User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-188432-20130129081336/@comment-6433721-20130401043358: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Sure, OS25, we can think the Doctor's wrong, and we know he lies. We just can't afford the argument of thinking he's wrong about off screen events. When events are on screen we ''can'' know as much or more than he does. | Sure, OS25, we can think the Doctor's wrong, and we know he lies. We just can't afford the argument of thinking he's wrong about off screen events. When events are on screen we ''can'' know as much or more than he does. | ||
Just because we split off Past and Futuristic Clara doesn't mean we have to split them all, SOTO. If the logic is that they're together unless narrative evidence says to split them, we're only arguing about if the strength of the different evidence is enough to split off which ones. | Just because we split off Past and Futuristic Clara doesn't mean we have to split them all, SOTO. If the logic is that they're together unless narrative evidence says to split them, we're only arguing about if the strength of the different evidence is enough to split off which ones. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20130129081336-188432/20130401043358-6433721]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 21:50, 27 April 2023
Sure, OS25, we can think the Doctor's wrong, and we know he lies. We just can't afford the argument of thinking he's wrong about off screen events. When events are on screen we can know as much or more than he does.
Just because we split off Past and Futuristic Clara doesn't mean we have to split them all, SOTO. If the logic is that they're together unless narrative evidence says to split them, we're only arguing about if the strength of the different evidence is enough to split off which ones.
