User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45314928-20200606025128/@comment-45314928-20200606123133

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45314928-20200606025128/@comment-45314928-20200606123133 it is frustrating to have you repeatedly dismiss me as having "misunderstood" or "misinterpreted" something, and it is ridiculous to repeatedly comment that - if you think i have misinterpreted something, and i think that you have, there is no point whatsoever going round in circles. that is why i dont keep spamming that you have misinterpreted something, i have simply defended by own valid interpretation (that doesnt misquote anything!). and it is even more frustrating to have you repeatedly telling "[someone] has already pointed this out to you" (which you do a lot) or accuse me of purposely ignoring comments / arguments - when i have already addressed all of these comments / arguments.

an extract to a discarded / unproduced story is not suddenly licensed... it is still just an extract of a discarded / unproduced story. Cook doesn't use any words that "don't make sense" when being asked about the extract to the unproduced novelisation - she says what it is, just something mentioned / shared by Harness and has nothing to do with lockdown. if the extract was part of lockdown she would have made that clear distinction - but she didn't.

and addressing the lockdown hashtag on the BBC website ackwoledges Cook's work. that (and several other reasons) are evidence of the licensing these Cook stories possess. but Harness' story has nothing to do with any of Cook's work - nobody acknowledged it other than Harness, who literally called it the "discarded first page of a novelisation".