Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-197.86.143.194-20200710194940/@comment-45692830-20200711055905

From T:VALID: "The DWU has messy continuity. A story can't be declared invalid just because it contradicts other stories." [Emphasis mine]

Everything FASA has published is invalid on this wiki as it's non narrative. So what else is there, hmm? The DWM getting something wrong, and your assertion that 'with RTD giving us Harold Saxon, many felt that this was saying "He could be the Master, but we're not saying it outright".'

Aside from that you have some minuscule, absolutely minuscule, hints that they might be the same character, and comments that don't even begin to suggest that they're intended to be the same character, but instead suggest that the writers forgot about the Monk, or that during that story the Monk was erased from reality, etc etc. The only way we can conclude that's evidence is if we have the authors telling us that was their intent, since there has been another renegade Time Lord the First Doctor has met. Obviously there's no way the authors of the lines in question could know about that character. But we also have no way of determining that they even remembered The Monk.

So. No. There is no narrative evidence they're the same character. Not one whit.

"At which point, Najawin entered the discussion, made some personal insults, claimed to "not have a horse in the race", but generally made it clear that he/she hated the only sensible conclusions that could be drawn from those(and many other) pieces of both in-narrative and real-world quotes."

?

This is libel. You can find my comment here, there is not a personal attack to be found. The worst I get is pointing out that the arguments in question are "bad" [emphasis present in the original]. Which they are.

"But Najawin used the existence of "the Monk" as one of their only two pieces of "proof"(despite 'not having a horse in the race') that "The War Chief can't be the Master"."

This is again untrue. I have used it to show that certain arguments are overly strong, in that they prove too much. Thus, because they prove too much, they must be incorrect. It's called reductio ad absurdum. CF: Thread:275417 (Made before you said I entered the discussion btw)