Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5306639" data-attributes="member: 18280">Susan could be wrong about "Space", but her statement makes sense within the framework of what is seen in other Doctor Who stories.  Likewise, about the telepathic contact with other Time Lords, the Doctor could be right, but his statement does not make sense within the framework of what is seen in other Doctor Who stories. If there are multiple possible interpretations, the one that makes sense within the framework of what is seen in other Doctor Who stories seems best.To me at least.  YMMV.In any event, a construction is not violated by examining the likelihood of any given statement being true within the framework of the programme.  Rather, a construction is invalidated by not doing so.We see Kroll; that Kroll existed is a "fact" of the Whoniverse.  We do not see the drill flies mentioned in The Power of Kroll.  We do not know whether or not drill flies exist.  From the delivery, I rather suspect that Romana is being simply being put on.A character being mistaken, or making an untrue statement (intentionally or unintentionally -- "I didn't want to say magic door.") is not a contradiction in the continuity of the programme.  Nor is any conflict between what is seen in two stories necessarily a contradiction.  It is quite possible that the conflict can be reconciled.When future stories reinforce a construction, the construction is strengthened.  When future stories apparently contradict it, the construction must be modified to accept the new data.This is not horribly dissimilar to the scientific method.RC</blockquote>

Verification