Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-45314928-20200606025128/@comment-45692830-20200606050308

Well, I read that as a framing device to release a short story. Following in RTD's footstep's wasn't exactly part of the equation, this is just a framing device, and one that's existed before and one that will exist after.

As for Cook, I read that as the fan asking the question they asked and getting an answer that made sense for the question they asked. You read it as them asking a question they did not ask and getting an answer that did not make sense for the question that you're interpreting them to actually mean. You can keep trying to spin it all you want, but your reading just doesn't work. The word choice is clear.

Similarly, your insistence that Cook be involved in production and organization for Lockdown! releases is question begging and I have no interest in indulging it further. Suffice it to say that it's not compelling and until that thread is sorted out, T:BOUND applies and you cannot use that is justification.

Chibnall mentioned Cook on the BBC website? Where's that? Certainly he didn't do so here.

As for your links, what they establish is that Harness wants to revisit the canceled story in its entirety, not that he thinks that the short story was itself actually an excerpt. Since clearly the short story does not contain the entire events that would have transpired, arguing that there was no authorial intent to "have this story be released as a short story" is entirely irrelevant, since the story was never released as a short story. Rather, a short story was released that might have consisted of part of what we would have seen had this made its way to the screen.