User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-37.225.52.51-20130510140359/@comment-188432-20130515201535

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-37.225.52.51-20130510140359/@comment-188432-20130515201535 Please stop taking things out of context. You were trying to compare the Human Nature situation with the TVC stuff. I was explaining how those two things are dissimilar, and you're using my words about that situation to there to talk about the Benny situation. Not cricket.

TVCs are, panel for panel, the same, except for the facial redraws and, in one instance, the name of the companion. The Doctor (as a gestalt character) performed the action; it's just not clear which incarnation. Big deal.

I said rather glibly that you'd say "either the Third or Fourth Doctor" did <x>, but that's not really true. The Fourth Doctor stuff is a retelling, so if we apply the novelisation policy to it, he presence of the Fourth Doctor version contradicts the the original printing, and so is invalid.

The Benny stuff is far more complex than the TVC stuff anyway. They aren't models for each other at all.