Trusted
8,510
edits
→New Evidence re Lockdown stories
DiSoRiEnTeD1 (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 576: | Line 576: | ||
B: The "it may be" referred to ''your position'' that they're not part of Lockdown!. The website in principle cannot show that the prose pieces are not part of it - the category under which they would fall (certainly not minisodes) has a word that explicitly rules out the BBC prose stories from ever being listed even if they're part of Lockdown!. You need other evidence. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:46, November 5, 2020 (UTC) | B: The "it may be" referred to ''your position'' that they're not part of Lockdown!. The website in principle cannot show that the prose pieces are not part of it - the category under which they would fall (certainly not minisodes) has a word that explicitly rules out the BBC prose stories from ever being listed even if they're part of Lockdown!. You need other evidence. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:46, November 5, 2020 (UTC) | ||
:She quotetweeted Incoming Message while using a hashtag relevant to the tweetalong. As stated in the thread | |||
:: Are we really going to pretend that Cook, ostensibly an adult, can't differentiate between retweeting a fan video using the hashtag, constituting an endorsement of this as a fan action within the grounds of the tweetalong, and retweeting an official Doctor Who story using the hashtag constituting an endorsement of this as an official story within the grounds of the tweetalong? Who are we trying to fool here? | |||
:You accused this of "speculation". [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:06, November 5, 2020 (UTC) | |||