2,978
edits
Talk:Death Is the Only Answer (TV story): Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Talk:Death Is the Only Answer (TV story) (edit)
Revision as of 13:35, 10 October 2011
, 10 October 2011→Timeline Again
m (→Timeline Again) |
|||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
::::That's an onscreen statement that he hasn't seen it since then, placing it explicitly before ''A Christmas Carol''. To put it after would presume an offscreen mishap with the fez; there is no evidence for that and it would be just as unencyclopedic as saying that Amy and Rory in ''Closing Time'' could be from before ''The Impossible Astronaut'' and Amy was assaulted by memory-eating aliens who made her forget the word "petrichor". Based on what's actually been seen and heard onscreen, the placement is clear. To put this episode before ''A Christmas Carol'' is to not speculate; to put it after or to say we can't tell is to speculate. The assumption of offscreen events is a major flaw in the argument you stated. -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] <sup>[[User talk:Noneofyourbusiness|talk to me]]</sup> 14:29, October 9, 2011 (UTC) | ::::That's an onscreen statement that he hasn't seen it since then, placing it explicitly before ''A Christmas Carol''. To put it after would presume an offscreen mishap with the fez; there is no evidence for that and it would be just as unencyclopedic as saying that Amy and Rory in ''Closing Time'' could be from before ''The Impossible Astronaut'' and Amy was assaulted by memory-eating aliens who made her forget the word "petrichor". Based on what's actually been seen and heard onscreen, the placement is clear. To put this episode before ''A Christmas Carol'' is to not speculate; to put it after or to say we can't tell is to speculate. The assumption of offscreen events is a major flaw in the argument you stated. -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] <sup>[[User talk:Noneofyourbusiness|talk to me]]</sup> 14:29, October 9, 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::::Your argument is assuming that certain things must ''not'' have happened off-screen between ''The Big Bang'' and this story, which is far more speculative than what we are allowed to do on this wiki. Being ''more'' restrictive in our article than the narrative itself was is just as much an act of assuming and speculating as being ''less'' restrictive and adding our own ideas to the story would be, we must only stick to the cold hard facts. We only have one such cold hard fact here, as I explained above, and it does not tell us how long it has or hasn't been since ''The Big Bang'' to any level we can pin down here. — [[User:Rob T Firefly|Rob T Firefly]] - '''[[User talk:Rob T Firefly|Δ]][[Special:Contributions/Rob T Firefly|∇]]''' - 17:38, October 9, 2011 (UTC) | :::::Your argument is assuming that certain things must ''not'' have happened off-screen between ''The Big Bang'' and this story, which is far more speculative than what we are allowed to do on this wiki. Being ''more'' restrictive in our article than the narrative itself was is just as much an act of assuming and speculating as being ''less'' restrictive and adding our own ideas to the story would be, we must only stick to the cold hard facts. We only have one such cold hard fact here, as I explained above, and it does not tell us how long it has or hasn't been since ''The Big Bang'' to any level we can pin down here. — [[User:Rob T Firefly|Rob T Firefly]] - '''[[User talk:Rob T Firefly|Δ]][[Special:Contributions/Rob T Firefly|∇]]''' - 17:38, October 9, 2011 (UTC) | ||
::::::The fact that we'd be assuming something not in evidence is one part. The other part is not about assuming things didn't happen, it's about the fact he would only use that particular sentence "Oh, I've missed you. I can't believe River blew you up!" the first time he got it back. I see no sense in pretending we don't know what an onscreen statement means when we in fact do. -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] <sup>[[User talk:Noneofyourbusiness|talk to me]]</sup> 13:05, October 10, 2011 (UTC) | ::::::The fact that we'd be assuming something not in evidence is one part. The other part is not about assuming things didn't happen, it's about the fact he would only use that particular sentence "Oh, I've missed you. I can't believe River blew you up!" the first time he got it back. That's the way the language works. I see no sense in pretending we don't know what an onscreen statement means when we in fact do. -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] <sup>[[User talk:Noneofyourbusiness|talk to me]]</sup> 13:05, October 10, 2011 (UTC) | ||
