User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45314928-20200606025128/@comment-45314928-20200606134843

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45314928-20200606025128/@comment-45314928-20200606134843 please do not try to make my points sound ludicrous.

here's my version of events:


 * Peter Harness mentioned three unproduced television stories during his tweet-along. a whole day after this, and after seeing fan interest, he shared a "discarded first page of a novelisation". there was no mention of this being a licensed story reworked as a short story.
 * Emily Cook was asked about the "unproduced story" - which could have been either the television or novel (which he mentioned alongside his discarded extract). but no way would she think that people were arguing whether a television story five years prior was part of her event. she was clearly referencing the discarded extract that he released the day prior.
 * Harness' hour-long segment of the tweet-along had ended over twelve hours before the release of this discarded story.

also: no date was ever given to the unproduced novelisation (so i have no idea why you keep saying 2015 or "long before Target revived its Doctor Who novelisations"). only the unproduced television story was intended for 2015 - the novelisation could have been intended for any time after that.

now here is your interpretation;


 * Harness sought licensing for a short story based on an unproduced television story - but nobody other than him promoted this new story and he released this long after his tweet-along had ended. unlike his actual licensed The Zygon Isolation which was promoted by several others; including founder Emily Cook, and released during the tweet-along.
 * that Emily Cook thought fans were arguing whether an unproduced television story five years prior was part of the lockdown event. yet, didnt go on to clarify that the "short story" Harness "released" the day before was licensed in its own right.