User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-6032121-20200517150418/@comment-6032121-20200610025002: Difference between revisions
(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: | ||
<div class="quote"> | <div class="quote"> | ||
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: | DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: | ||
| Line 9: | Line 8: | ||
Second, I have told you many many times why, ''even if'' we find that it's not connected ''enough'' to be put on our lists, it's just wrong to say ''Monk'' had "nothing" to do with the event. It used the bloody hashtag and grew out of something he said in the tweetalong. It's obviously connected to the event, whether officially or not. It's not a complete sodding coincidence. | Second, I have told you many many times why, ''even if'' we find that it's not connected ''enough'' to be put on our lists, it's just wrong to say ''Monk'' had "nothing" to do with the event. It used the bloody hashtag and grew out of something he said in the tweetalong. It's obviously connected to the event, whether officially or not. It's not a complete sodding coincidence. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20200517150418-6032121/20200610025002-6032121]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 00:06, 28 April 2023
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: How The Monk Got His Habit (short story) has just been made invalid because, like Peter Harness always stated, it was not an official release but an extract from a discarded story.
hopefully this can now help us all agree that it should be kept separate from the official Doctor Who: Lockdown! releases (and actually lockdown as a whole due to the fact that it was just a mention of a scrapped idea that had nothing to do with the event)?
First, that is a misrepresentation of the closure of that thread. User:Shambala108 seems to have ruled that the short story fails Rule 4 because its creator considers it to be "discarded" material in any event, but has not ruled on whether we're to give any credence to the claims of a novelisation having existed.
Second, I have told you many many times why, even if we find that it's not connected enough to be put on our lists, it's just wrong to say Monk had "nothing" to do with the event. It used the bloody hashtag and grew out of something he said in the tweetalong. It's obviously connected to the event, whether officially or not. It's not a complete sodding coincidence.
