know his way around the palace, and opens the "small door",
>looking for the pantry. Asmo clearly recognizes X, and is scared to death
>of X. X has been found out, it's clear that Asmo may yell or otherwise
>attract unwanted attention if X doesn't do something right then and there,
>so X does the only thing possible: kills Asmo.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not so with a channeler as X. If X is Graendal, wouldn't her natural
reaction be to compel him? She'd probably attempt to shield him,
and finding a shield already in place, she'd truss him up and gag
him with flows of air. Even if she _is_ on direct orders from the
DO to kill him, wouldn't she take the opportunity to extract any
information that she could before finishing him?
Other Forsaken would have a similar reaction whether surprised or
stalking: use him before he dies. Asmo is regarded by the others
as the weakest among them, and Forsaken X would be confident
that he/she could handle him.
The only exception is Lanfear. She _knows_ what Asmo & Rand
have been doing and has a motive for killing Asmo other than
orders from the DO. Message to Rand: Lanfear giveth, and
Lanfear taketh away. Do not defy me again, Lews Therin.
There is also the "You? No!" evidence. If Asmo recognized
another Forsaken, I think his first reaction would be along
the lines of "Help me. Lanfear shielded me, and Rand cut
my ties to the Great Lord, and I couldn't get away..." In
other words, I think Asmo would have realized long ago that
if he ever encountered another Forsaken, he'd better do some
fast talking.
However, the "You? No!" indicates not only recognition, but
overwhelming fear, as though he knows that X will never give
him a chance to explain.
If we eliminate Forsaken other than Lanfear as X on the basis
of MO (modus operandi, not my opinion), we must eliminate Fain on
the basis of recognition and mortal fear. We've had no indication
that Asmo knows or fears Fain (this is covered well in the FAQ).
Shaidar Haran, Aran'gar, and Osan'gar (even considering that all
might be Forsaken reborn) have not yet been introduced - no chance
there. IMO, this narrows the list of likely suspects to Slayer and
Lanfear. It's possible that Asmo would recognize Slayer and his
purpose (to assassinate him).
However, the final "pieces of evidence" in my little theory are:
1) During the Forsaken convention in TFoH Prologue, the discussion
turns to Asmo. Sammael says to Lanfear, "...why did you
leave him alive? You could have killed him before he knew
you were there." Foreshadowing, perhaps?
2) At the end of the same scene, Lanfear makes the statement,
"You know I can keep an eye on him (Rand) unseen...but the rest
of you must stay clear or run the risk of detection." We've
"seen" her seemingly appear out of thin air and fool Rand
repeatedly with her disguises. Whether she is bragging of
her mastery of T'A'R or her facility with disguises and
invisibility weaves, all are good tools for stalking as well
as spying.
3) Asmo's thoughts prior to his death; he is rejoicing over
Lanfear's demise. Ironic, eh?
Picture this: Lanfear escapes from *finnland, but she is tired
and perhaps hurt. Yet, she is still furious, so she goes to Caemlyn
to find Rand. Once there, she assumes a disguise or becomes
invisible. She spies on him, waiting for an opportunity to get
him alone. Yet the sight of Caemlyn must give her pause; the signs
of balefire are unmistakable.
Then, she notices Asmo wandering off by himself. "Ah, here is my
chance to weaken him." She follows him, sees him heading for the
small door, pops into T'A'R, and waits for him on the other side.
"You? (Asmo cries out in surprise/fear/recognition) No!" She pulls
the body into T'A'R for disposal, then retreats to her white haven
to recover and fight another day.
Of course, she'd better venture out of that haven soon, or my whole
"Lanfear did it" theory could be for naught. ;)
[rest of previous post munched]
Lee Ann Holland
ghol...@cs.tamu.edu
Kenneth G. Cavness
> Kenneth G. Cavness (cav...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu) wrote:
> : As I said, if we use the "WOULD YOU BE NAE'BLIS" argument,
> : _any_ living forsaken could have been given the charge to
> : kill Asmodean! That means that it could be Demandred, Sammael,
> : Graendal, Mesaana, Balthamel, Aginor, or Semirhage.
>
> I realize this wasn't your point, but Balthamel and Aginor were
> dead at the time and Demandred didn't do it.
Nod, but that's because we can single them out because of other
reasons. =) Sammael, Mesaana, and Semirhage are still as likely
a suspect as Graendal.
(and, actually, what proof do we have that Demandred didn't do it?
Now that I think about it, Demandred never really covers that in his
chit-chat with the BBDO.)
Karl-Johan Noren
cav...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kenneth G. Cavness) writes:
> k-j-...@dsv.su.se (Karl-Johan Noren) wrote:
> > cav...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kenneth G. Cavness) writes:
> >> k-j-...@dsv.su.se (Karl-Johan Noren) wrote:
> > [ About why Graendel would kill Asmodean ]
> >>> "WOULD YOU BE NAE'BLIS, GRAENDEL"
> >>> "If you give me that honor, Great Lord"
> >>> "THEN SEEK AND PUNISH THE TRAITOR"
> >>> Seems pretty a good motive to me.
> >>
> >> We could easily use this analysis for every single action that
> >> could ever be done for every single living Forsaken, Karl. If you're
> >> going to throw that out, you're going to have to live with the
> >> understanding that in doing so, you shut off discussion and shout
> >> out a RAFO.
> >
> > I do not shut off discussion, Kenneth. I do not throw out a RAFO, Kenneth.
> >
> > What I do is provid[e] a motive why Graendel would seek out
> > Asmodean and kill him - and a motive that is possible, maybe
> > even _probable_.
> >
> > I do not shut off discussion, it's you who does it.
>
> How have I shut off discussion, Karl?
Read what you wrote in your previous post in this thread,
it's included a few lines above.
You does not give any argument against why this scenario
couldn't have happened, but claims that the proposed
scenario "shut off discussion and shout out a RAFO."
That is an argument used by people who are afraid to discuss
_facts_, afraid to discuss *possibilities*, afraid to
discuss _WHY_ things happen, afraid to discuss *IN ANY
REASONABLE MANNER*!
I show a possibility, and a scenario, that I _thought_
needed discussion, and pointed out some facts I _thought_
needed to be contemplated in the hunt for Asmodean's
murderer.
And then, *YOU* claim that *I SHUT OFF DISCUSSION!*
Worst thing is, I wasn't surprised when you did it.
Not one bit. It ought to give you something to think about,
Kenneth.
> I am not the one who decided to use Graendal's _very_ hypothetical
> situation of the suggestion of Naeblis being granted to her (we'll
> get to that in a moment) as being a reason for her killing Asmodean.
>
> That's right. _You_ did it.
Read LoC, Threads Woven of Shadow again. Graendel muses on
how the DO 'all but promised to make her Nae'blis'.
So, the scenario is not taken entirely from the air. I do
_not_ claim it is the "correct" one, and never have. What I
say is that it is _possible_, and that I have said from _the
very beginning_.
What I did was to give a possible scenario to why Asmodean
would be killed by intent, and not because of stumbling onto
his killer more or less by mistake, with Graendel as the
killer.
This scenario can be discussed and critisised in the same
way as every other idea on this froup, ie by pointing out
its weaknesses, strengths etc. Claiming that by supplying
this scenario, I cut off discussion, is OTOH a real
low-point in *ANY* debate.
> > What is "We could easily...living Forsaken" for an argument?
> > Yes, we can use that argument for _every_ single action the
> > Forsaken makes (or almost all, Be'lal does not comply to
> > this, eg), but that does refute the strength or the
> > possibility of the scenario? No!
>
> Karl, Be'lal does no longer live. He is not in this discussion
> any more. Neither is Rahvin. They are not _Living_.
Doesn't you read what you have written yourself any longer?
The full sentence was: "We could easily use this analysis
[the DO "offering" Nae'blis-hood to a Forsaken] for every
single action that could *ever* [my emphasis] be done for
every single living Forsaken".
You use the word "ever". That means that you includes
everything any Forsaken has done since joining the DO as
your context.
And your argument is *ONCE AGAIN* off in a stupid, idiotic
blind alley. You do not give *ANY* argument for why my
proposed scenario is impossible or improbable, which is the
thing I guess you try to do.
> > Give evidence to why Graendel couldn't kill Asmodean, yes.
> > Give evidence for other scenarios, yes.
> > Give evidence for other killers, yes.
> >
> > But do not use the argument of "you shut off discussion",
> > because I DO NOT! With that argument, it's you who's guilty
> > of that.
>
> As I said, if we use the "WOULD YOU BE NAE'BLIS" argument,
> _any_ living forsaken could have been given the charge to
> kill Asmodean! That means that it could be Demandred, Sammael,
> Graendal, Mesaana, Balthamel, Aginor, or Semirhage.
Read your books again. Both Semirhage and Demandred has
shown ignorance of Asmodean's fate, ie they did not kill
him. Aginor and Belthamel was in all probability not around
at the moment, so they did probably not do it.
And I'm aware that there are more possible killers than
Graendel. What's critical, is that *WE KNOW GRAENDEL HAS
VISITED THE DO, AND BEEN "PROMISED" NAE'BLIS-HOOD!*
That's what gives my scenario it's strength.
And you still does not give *ANY* reason for other
scenarios. You still does not give *ANY* reason for other
killers.
> Pure speculation in this route, Karl, _Will_ force a Read And
> Find Out path, because until we _KNOW_ who was told to kill
> Asmodean as a way to show devotion to the Dark One and be made
> Naeblis, any one of these forsaken could have done what they had
> done.
Read LoC, Threads Woven of Shadow. It gives me ample room
for this "speculation". And if we doesn't speculate, and
discuss it, we will *NEVER* solve the murder before ACoS
comes out.
I don't know if you want to do it, but I *CERTAINLY* wants
to!
> This is why I say that I must have solid proof that Graendal was
> offered Naeblis in return for killing Asmodean (or even on the path
> to killing Asmodean) before I can accept this theory.
Do we have solid proof on who killed Asmodean? On who Mazrim
Taim really is? On Moiraine's fate?
But we still can discuss these things, Kenneth! We can still
make up scenarios, make hypotheses and speculate, in all
these cases!
*THAT'S WHAT THIS FROUP IS ABOUT!*
> I was not personally attacking you, Karl, I was trying to show
> that your speculation in this matter is too far and too broad
> for us to do much of anything with it
*THEN GIVE VALID REASONS FOR IT BEING SO!*
And what's coming now, this *IS* a personal attack:
You give *ABSOLUTELY NO REASONS* why my scenario is
improbable, except your saying of it.
Instead, you give *BULLSHIT* reasons, reasons OJ Simpson's
lawyers would have been *ASHAMED* of using!
I'm not surprised you use those arguments you use. You whine,
you give idiotic arguments, you claim noone understands you,
you *consistently* misread and misinterpret others!
You say you won't speculate on who killed Asmodean. That's
fine with me, but then *STOP WHINING OVER US WHO WANTS!*
By doing so, it appears to me that *YOU DON'T WANT TO SOLVE
THE MURDERING OF ASMODEAN!* You want to sit back and get
A Crown of Swords, and get it there!
Get back to lurking with Hans Holmer(*), Kenneth!
(*) Hans Holmer. Chief of the Stockholm Police Department in
1986, when Olof Palme was murdered. Ignored most tips given
on why Olof Palme was murdered, as well as he ignored the
terrible incompetence/intended sabotage among the police's
operational centre in the first critical hours after the
murder, and instead concentrated on hunting Kurds for
several months. Later fired for his leading of the
investigation.
Kenneth G. Cavness
k-j-...@dsv.su.se (Karl-Johan Noren) wrote:
> In article <cavness-0810...@smf-d11.facsmf.utexas.edu>
> cav...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kenneth G. Cavness) writes:
>
> > How have I shut off discussion, Karl?
> >
> > I am not the one who decided to use Graendal's _very_ hypothetical
> > situation of the suggestion of Naeblis being granted to her (we'll
> > get to that in a moment) as being a reason for her killing Asmodean.
> >
> > That's right. _You_ did it.
>
> [ munch ]
>
> [ Sorry Joe, but I had a distinct feeling this was appropriate ]
It wasn't. You have acted as a class-A prick.
HTH.
Kenneth G. Cavness
k-j-...@dsv.su.se (Karl-Johan Noren) wrote:
> STANDARDIZED RASFWRJ BONEHEAD REPLY FORM V1.2
> (adapted from the STANDARDIZED BONEHEAD REPLY FORM by Joe Shaw)
> I took exception to your recent post to rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan.
>
> It was (check all that apply):
> _X_ stupid.
> _X_ much longer than any worthwhile thought of which you may be capable.
> _X_ what you posted cannot possibly be.
> _X_ Because of this reference: __LoC, Threads Woven of Shadow__.
> (Book, chapter, page ref.)
> _X_ your post/mail originated from (check all that apply)
> _X_ Texas.
> _X_ you flamed someone who is far more intelligent and witty than you.
> _X_ your post was so stupid it could almost be trolling.
> _X_ But it's really too stupid even for that.
> _X_ and your name is not Timothy Bruening.
> Furthermore:
>
> _X_ You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of
> rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan
> _X_ *Snort*.
> _X_ This has been pointed out to you before.
> _X_ It is recommended that you:
> (Mark all that apply)
> _X_ Stop parroting things you don't understand.
> _X_ Especially this list.
I want to say here that nothing in the past threads or prior postings
or even the current tone of this newsgroup makes what you have done here
forgivable, Karl. This was an unprovoked attack, and while I may have
merited a "look here, don't you feel stupid now" remark (which I don't
think I even deserved that), I certainly didn't deserve this.
The fact that you chose to flame me after no less than a month of my
being able to avoid flame wars is even more telling, Karl. The fact
that you _threw_ my intelligence at me and labelled it as small and
insignificant is incredibly uncalled-for in the extreme. The fact that
you labeled _yourself_ as _Far_ more witty and intelligent than I is
incalculably arrogant.
And I would seriously dare you to explain how I have parroted anything
in the responses I gave in relation to this thread. I also would like to
know how the hell *I* flamed *You* prior to this juicy bit of work, which
has set my sight to a rather bright and flaring red.
You jumped the gun, Karl, and I would like an apology. I think I fairly
well deserve it.
Kenneth G. Cavness
cav...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kenneth G. Cavness) writes:
Karl writes:
>[ munch ]
>
>[ Sorry Joe, but I had a distinct feeling this was appropriate ]
[Sorry, Joe, but I had a distinct feeling this was appropriate. -- k'k'k'kc]
STANDARDIZED RASFWRJ BONEHEAD REPLY FORM V1.2
(adapted from the STANDARDIZED BONEHEAD REPLY FORM by Joe Shaw)
(totally unedited, in order to discomply with all UseNet bandwidth regulations)
I took exception to your recent post to rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan.
It was (check all that apply):
___ lame.
___ stupid.
___ boring.
_X_ obvious killfile fodder.
___ much longer than any worthwhile thought of which you may be capable.
___ a (technical term ahead) bazillion lines long.
_X_ without question the most useless thing I have ever seen
___ crossposted to alt.fan.robert-jordan
___ unnecessarily crossposted to rec.arts.sf.written
___ and you didn't put "JORDAN:" in the subject line.
Your attention is drawn to the fact that:
___ This is a *family* newsgroup.
___ The answer to your question is in a FAQ, specifically:
(Mark only if above checked, and similarly hereafter)
___ in the rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan FAQ.
___ in the Wheel of Time FAQ.
___ in the Usenet FAQ.
_X_ what you posted/said has been done before.
___ And is in the rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan FAQ.
___ And is in the Wheel of Time FAQ.
_X_ Not only that, it was also done better the last time.
_X_ By you.
___ what you posted cannot possibly be.
___ Because of this reference: __LoC, Threads Woven of Shadow__.
(Book, chapter, page ref.)
___ you told someone to read the FAQ and did not tell them where to find it.
___ you told someone to read the Wheel of Time FAQ when it would spoil them.
_X_ your post/mail was a pathetic imitation of __Dylan Flynn Alexander__.
(net.personality)
___ your post/mail originated from (check all that apply)
___ msn.com
___ America Online.
___ ix.netcom.com
___ FidoNet.
___ Delphi.
___ Compu$erve.
___ Prodigy.
___ a BBS.
___ Texas.
___ your post/mail was intended to be email/a post.
___ your post referred to the newsgroup as a Board, BBoard, BBS, or Notesfile.
___ your post contained commercial advertising.
THE FINE FOR THIS IS $100. Please remit immediately to:
RASFWRJ Cabal
c/o Usenet Central Administration
916 W. Trinity Ave. #10
Durham, NC 27701
or your posting privileges will be canceled.
___ you posted a metaphor without a metaphor license.
THE FINE FOR THIS IS $50. Please remit immediately to:
RASFWRJ Cabal
c/o Usenet Central Administration
916 W. Trinity Ave. #10
Durham, NC 27701
or your posting privileges will be canceled.
___ you trolled a newsgroup veteran at the expense of an innocent newbie.
THE FINE FOR THIS IS $__500__. Please remit immediately to:
RASFWRJ Cabal
c/o Usenet Central Administration
916 W. Trinity Ave. #10
Durham, NC 27701
or your posting privileges will be canceled.
___ The amount specified is because you are a repeat offender.
___ The punishment for your next offense will be __banishment to AOL__.
___ your post/letter contained numerous spelling errors.
___ and you are not halasz.
_X_ your post/letter contained multiple grammatical errors.
_X_ YOUR POST CONTAINED EXCESSIVE CAPITALIZATION AND/OR PUNCTUATION!!!!!
___ your post contained insufficient capitalization andor punctuation
___ your post/letter was an obvious forgery.
___ It was done clumsily.
___ your login name is from the Wheel of Time.
___ misspelled
___ and you did not include a non-Wheel of Time name.
___ your machine's hostname is from the Wheel of Time.
___ misspelled
___ your login name is a different handle than the one in your signature.
___ Both are stupid.
___ your attempt at a middle name fell flat.
___ Painfully.
___ you pointed out the fact that you are a newbie.
___ and it was painfully obvious anyway.
___ you quoted an article/letter in followup and added no new text.
___ you quoted an article in followup and only added one line of new text
___ that said "Me, too!!!"
___ that said "I agree."
___ that said "No."
___ that said "Yes."
___ and your name is not Aaron Bergman.
___ you quoted an article/letter in followup and only added ___ lines of text.
___ you posted a followup to an article but gave no context for your remarks.
___ and the Message-Id: of the post you replied to wasn't even in the
References: header.
___ and you changed the subject line as well.
___ you called David Eddings "the penultimate author."
___ you called Erica Sadun a "non-entity".
___ you called Hawk "cutie" or "babe".
___ you flamed a newbie for mistakes they did not make.
___ you flamed someone who has been around far longer than you.
___ you flamed someone who is far more intelligent and witty than you.
_X_ your post was so stupid it could almost be trolling.
_X_ But it's really too stupid even for that.
_X_ and your name is not Timothy Bruening.
___ your lines are 80 columns wide or wider.
___ your software inserted newlines that made every other line
less than
thirty characters in length.
___ you failed to check the "Followups-To:" line.
___ you have no .sig .
___ your .sig is longer than four lines.
___ And your newsreader truncated it.
___ your .sig is ridiculous because (check all that apply):
___ it's wider than 80 columns.
___ it's tabdamaged.
___ it's longer than four lines.
___ it's longer than your included text.
___ it's longer than the entire rest of your post.
___ it approacheth Kibo's in length.
(Mark only if one of above four also)
___ and includes ___ lines of nothing but whitespace.
___ you listed ___ snail mail address(es).
___ and a nine-digit ZIP code.
___ you listed ___ phone numbers for people to use in prank calls.
___ and a fax number for people to use in prank faxes.
___ you included a stupid disclaimer.
___ your pathetic attempt at being witty in the disclaimer failed.
___ Miserably.
___ you included a "The <something>est man/woman on the Net." quote.
___ and your name is not John S. Novak III.
___ you included:
(Mark all that apply)
___ a stupid self-quote.
___ a stupid quote from a net.nobody.
___ the first sentence/paragraph of the first chapter of each of
the WoT books.
___ a quote from the cover art that does not appear in the text.
___ a stupid quote from
(Mark all that apply)
___ Verin
___ Lini
___ A movie that nobody but you ever watched.
___ On "USA Up All Night".
___ The Simpsons
___ a rock band member.
___ from Rush.
___ from Pink Floyd.
___ an obscure poet or lyricist.
___ Animaniacs.
___ The Bible.
___ With chapter and verse for the Bible-impaired.
___ Star Trek.
___ Piglet.
___ And your name is not Judy Ghirardelli.
___ a reference to Beavis & Butthead.
___ a reference to Bela.
___ lame ASCII fonts
___ lame ASCII graphic(s) (Choose all that apply):
___ An Aes Sedai seal
___ And you included the dots that aren't there.
___ A Dragon's Fang (only).
___ The tear-drop of Tar Valon (only).
___ USS Enterprise
___ Australia
___ Randland.
___ The Amiga logo
___ Company logo
___ and you stated that you don't speak for your employer.
___ Bicycle
___ Bart Simpson
___ Sword
___ with a heron.
___ and you claimed it was Callandor
___ A human head/face
___ plural
___ Cat/Dog
___ plural
___ Fish
___ plural
___ and your name is not Julie Kangas.
___ smiley
___ plural
___ Login name
___ plural
___ Real name
___ misspelled
___ excessive misuse of punctuation marks, namely __________
___ In borders.
___ A great quantity thereof.
___ Fully enclosing the .sig .
___ Partially enclosing the .sig, allowing IMPORTANT and
worthwhile INFORMATION to LEAK out into USENET!!
Furthermore:
_X_ You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of
rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan
___ You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of the net.
___ You are a loser.
___ You must have spent your entire life in a skinner box to be this
clueless.
_X_ *Sniff*.
_X_ *Snort*.
___ *plonk*
_X_ "Bite Me."
___ This has been pointed out to you before.
_X_ It is recommended that you:
(Mark all that apply)
___ Stop parroting things you don't understand.
___ Especially this list.
___ Go Away. Now.
___ stick to FidoNet and come back when you've grown up.
___ stick to America Online and switch to Fidonet when you know what
a badger is.
___ Lay down and not think about Roy.
_X_ felch yourself.
_X_ squick yourself.
___ never attempt to reproduce yourself.
___ stop easing your badger and get a life.
___ stop reading Usenet news and get a life.
___ stop sending email and get a life.
___ don't leave your terminal whilst still logged in.
_X_ consume excrement.
_X_ consume excrement and thus expire.
_X_ balefire yourself.
Kenneth G. Cavness
joe...@joeshaw.bevc.blacksburg.va.us (Joe "Uno" Shaw) wrote:
> cav...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kenneth G. Cavness) wrote:
> > In article <cavness-0810...@smf-d11.facsmf.utexas.edu>
> > cav...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kenneth G. Cavness) writes:
> > Karl writes:
> > >[ munch ]
> > >[ Sorry Joe, but I had a distinct feeling this was appropriate ]
> But since they're both invoking my name....
"Parroting" might be the right word, Joe. :P It's because this is
_Your_ form, and both of us used it.
> I presume this is still about the "stilfling discussion" argument.
ObAaron: Yes.
> It is a silly argument that started as a mutual misunderstanding.
> You are both acting like children. Stop it, both of you.
Yes, sa'sa'sa'sa'sa'Uncle Joe. (But he started it!)
> (If you're _both_ just enjoying yanking each other's chains, you
> might want to make that more obvious to the rest of us...)
If Karl was trolling me, it was perhaps the best troll I have
ever seen in my entire life. I cannot believe how well-done it
is, and will be suitably sheepish when this is over if that
is what it is. On the whole, I'm incredibly insulted by it, and, what
is more, confused.
Kenneth G. Cavness
oil...@wam.umd.edu (Chad R Orzel) wrote:
> In article <45ce38$a...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>,
> Joe "Uno" Shaw <joe...@joeshaw.bevc.blacksburg.va.us> wrote:
> >
> {Karl-John and kkkkkKennnnn sniping at one another}
>
> >I presume this is still about the "stilfling discussion" argument.
> >
> >It is a silly argument that started as a mutual misunderstanding.
> >You are both acting like children. Stop it, both of you.
> >
> >Or I'll tell Unka Chad to take you both out to the woodshed for a
> >whipping.
> >
> Yeah, Goddammit.
> You two are just lucky I'm in a really good mood (despite the best efforts
> of Senor Alexander...) these days. Otherwise, you'd be in for an old-style
> ass-whuppin' you wouldn't soon forget...
Chad, you haven't been in a bad mood for almost six months now. (In
other words, for as long as I've continuously been here.)
I guess the Halcyon really does work.
> >(If you're _both_ just enjoying yanking each other's chains, you
> >might want to make that more obvious to the rest of us...)
> >
> And there will be no more of this "chain-yanking," either. It's a sin, and
> you'll go blind. Stop it at once.
Not that this was chain-yanking, but in the right place, say, at home,
in the privacy of your own room, chain-yanking can be quite fun. As long
as both parties consent and know what they are doing, and it is done
with some knowledge and experience, chain-yanking can be an enjoyable
experience. Chain-yanking for the sake of chain-yanking, however, is an
addictive habit and can impede the ability of other functions, such as
being able to detect when and where it is appropriate to chain-yank, or
to yank others' chains.
Joe Uno Shaw
> cav...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kenneth G. Cavness) writes:
> Karl writes:
> >[ munch ]
> >[ Sorry Joe, but I had a distinct feeling this was appropriate ]
Due to the screwed up attributions in Kenn's posts, I have no idea
what Karl-Johan thought was appropriate, nor why he felt the need
to appologize to me. But since they're both invoking my name....
> [Sorry, Joe, but I had a distinct feeling this was appropriate. -- k'k'k'kc]
> STANDARDIZED RASFWRJ BONEHEAD REPLY FORM V1.2
> (adapted from the STANDARDIZED BONEHEAD REPLY FORM by Joe Shaw)
I presume this is still about the "stilfling discussion" argument.
It is a silly argument that started as a mutual misunderstanding.
You are both acting like children. Stop it, both of you.
Or I'll tell Unka Chad to take you both out to the woodshed for a
whipping.
- Joe
(If you're _both_ just enjoying yanking each other's chains, you
might want to make that more obvious to the rest of us...)
------
To get the rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan FAQ, send me email or: | I *am*
ftp://joeshaw.bevc.blacksburg.va.us/pub/jordan/robert-jordan-faq |the Cabal.
http://joeshaw.bevc.blacksburg.va.us/~joeshaw/rj-faq.html | [ISRI]
It takes only ONE spoiler to ruin someone's enjoyment of a book. |[NtF-NtF]
Chad R Orzel
Joe "Uno" Shaw <joe...@joeshaw.bevc.blacksburg.va.us> wrote:
>
{Karl-John and kkkkkKennnnn sniping at one another}
>I presume this is still about the "stilfling discussion" argument.
>
>It is a silly argument that started as a mutual misunderstanding.
>You are both acting like children. Stop it, both of you.
>
>Or I'll tell Unka Chad to take you both out to the woodshed for a
>whipping.
>
Yeah, Goddammit.
You two are just lucky I'm in a really good mood (despite the best efforts
of Senor Alexander...) these days. Otherwise, you'd be in for an old-style
ass-whuppin' you wouldn't soon forget...
>(If you're _both_ just enjoying yanking each other's chains, you
>might want to make that more obvious to the rest of us...)
>
And there will be no more of this "chain-yanking," either. It's a sin, and
you'll go blind. Stop it at once.
Damn preverts... Mucking up our nice family newsfroup...
Later,
OilCan
("It's like cocktails in Appalachia over there...")
Hohn Cho
Karl-Johan Noren <k-j-...@dsv.su.se> wrote:
>And you still does not give *ANY* reason for other
>scenarios. You still does not give *ANY* reason for other
>killers.
It didn't come across to me that Kenneth was trying to forward other
theories of Asmodean's killer at this time. I think he was just trying
(admittedly, rather badly) to disprove the Graendal theory. If that's
all he was trying to do, he doesn't have to produce alternate scenarios
except as further evidence of his point, _if_ he chooses to take that
route. Disproving something in the alternative is not the only way to
argue against a theory, however.
>*THAT'S WHAT THIS FROUP IS ABOUT!*
[...]
>*THEN GIVE VALID REASONS FOR IT BEING SO!*
[...]
>And what's coming now, this *IS* a personal attack:
[...]
>Instead, you give *BULLSHIT* reasons, reasons OJ Simpson's
>lawyers would have been *ASHAMED* of using!
<ObAside: Oh, I dunno, Johnny Cochran doesn't exactly seem to be the type
of guy who's ashamed by much.>
[...]
>By doing so, it appears to me that *YOU DON'T WANT TO SOLVE
>THE MURDERING OF ASMODEAN!* You want to sit back and get
>A Crown of Swords, and get it there!
[...]
>Get back to lurking with Hans Holmer(*), Kenneth!
[charming story of prejudiced, incompetent police chief munched]
Karl-Johan, I hope you know that I consider you to be intelligent and a
basically nice guy. I respect you, and we've exchanged some very cordial
e-mail. And I _know_ you're aware that I am hardly one of Kenneth's
biggest fans.
That being said, and without getting into the substantive Graendal stuff
(personally, I'm still firmly in the Lanfear Did It camp), I think you're
overreacting here. Quite a bit. Between the above and the Standard
Bonehead Reply thing (and in keeping with a relatively common peeve of
mine, unless your target is being _extremely_ stupid, it generally looks
rather foolish and arrogant to post an "I'm so much smarter than you"
rant), you're coming off as a bit extreme from where I'm sitting.
Sure, Kenneth was wrong regarding the Graendal thoughts/Nae'blis thing.
Sure, at times he can be annoying. Again, I know this from personal
experience. But I don't think he deserved all that you dished out.
Take a step back, Karl-Johan. Try to re-read some of Kenneth's posts in
this thread with as objective an eye as you can. If you do this, I'm
hoping that you will see my point.
<And tempers continue to run hot, here in sunny RASFWR-J...>
--
Sincerely, | hoh...@kaiwan.com
Hohn Cho | PLEASE SEND E-MAIL TO THE KAIWAN ADDRESS.
Burr
In article <cavness-0910...@smf-d11.facsmf.utexas.edu>, cav...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kenneth G. Cavness) writes:
> In article <K-J-NORE.9...@viktoria.dsv.su.se>,
>
> > STANDARDIZED RASFWRJ BONEHEAD REPLY FORM V1.2
> > (adapted from the STANDARDIZED BONEHEAD REPLY FORM by Joe Shaw)
> >
> > It was (check all that apply):
>
> > _X_ you flamed someone who is far more intelligent and witty than you.
> The fact that you chose to flame me after no less than a month of my
> being able to avoid flame wars is even more telling, Karl. The fact
> that you _threw_ my intelligence at me and labelled it as small and
> insignificant is incredibly uncalled-for in the extreme. The fact that
> you labeled _yourself_ as _Far_ more witty and intelligent than I is
> incalculably arrogant.
Ooh, ooh. I sense another Top Ten Most Arrogant list.
And as for the flame-skirmish which has suddenly arisen, I offer both
of you the following advice. Cool your flamethrowers.
Karl-Johan, you are after all talking to Kenneth, who is not well known
for astute judgement and choice of words.
And Kenneth, you are talking with Karl-Johan, who is rapidly losing his
angle of incidence from the sun.
Now I know that everyone is trigger-happy with the lack of new topics,
but I'll be a goat-kissing trolloc before I believe that any of this is
necessary (unlike the other flaming this week). Now smooch and make up.
In Brown Ajah fashion,
Burr Gaidin.
"This is beginning to wear thin," the warder said, his patience dangling...
Kenneth G. Cavness
gives me such a bright, shiny, sunny, happy feeling.
In article <45d4uo$m...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
hoh...@uclink2.berkeley.edu (Hohn Cho) wrote:
> Sure, Kenneth was wrong regarding the Graendal thoughts/Nae'blis thing.
> Sure, at times he can be annoying. Again, I know this from personal
> experience. But I don't think he deserved all that you dished out.
Hmmm... I think something's wrong here. There is no doubt that Graendal
was "all but" promised Nae'blis. I didn't intend to dispute that at all.
What I was trying to say was that there is _no_ evidence that she was
"all but" promised Nae'blis in return for killing Asmodean, and that
she had seemed very unsure of her Nae'blishood promise by the DO having
been a real thing, considering her insecurity in other scenes. I left
out that important clause once or twice in my article, but I qualified
it several other times in the article itself; I can only think back to
Bill Garrett's recent reply to Ryan Bettens concerning what we think
to be obvious if we have mentioned it before may be confusing later on.
And, since I have searched throughout my townhome and cannot find
LoC anywhere, I cannot find the quote I am looking for. (this is
the cue for someone to find it for me; so I'm riding on the work
of other people -- sue me.) I do have it in my memory, paraphrasing
it.
Graendal is talking to Sammael. Graendal tells Sammael offhandedly
that whatever Sammael thinks, Asmodean, Lanfear, Moghedian, and Rahvin
are dead. If this is the quote you guys are looking at as proof that
Graendal _knows_ Asmodean is dead, it's _very_ shaky -- because we know
that at least one of the people in her list is _not_ dead, and the other
is arguably still alive as well.
Back to our regularly scheduled flaming...
Kenneth G. Cavness
rut...@rpi.edu wrote:
> In article <cavness-0910...@smf-d11.facsmf.utexas.edu>,
> cav...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kenneth G. Cavness) writes:
> > In article <K-J-NORE.9...@viktoria.dsv.su.se>,
> > k-j-...@dsv.su.se (Karl-Johan Noren) wrote:
> >
> > > STANDARDIZED RASFWRJ BONEHEAD REPLY FORM V1.2
> > > (adapted from the STANDARDIZED BONEHEAD REPLY FORM by Joe Shaw)
> > > I took exception to your recent post to rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan.
> > >
> > > It was (check all that apply):
> >
> > > _X_ much longer than any worthwhile thought of which you may be capable.
> > > _X_ you flamed someone who is far more intelligent and witty than you.
>
> > The fact that you chose to flame me after no less than a month of my
> > being able to avoid flame wars is even more telling, Karl. The fact
> > that you _threw_ my intelligence at me and labelled it as small and
> > insignificant is incredibly uncalled-for in the extreme. The fact that
> > you labeled _yourself_ as _Far_ more witty and intelligent than I is
> > incalculably arrogant.
>
> Ooh, ooh. I sense another Top Ten Most Arrogant list.
Nah. My top-10 MHM list was not intended to disparage anyone, and
its time has come and gone. Karl is at the top of my personal
shit list at the moment, however.
> Karl-Johan, you are after all talking to Kenneth, who is not well known
> for astute judgement and choice of words.
> And Kenneth, you are talking with Karl-Johan, who is rapidly losing his
> angle of incidence from the sun.
If all those of you who so innocently want to stop the flamewars want
to do is to continue to disparage me publicly, you're only going to
raise my rancor more. I am quickly losing patience with this. I know
I have no abundance of fans here, and I know that Karl is a respected
member of the 'froup, but this does not excuse his actions in this
matter, and I don't appreciate these "consider the source" messages
you've been sending out here.
Chad R Orzel
Kenneth G. Cavness <cav...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>In article <45cjko$b...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>,
>oil...@wam.umd.edu (Chad R Orzel) wrote:
>> You two are just lucky I'm in a really good mood (despite the best efforts
>> of Senor Alexander...) these days. Otherwise, you'd be in for an old-style
>> ass-whuppin' you wouldn't soon forget...
>
>other words, for as long as I've continuously been here.)
>I guess the Halcyon really does work.
>
All those months of carefully constructing a fearsome reputation, and it
all comes tumbling down in a few short weeks...
<sigh>
The only real question is how Mike Holmes managed to enlist the aid of
the women of r.a.s.w.r-j in destroying my cleverly manufactured image...
Well, OK, two questions: that, and "Is this really a Bad Thing?"...
(Will drag in obscure jokes from other groups just to annoy The Novak)
>> And there will be no more of this "chain-yanking," either. It's a sin, and
>> you'll go blind. Stop it at once.
>
>Not that this was chain-yanking, but in the right place, say, at home,
>in the privacy of your own room, chain-yanking can be quite fun. As long
>as both parties consent and know what they are doing, and it is done
>with some knowledge and experience, chain-yanking can be an enjoyable
>experience.
<THWOCK>
There will be none of that! It's 'gainst God's will, I tellya. It's
right there in the Bible, in Jesus's own English. Thou shalt not yank
chains. John, 3:25. Look it up.
So knock it off right now, or burn in the fires of Hell for all eternity.
<blink>
Sorry 'bout that. Been hanging around my crazy housemate too much...
Later,
Oil "Ba'alzamon" Can
(The Politest Personification of Evil on the Net)
Burr
> > Karl-Johan, you are after all talking to Kenneth, who is not well known
> > for astute judgement and choice of words.
> > And Kenneth, you are talking with Karl-Johan, who is rapidly losing his
> > angle of incidence from the sun.
>
> If all those of you who so innocently want to stop the flamewars want
> to do is to continue to disparage me publicly, you're only going to
> raise my rancor more. I am quickly losing patience with this. I know
> I have no abundance of fans here, and I know that Karl is a respected
> member of the 'froup, but this does not excuse his actions in this
> matter, and I don't appreciate these "consider the source" messages
> you've been sending out here.
Please point out where my statements are erroneous and I'll retract
them. You've already admitted that this was a communications breakdown,
and it is not the first one involving you (one every month or so is what
I'm growing accustomed to).
You've asked people to grow thicker skins, and that's what I'm
advocating. When I read a post from you, I look for your intent, not
simply what you've written. I believe that the spirit behind what you
post is constructive. However, if I read some of your (and others')
posts without that in mind, you (and others) can be rather rude and
obnoxious.
Consider it a public service. I believe you have good intentions. But
without that assumption placed over your posts, they do have a tendency
to ire readers. I think a summation of recent spats supports my
position.
So here's how I read it:
o You post.
o You are misunderstood by many, causing small tiffs which thankfully
blow over quickly (due, in part, to third-party intervention).
o You ask people to be less sensitive.
o Another tiff occurs, this time with Karl-Johan.
o I and others suggest that people "consider the source" before they
respond with flamethrowers on high (ie be less sensitive to aspersions
which are not there).
o You get mad at me and the others who are trying to calm another yet
Cavnessian storm.
When are you going to find that the source of the problems lies in the
person sitting at your keyboard, not just with others' thin skins.
Sure, if everybody went through life desensitized to all remarks, no
fights would break out. Another solution is for people to speak in
such a way that others will not be offended.
One last time:
If you're offended, re-read what's been said to be sure it's disparaging.
If you're offensive, think carefully about whether your post will be
taken in a way you have not intended.
I'll leave it to you to decide which category you fit under.
Burr Gaidin.
Michael or Karen Morrione
283 lines, much of which was occupied with infighting with Karl, which
has been snipped because otherwise no one else will read this... (not
that it matters)
But boy, I thought things were getting snippy on the thread talking
about who attacked Demira and why. Bat, bollinger, are you reading
this one? I'm ms. niceperson in comparison...
Ken and Karl, you both seem like reasonable people most of the time,
and fairly intelligent. I'd really like to read your arguments about
who killed Asmodean, without all the nastiness that is time consuming
to wade through. And now, having provided you with a common enemy in
the form of me butting in where I have no real business, I hope that
you will cease attacking each other and get back to the discussion at
hand.
Karen Morrione
Morr...@mindspring.com
_____________________________________
When I find a quote I like, I'll put it here.
Karl-Johan Noren
postings it receives, so I'm reposting everything I've
posted recently at another server. If some messages turns
up twice, my apologies.
In article <cavness-0910...@smf-d11.facsmf.utexas.edu>
cav...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kenneth G. Cavness) writes:
[ massive munchings all over the place ]
> When I say that you shut off discussion, I didn't mean that
> you said, "Noone say anything else!" I meant that with your
> argument, we have too broad of a speculation, and that we
> either will argue in circles, or we will have nothing more
> really to say about it.
Then write that, instead of "you shut off discussion and
shout out a RAFO". That phrase can be interpreted in too
many ways, none of them nice, and none of them comes even
close to saying "we have too broad a speculation", but
being much harder.
Kenneth, a hint: try to check if what you're writing
_really_ corresponds to what you're intending to say. Many
of the arguments you get into seems to, at least to me, be
based upon too great a difference between what you write and
what you intends. I've seen you do this before, and thus
wasn't surprised when it happened again.
> Why on earth have you done this? There was no reason why we
> could not have continued to have a calm, reasoned discussion.
> Your intent here is really beyond me.
Because you asked a question a while back, requesting a
motive for Graendel to kill Asmodean (It's article
<cavness-2209...@smf-c6.facsmf.utexas.edu> btw), to
which I responded with my idea on the DO ordering her to
kill Asmodean.
To that, you responded with "you shut off discussion and
shout out a RAFO". I sat back, and typed up a reply, which
was harsh, but not overtly so, IMO.
To that, you replied with a really boneheaded argument: as
the offering of becoming Nae'blis would be enough motive for
_any_ Forsaken to kill Asmodean, that motive doesn't
count... That's the only way I could interpret your post
before I flamed you. And you still considered that I posted
a "shut off discussion" thing, without trying to give me any
clue what you meant with it (I had no chance in hell to
understand that "shut off discussion" == "too broad a
speculation")
And the consequence of that was: since a motive for any
Forsaken to kill Asmodean can't be valid, _no_ motive that
more than one character could have, can be valid for our
search for Asmodean's murderer. Ie, if this criteria is to
be placed on every hypothesis in our search for the
murderer, we would truly be on a RAFO path, since we _never_
can give any character a motive.
And then you said that you wanted "solid proof" on my theory
before you could accept it, ie you said: we'll have to wait
and RAFO.
Kenneth, your arguments in this thread against the motive I
proposed have been inconsistent and flawed from the start.
You claim that it forces us on a RAFO road, while you
yourself demand "solid proof that Graendel was offered
Naeblis[sic] in return for killing Asmodean". If that's not
RAFO, I don't know what it is.
> > What I did was to give a possible scenario to why Asmodean
> > would be killed by intent, and not because of stumbling onto
> > his killer more or less by mistake, with Graendel as the
> > killer.
>
> Yes, I know, and that is what I took exception to. And what
> we're arguing abounow.
Trouble here was that you _asked_ for a scenario, which I
provided a possible match for. And then you take exception
to my suggestion, and calling it a one that "shut off
discussion". How am I not to feel offended by such
behaviour?
> > And I'm aware that there are more possible killers than
> > Graendel. What's critical, is that *WE KNOW GRAENDEL HAS
> > VISITED THE DO, AND BEEN "PROMISED" NAE'BLIS-HOOD!*
>
> We also know the same happened with Sammael. And, as I've asked
> in another reply, I don't remember where Demandred showed ignorance
> of Asmodean's death.
Demandred showed his ignorance in the LoC Prologue, when
summoned to the DO. It's even FAQed.
I don't know where you've got your reference to that Sammael
been visiting the DO. Can you give it?
[ About Graendel knowing of Asmodean's death ]
> That's pretty flimsy evidence. From the very beginning, all the forsaken
> were given the possibility of becoming Nae'blis. Slowly, they are being
> weeded out.
Sure. Never claimed it was strong. But we've got no strong
evidence in this entire thing, except negative ones.
We know that Demandred didn't do it. We know that Semirhage
didn't do it. [Reference FAQ 1.11]. Oran'/Aran'gar was in
all probability not around at the moment. That leaves only
Mesaana, Graendel, Lanfear and Sammael as possible suspects
among the Forsaken. Of these, Graendel is the one who has
showed the most knowledge about Asmodean's fate, so my
suspicions is primarily on her.
> No, it doesn't, Karl. I'd appreciate your asking me what I want
> to have happen before telling me what I want. What I want is more
> information, more evidence, before I make my decision. What I want
> is arguments that I can accept -- and none of these arguments so
> far have been forthcoming.
I don't know what you mean with "arguments that I can
accept", but it seems that you have a _very_ strong
definition on it. But by doing so, you effectively
cripple, IMO, every try to find out who the murderer is.
There's a difference between accepting and support a
argument. I can accept almost any argument that doesn't
carry any interior inconcistencies, but that doesn't mean I
support it.
> I don't need to justify to you or anyone
> the strength of my need to know who Asmodean's killer was. I think
> it's important, and would love to know. I just don't have all the
> pieces to the puzzle at this time, and like to show other people
> why I don't, and why their proofs aren't good enough for me. This
> is called discussion, Karl, and it is something that you have just
> taken to the level of hair-pulling.
Then make sure your arguments are consistent and precise in
their meaning. They weren't in this case.
Karl-Johan Noren
postings it receives, so I'm reposting everything I've
posted recently at another server. If some messages turns
up twice, my apologies.
In article <45d4uo$m...@agate.berkeley.edu>
hoh...@uclink2.berkeley.edu (Hohn Cho) writes:
[ KJN's flaming of Kenneth munched ]
> Karl-Johan, I hope you know that I consider you to be intelligent and a
> basically nice guy. I respect you, and we've exchanged some very cordial
> e-mail. And I _know_ you're aware that I am hardly one of Kenneth's
> biggest fans.
Basically, Kenneth hit one of my sore points. I've got quite
an experience of politics and debates, and I've seen the
arguments of "you're shutting off discussion", as well as
"that's pure speculation" way too many times. Coupled with
that I had evidence for my scenarios made it even worse. And
I had had a really bad week too.
That Kenneth said "you shut off discussion and shout out a
RAFO" when I gave an answer to a question he himself had
made, and still continued with that line of thought after my
first reply was though what really made me go through the
roof.
> Sure, Kenneth was wrong regarding the Graendal thoughts/Nae'blis thing.
> Sure, at times he can be annoying. Again, I know this from personal
> experience. But I don't think he deserved all that you dished out.
I'm aware of that, but my bad mood took me and projected
everything on Kenneth. That's the trouble with me, I seldom
get angry, but when I get, then I get _real_ angry.
> Take a step back, Karl-Johan. Try to re-read some of Kenneth's posts in
> this thread with as objective an eye as you can. If you do this, I'm
> hoping that you will see my point.
Just did.
Trouble is that I still view his argumentation as bullshit
at worst, and the most valid parts as inconsistent.
I'll have to lie down and try not to think about Kenneth.
Kenneth G. Cavness
k-j-...@dsv.su.se (Karl-Johan Noren) wrote:
> In article <cavness-0910...@smf-d11.facsmf.utexas.edu>
> cav...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kenneth G. Cavness) writes:
>
> [ massive munchings all over the place ]
>
>> When I say that you shut off discussion, I didn't mean that
>> you said, "Noone say anything else!" I meant that with your
>> argument, we have too broad of a speculation, and that we
>> either will argue in circles, or we will have nothing more
>> really to say about it.
>
> Then write that, instead of "you shut off discussion and
> shout out a RAFO".
They say the exact same thing, Karl.
> That phrase can be interpreted in too
> many ways, none of them nice, and none of them comes even
> close to saying "we have too broad a speculation", but
> being much harder.
Actually, it does say that you have created too broad of a
speculation, and I have already given reasons why the two
statements equated. Karl, your reaction to this was inexcusible.
My post in no way gave you the right to call me a ninny.
> I've seen you do this before, and thus wasn't surprised when
> it happened again.
Lack of comprehension on your part, even after I have clairified
myself twice on my part, does not give excuse for a blowup.
> > Why on earth have you done this? There was no reason why we
> > could not have continued to have a calm, reasoned discussion.
> > Your intent here is really beyond me.
>
> Because you asked a question a while back, requesting a
> motive for Graendel to kill Asmodean (It's article
> <cavness-2209...@smf-c6.facsmf.utexas.edu> btw), to
> which I responded with my idea on the DO ordering her to
> kill Asmodean.
The answer wasn't good enough for me. I told you why.
Three times I expanded on that reason, and the third
time you blew up. Very odd.
> To that, you responded with "you shut off discussion and
> shout out a RAFO". I sat back, and typed up a reply, which
> was harsh, but not overtly so, IMO.
It wasn't overtly harsh. In fact, it seemed to be continuing
the discussion calmly. I was showing that I disagreed with you
and could not accept that scenario as a good argument for Graendal's
killing Asmodian, and you were showing that you disagreed with
my analysis of your argument. Until that last letter, and the
subsequent bonehead form, in which you accused me of being FAR
less witty and intelligent than yourself, of parroting things
on the group that I do not understand, of misunderstanding the
purpose of RASFWR-J, and of writing something that was longer
than any thought of which I could be capable, I had been under
the misunderstood impression that we could argue on this
pet dogmatic theory of yours with at least some degree of calm.
It is regrettable that that is not apparently so.
> To that, you replied with a really boneheaded argument: as
> the offering of becoming Nae'blis would be enough motive for
> _any_ Forsaken to kill Asmodean, that motive doesn't
> count... That's the only way I could interpret your post
> before I flamed you. And you still considered that I posted
> a "shut off discussion" thing, without trying to give me any
> clue what you meant with it (I had no chance in hell to
> understand that "shut off discussion" == "too broad a
> speculation")
You've screamed out that my argument was boneheaded many times
already -- that it was the type of argument that even OJ Simpson's
lawyers wouldn't dare support (as if they would argue on the Wheel
of Time), and yet I have seen no reasoned analysis concerning this.
Instead, you have attacked me and my argument without providing
supporting, relevant reasons. You have reached into my past on the
'froup as an excuse for your explosion.
This is not debate, Karl.
This is a hair-pulling, fist-punching free-for-all.
This is not the point of rasfwr-j.
If you have reasons why you think my argument is "boneheaded",
I'm all for hearing them -- rationally, calmly, and without the
extensive ad hominem that you provided in two previous posts. Otherwise,
I no longer care to discuss this matter with you, and will be
forced to be wary of discussing anything with you in the future
in fear that you'll become angry with my disagreement.
> And the consequence of that was: since a motive for any
> Forsaken to kill Asmodean can't be valid, _no_ motive that
> more than one character could have, can be valid for our
> search for Asmodean's murderer. Ie, if this criteria is to
> be placed on every hypothesis in our search for the
> murderer, we would truly be on a RAFO path, since we _never_
> can give any character a motive.
No, Karl. It meant that that particular argument, which was the
one you gave to me in response, were it to be used, would cause
circular arguments to ensue. I expanded this on a post BEFORE you
blew up, Karl, and yet you still blew up. I would like an apology
concerning this. You had no excuse to blow up at me in the way that
you did, especially publicly. In the past, you could have -- in this
case, you didn't.
You are the one that decided to believe that I was applying that
statement to every single argument you will ever make, Karl. Since
I quoted only that statement, and was only responding to that statement,
and was only interested in that particular argument, there was no reason
whatsoever for you to have interpreted it in that fashion unless you
_wanted_ to expand discussion in that way.
> And then you said that you wanted "solid proof" on my theory
> before you could accept it, ie you said: we'll have to wait
> and RAFO.
Yes, and I still do want solid proof that Graendal was offered
Nae'blis IN RETURN FOR KILLING Asmodean. Until I have that solid
proof, I have _no_ reason to think that Graendal killed Asmodean,
_especially_ if the only proof that has been offered so far has
been that Graendal was fairly certain that Asmodean was dead. Graendal
is also fairly certain that Moghedien and Lanfear are dead, too.
> Kenneth, your arguments in this thread against the motive I
> proposed have been inconsistent and flawed from the start.
Please provide proof of this, instead of just saying it.
Since you have made the assertion, the onus is on you
to provide contentions backing it up.
> You claim that it forces us on a RAFO road, while you
> yourself demand "solid proof that Graendel was offered
> Nae'blis in return for killing Asmodean". If that's not
> RAFO, I don't know what it is.
If you have better proofs, Karl, I'm more than willing to
hear them. The proof you have offered, and I speak only for
myself here, is _not_ _enough_.
Also, _my_ life will not end if I have to wait for the next
book to come out before finding out who killed Asmodean. My
other theories don't center in around Graendal being the killer.
I would love to know who killed Asmodean, and would be more than
willing to continue to discuss said actions, but I am perfectly
within my rights to reject anything hypothetical thrown out to me.
>>> What I did was to give a possible scenario to why Asmodean
>>> would be killed by intent, and not because of stumbling onto
>>> his killer more or less by mistake, with Graendel as the
>>> killer.
> >
>> Yes, I know, and that is what I took exception to. And what
>> we're arguing abounow.
>
> Trouble here was that you _asked_ for a scenario, which I
> provided a possible match for. And then you take exception
> to my suggestion, and calling it a one that "shut off
> discussion". How am I not to feel offended by such
> behaviour?
I asked you for a scenario, and you provided one to me that
I could not accept. I tell you this. I clarify what I mean
twice before you blow up. And yet you are still offended.
I find that singularly objectionable.
>>> And I'm aware that there are more possible killers than
>>> Graendel. What's critical, is that *WE KNOW GRAENDEL HAS
>>> VISITED THE DO, AND BEEN "PROMISED" NAE'BLIS-HOOD!*
>>
>> We also know the same happened with Sammael. And, as I've asked
>> in another reply, I don't remember where Demandred showed ignorance
>> of Asmodean's death.
>
> Demandred showed his ignorance in the LoC Prologue, when
> summoned to the DO. It's even FAQed.
Thanks. I see now. Okay, so we've basically knocked off the following:
Couldn't have:
Rahvin, Demandred, Semirhage, Be'lal, Asmodean (hehe)
Probably didn't:
Aginor, Balthamel, Moghedian(Aginor and Balthamel, if the WoT timeline
followed a chronological order, were probably not resurrected at the time,
and Moghedian was too busy looking for Nynaeve, and while she could have
done it, the evidence is nonexistant and all points away from her)
We still have: Ishamael, Lanfear, Messana, Graendal, and Sammael
That's five Forsaken left out of 10 that were alive at the time. Half
are left. Of these, we know that all five could have made a visit
to the Dark One, and all five could have been asked to do the exact
same thing. Without more proof than a hypothetical situation, I
_cannot_ accept the situation you gave, because it could be applied
to _all_ of them, and therefore is _not_ a very good reason to support
her.
> I don't know where you've got your reference to that Sammael
> been visiting the DO. Can you give it?
Graendal is trying to upset Sammael, and he seems so sure of herself
that she wonders if he had been offered Nae'blis. She wouldn't have even
wondered this if he had not been to see the DO.
> [ About Graendel knowing of Asmodean's death ]
>
> > That's pretty flimsy evidence. From the very beginning, all the forsaken
> > were given the possibility of becoming Nae'blis. Slowly, they are being
> > weeded out.
>
> Sure. Never claimed it was strong. But we've got no strong
> evidence in this entire thing, except negative ones.
That, Karl, is my point.
> We know that Demandred didn't do it. We know that Semirhage
> didn't do it. [Reference FAQ 1.11]. Oran'/Aran'gar was in
> all probability not around at the moment. That leaves only
> Mesaana, Graendel, Lanfear and Sammael as possible suspects
> among the Forsaken.
Ishamael as well. We don't know what's going on with him, and
we almost have to assume that he has in some way been resurrected.
> Of these, Graendel is the one who has
> showed the most knowledge about Asmodean's fate, so my
> suspicions is primarily on her.
She has shown no more knowledge than anyone else. She threw
out his name once, in concert with two other forsaken that were
most likely alive at the time.
> > No, it doesn't, Karl. I'd appreciate your asking me what I want
> > to have happen before telling me what I want. What I want is more
> > information, more evidence, before I make my decision. What I want
> > is arguments that I can accept -- and none of these arguments so
> > far have been forthcoming.
>
> I don't know what you mean with "arguments that I can
> accept", but it seems that you have a _very_ strong
> definition on it. But by doing so, you effectively
> cripple, IMO, every try to find out who the murderer is.
Not really. Logic can go a long way in helping me accept such
a situation. Hypothetical situations are inherently weak, though,
especially if we have little proof of their occurance with Just That
One Person.
> There's a difference between accepting and support a
> argument. I can accept almost any argument that doesn't
> carry any interior inconcistencies, but that doesn't mean I
> support it.
I could accept that she be offered Nae'blis, but I could not accept
that she be offered Nae'blis as proof that she killed Asmodean, since
it's been shown that the DO has been asking just about everyone that
goes to talk to him if they want to rule the world.
> Then make sure your arguments are consistent and precise in
> their meaning. They weren't in this case.
If anyone should be blowing up here, it's me, actually. You've
consistantly attacked my arguments as worthless and incredible
without going about trying to show how they are so.
If the reasons are obvious to you, you should have no problems
whatsoever in proving them to me. However, I still ask for an
apology from you forthwith on your personal insults to me.
--
K'K'K'Kenn(eth) "What're ya gonna do, K-k-k-ken?" G. Cavness
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~cavness
"I lost my testicle due to the evils of MASTURBATION!"
-- Brice Wellington, on a.a
Timothy Bruening
> While I know the FAQ says a lot about this subject, what bugs me is that
> Graendal is not even mentioned as a possible candidate for Asmo's killer
> (the version I could find didn't, anyway). Which is strange, because she
> fits all the requirements listed there (could be recognized by him, able
> to dispose of the body, etc). But more importantly, she fits the reason
> as to *why* Asmodean was killed. The FAQ lists at some length the
> argument that Asmo was killed simple because he stumbled into someone he
> recognized, and was killed to hide a breach in Rand's security. So why
> does it seem that no-one has realized that Graendal has agents in
> Caemlyn? She reveals this several times, such as when she tells Sammael
> that she knows his emissary is dead, and in a couple of other places.
> Furthermore, RJ has said that we have all the clues to figure out who
> killed Asmodean. If this claim is correct, then the killer must be
> someone who has mentioned Asmo's demise or who is otherwise connected to
> him in some way. The only people to mention Asmo's death are Demandred,
> Sammael and Graendal. We know Demandred didn't kill him, and Sammael
> didn't know for sure that Asmodean was dead. But Graendal definitively
> stated, twice, that Asmodean was dead. Hence, Graendal killed Asmodean.
On page 175 of the paperback LoC, Lord of Chaos spoilers:
Sammael asks Graendal if she has any idea of the whereabouts of Asmodean, Lanfear, or Moghedian. Graendal says "Myself, I think Lews Therin killed them.". It was possible that Graendal didn't know from personal experience that Asmodean was dead. After all, she thought wrongly that Lanfear and Moghedian were dead, (meaning that she didn't know of their fates from personal experience), so it was possible that Graendal hadn't known of Asmodean's fate from personal experience.
Timothy Bruening
> While I know the FAQ says a lot about this subject, what bugs me is that
> Graendal is not even mentioned as a possible candidate for Asmo's killer
> (the version I could find didn't, anyway). Which is strange, because she
> fits all the requirements listed there (could be recognized by him, able
> to dispose of the body, etc). But more importantly, she fits the reason
> as to *why* Asmodean was killed. The FAQ lists at some length the
> argument that Asmo was killed simple because he stumbled into someone he
> recognized, and was killed to hide a breach in Rand's security. So why
> does it seem that no-one has realized that Graendal has agents in
> Caemlyn? She reveals this several times, such as when she tells Sammael
> that she knows his emissary is dead, and in a couple of other places.
> Furthermore, RJ has said that we have all the clues to figure out who
> killed Asmodean. If this claim is correct, then the killer must be
> someone who has mentioned Asmo's demise or who is otherwise connected to
> him in some way. The only people to mention Asmo's death are Demandred,
> Sammael and Graendal. We know Demandred didn't kill him, and Sammael
> didn't know for sure that Asmodean was dead. But Graendal definitively
> stated, twice, that Asmodean was dead. Hence, Graendal killed Asmodean.