Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161223201024/@comment-1789834-20170126004719

This discussion should not really have been reopened. There's evidently no new evidence. If anyone has DWM issues from the time, they may need a good scouring for possible quotes. It seems this story continually is brought back to debate without new evidence. I only threw Paul Cornell into the mix as a last ditched attempt to salvage any sort of means of validation, but now you've verified what I always thought authorial intent to mean, we're left at stage one, aren't we?

We're saying it remains as it is currently until someone genuinely comes up with something of interest?