9,297
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 14:55, 10 October 2011
, 10 October 2011→Timeline Again
m (→Timeline Again) |
|||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
:::::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. 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) | ::::::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) | ||
:::::::We don't know anything about whether he "would only use that particular sentence" in such a circumstance. An expression of disbelief at an occurrence does not imply anything about how long it has been or what else has or hasn't happened since that occurrence. For example, I can't believe I once found a live kitten in the trash; that's a true statement, but it has nothing at all to do with how long ago that was or how many other cats I may have owned since that one, and you couldn't make any reasonable assumptions on the matter based on it. | |||
:::::::My point remains: we know what the Doctor said - he established River blowing up his fez sometime previous to the story, but he said nothing else about it. We simply cannot make any further assumptions about his statement beyond the literal meaning of his words. ''That's'' the way the language works concerning this single sentence. — [[User:Rob T Firefly|Rob T Firefly]] - '''[[User talk:Rob T Firefly|Δ]][[Special:Contributions/Rob T Firefly|∇]]''' - 14:55, October 10, 2011 (UTC) | |||
