Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-24894325-20170121220436/@comment-28349479-20170123062011

Thefartydoctor wrote: I'm still of the opinion that things have to be named in order for them to be accepted as a valid source. If something's not called "TARDIS", then it's not a "TARDIS". I'm not really bothered about this "Great House" stuff. I'm a reasonable man and I can happily accept that "Great House" relate to the "Time Lords". But for me, 'the timeships of the Great Houses' means nothing. It just means the Great Houses has ships that can travel in time. Stating they are therefore TARDISes, regardless of what the authors have previously stated and intended, means nothing. A question to you: have the Time Lords ever exclusively used dimensionally transcendent space-and-time ships, distinguished by the existence of multiple generations, the 102nd of which was Compassion, and the 103rd of which (first created during the War) were humanoid ... Have the Time Lords ever created and exclusively used timeships like those that aren't TARDISes? If you have a source for that, I'd be very interested! But according to Time Lord, there isn't: "Time Lord timeship" and "TARDIS" should be synonymous. A TARDIS is a type of timeship, used exclusively by the Time Lords. If you do accept that the Great Houses are the Time Lords, surely you must accept this as well?

To quote a previous, similar, example: "the Doctor with the technicolour dreamcoat" is obviously the Sixth Doctor. Obviously, it was discussed in case others didn't agree but it seemed anyone with half a brain recognised his mannerisms and his description and was happy with the conclusion. Can you link to the place where it was concluded that the Doctor with the technicolour dreamcoat was decided to be the Sixth Doctor, and the similar debates for all the Short Trips stories? I'd be interested in reopening those debates, especially if we decide that there's not enough evidence to conclude that the male and female crewmembers from Toy Story are Fitz and Compassion based on their unique physical descriptions and mannerisms.

To me, at the moment, if all truth be told, it seems like FP users are using backstreet methods to reach conclusions. Such as: this random Benny novel used the term "timeship" and this relates to this novel, which in turn bears a resemblance to this audio... Huh? The only time I've cited a random Benny novel is to point out that if we decide that the Great Houses' timeships aren't TARDISes, Brax's timeship and many many more will need to be reclassified as something other than TARDISes. Should this decision be pushed through, will you be willing to overturn this precedent by going through all the stories, mapping the exact terminologies used, and making those changes to the relevant articles?

I also agree with Amorkuz that it is not our onus to disprove your findings. If the matter at hand is on rocky grounds, it's down to the person or people making claims to prove themselves. :) Amorkuz doesn't need to disprove anything at the moment. I really don't think the matter at hand is on rocky grounds, frankly! It was affirmed in the admin-closed-and-approved Thread:208233, and per T:POINT: You may open up discussions on matters that have already been decided only when you have arguments which have not formed a part of that discussion, or other, precedent discussions on the same topic. What is your new evidence that the Great Houses' timeships aren't the Time Lords' TARDISes?