User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45314928-20200606025128/@comment-6032121-20200606132447

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45314928-20200606025128/@comment-6032121-20200606132447 DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: Cook doesn't use any words that "don't make sense" (…) she says what it is, just something mentioned / shared by Harness See, this is exactly the misinterpretation/misrepresentation we're talking about. This sleight-of-hand right there. Mentioning something and sharing something have never, ever been synonyms. You can't just say "she used the word 'mentioned', and it was 'shared', so Q.E.D.". Those words mean very, very different things. If I "mention" An Unearthly Child on the Internet, I am within fair use; if I "share" An Unearthly Child on the Internet, I am either a BritBox staff member, or engaging in piracy.

You also have yet to give any kind of answer to the point, made repeatedly and emphatically, that it borders on the absurd to imagine that a Target novelisation of a random one-parter began production in 2015, long before Target revived its Doctor Who novelisations, and even then, for famous stories only — all before the one-parter that was supposedly being novelised had even begun filming.

It is almost as improbable to suggest the above scenario as to suggest that Dalek really did almost feature the Drashig, or that Godfrey Porter wrote a Hartnell-era serial called The Thief of Sherwood, or that Moffat and R.T. Davies had a wrestling match. We should not take any of those claims seriously. This isn't calling the authors liars, this is demonstrating a rational mind.