User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-1789834-20170305000335

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
< User:SOTO‎ | Forum Archive‎ | Inclusion debates‎ | @comment-4028641-20170222073756
Revision as of 14:44, 27 April 2023 by SV7 (talk | contribs) (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))
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

SOTO wrote: All I'm saying is your argument makes sense, not that it trumps all other arguments.

I never stated that. Please don't twist my words, buddy.

OttselSpy25 wrote: OF COURSE the LEGO Harry Potter universe is treated differently. We have ample evidence that it's a direct reboot -- with a retelling of the original franchise. We don't have that for Doctor Who.

It's got nothing to do with LEGO Harry Potter being a direct reboot. We're talking about two separate universes here, reboot or not. One uses the physics of the Potterverse, one uses the physics of the LEGO multiverse. We don't need a reboot or a rehash of Doctor Who in order to have a LEGO DWU.

OttselSpy25 wrote: It just seems like every argument for it being invalid doesn't have enough of a direct connection to hold up in any meaningful way.

I'd like SOTO to correct me if I'm wrong here, but it's invalid before valid. Of course, it's very helpful to provide evidence that something's invalid, so that we can cut to the chase. But, let's face it, the onus isn't on us to prove this is invalid. The onus is on whoever wishes us all to deem it valid to provide some solid pieces of evidence, and right now that's exactly what we don't have. :/

Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=User:SOTO/Forum_Archive/Inclusion_debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-1789834-20170305000335&oldid=3505295"