13,331
edits
More actions
→Osgood LOA pages
Shambala108 (talk | contribs) |
SarahJaneFan (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
::::: And I'll note that "outright implied" is a curious oxymoron indeed. If the implication in ''[[The Zygon Inversion (TV story)|The Zygon Inversion]]'' that the non-Bonnie Osgood may well be the previous Zygon isn't kosher, then neither is ''implication'' in other stories that she was the human Petronella. --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:08, May 10, 2020 (UTC) | ::::: And I'll note that "outright implied" is a curious oxymoron indeed. If the implication in ''[[The Zygon Inversion (TV story)|The Zygon Inversion]]'' that the non-Bonnie Osgood may well be the previous Zygon isn't kosher, then neither is ''implication'' in other stories that she was the human Petronella. --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:08, May 10, 2020 (UTC) | ||
Well called it an implication in good faith, no one in that story is shouting from the rooftops “this one is a human and this one is a Zygon” but the script is very clear that one is a Zygon and the other is the human that’s appeared in all the other UNIT audio boxsets. The two Osgoods dont reveal to anyone but each other which is which so it doesn’t at all violate their claims in Series 9. As it stands, the only account we have to implicate the identity of the surviving Osgood is Narcissus so until it’s otherwise stated we should treat the human as the survivor. Obviously it’s something that would have to be discussed further in a thread before someone says “according to T:whatever you can’t say that” but my point is, things just don’t make sense as they currently stand and when we have sources that actually make sense of this stuff we should use them. [[User:SarahJaneFan|SarahJaneFan]] [[User talk:SarahJaneFan|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:41, May 10, 2020 (UTC) | |||