Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-4028641-20170305054429

Thefartydoctor wrote: OttselSpy25 wrote: Yes, I very much would think to say that I'm "only accepting half of what you say" is not only a personal attack, but it's very hypocritical, considering that many of your points I've talked about within the last ten posts. Being offended by something does not mean I've done something wrong. I've seen admins be far blunter on threads and nothing's been said. When you find yourself making the same comment over and over because it's being misconstrued, it's fair to say that the other person isn't listening.

And I've been making the same comment over and over again. Are you not listening?

Oh, no, if I've been making similar points it's because I'm bad at commenting. Okay. Sure.

Thefartydoctor wrote: Again, we were talking earlier about a possible alternate LEGO DWU. Those Daleks may be from the DWU. That's acceptable. They could also be from a LEGO DWU, which is also acceptable. What is not acceptable is a DWU being the DWU. What's stopping me starting my own range of books set in a DWU? Who needs a license? It's not the DWU, right?

Nothing, if you get the proper licenses for some characters. The Lethbridge-Stewart books are set in the DWU. Zygon is set in the DWU. K9 is set in the DWU.

What's your point?

If anything is speculation, saying that there's more than one DWU in this franchise is total speculation. There's no quotes to support that at all. In-universe or out, movies or video games.

Again, I think we've proven pretty easily that these are Daleks, the Daleks must be from a DWU, there's only one DWU in this franchise, that DWU is treated like the regular DWU, etc etc. I get why you would question these findings, but you're doing so by saying that I haven't proven my point. I think that I kinda have. What do you need? What do you think I haven't given to prove the authorial intent behind all of this?