Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170306172600/@comment-1432718-20180919022938

I'm tempted to close this thread and force a do-over because of the blatantly false facts the OP keeps posting. Specifically,


 * "For instance, many stories in Short Trips and Side Steps are treated this way. This book features sequels to stories which are famously goofy and ignored by fans." (First post, later corrected, but then...)
 * "If anyone disagrees, then I'd love to hear the case for why Frozen Time and Face Value deserve to be invalid. Or most of the stories in Short Trips and Side Steps, for that matter." (bold emphasis is mine)

These statements are obviously incorrect for anyone who would take the trouble to search through the Short Trips and Side Steps stories. Only two of the twenty-one stories are invalid on this wiki, and the OP even concedes that one of them deserves the designation ("Now when it comes to things like Dr Who and the House on Oldark Moor, that's a story set in an entire canon that we haven't seen clarified as an alternate universe. So of course it's invalid.").

If you want this issue to be considered, you must not misrepresent facts for those who may not know how to research what you say. Otherwise this thread will be closed just as others have been when the opening statement is so fallacious.

And I am still waiting to hear just how a story that is a prequel or sequel to an invalid story can be valid. It's still part of the invalid story - a continuation of the story. And I don't need a re-quote of the four little rules...I want adequate reasoning for how "part" of a story can be valid when another "part" is already invalid.