Oh okay. Why would The Doc end up trusting River for killing the greatest and most important member of his own race, though Why would she consider him the greatest man she ever knew?

Unless we're taking a more accurate meaning of the word 'great', like Moffat did in his Sherlock episode:

"Sherlock Holmes is a great man. One day, if we're lucky, he may even be a good one".

It could be Omega, but would Steven Moffat take the 'oh, he's not really the last Time Lord' plot line again?

I don't know the answer to any of that... The story is there to be told. It's my best stab at what's going on though.

I really don't believe she kills the Doctor. After all isn't the Doc there with her at the end of her life in 'Forest of the Dead'? So it couldn't make sense

That was the Tenth Doctor

Umm, earlier Doctor? It's about time travel, remember?

Well, they are meeting each other in the wrong order, so the first time he sees her she dies (FOTD) so the logical conclusion you can draw from that is....

That isn't really a logical conclusion...

All too perplexing... I hope he (Ste Moffat) finds a way to keep the explanation of it all quite simple...

It's not hard to find out who River Song really is...it's just Moffatt's modern spin on the Rani, a female Time Lord I believe? I can just see the disappointment coming out of these forums once it's all revealed!

Except if you're looking into the meaning of what she said, then you should use the correct wording. She actually killed the 'best' man she ever knew, not the 'greatest'.

We don't know enough about her just yet to presume who the best man she's ever known is or the circumstances in which she kills him. It's just an interesting teaser. Might even be someone we haven't been introduced to yet from her past. It's fun to guess though
My guess is that River starts off 'bad' and the Doc helps her see the error of her ways. The "best" man could be someone who's raised her and looked after her - she kills him accidentally or purposely out of frustration or being tricked by a third party, regrets it, is full of remorse and on a downward slide until the Doc turns up for the first time as far as she's concerned and convinces her she still has a future somehow, possibly by giving her the book and convinces her to hand herself to the authorities which is why she ends up in prison. That would tie in with her comment that she's sorry but everything is going to change, meaning next time they meet she won't know him and she'll be a bad girl.
Apologies for the punctuation if that bothers anyone.

Sorry, I was confuzzled. The word 'greatest' started being thrown around in connection to 'Omega'.

Best Man could mean many things. Have we seen a wedding recently?

I like that theory, particularly as he has to convince her that not all is lost! With that in mind, them meeting in the wrong order saves them both (e.g. River saved the Doctor in the library), and the Doctor saves River from throwing her life away. If they had met in the right order that would not have happened. Yes I like that!

invisi post

Twas me that used the word greatest. It was the Doc's view of Omega in the 3 Doctors. It's a bit of speculation but maybe Rivers view of him (all be it an anti matter type being) is that he is the best man she has ever met.... But she kills him once and for all for the sake of saving the Doc?

It might be bobbins but I haven't read anything better on here anyway?

It's fun to speculate! I'm still going with the idea that we haven't been introduced to the "best man" yet. Maybe Omega is the man behind the voice and maybe he manipulates River into killing someone in her past (see above post from me). Not saying my ideas are any "better" than anyone elses but I look forward to finding out.

That is a matter of opinion, surely?

(...and sounds a little arrogant, I might add...)

Correct, it is a matter of opion which is why it reads "I (as in me) haven't read anything better". And No, it's not arrogant. Arrogant would be if I proclaimed that 'there is nothing better on here and that my idea is best of all' .... whereas it simply says I (personally) haven't seen anything better. Other people may of course disagree.

I don't really understand why you feel the need to stoke the flames of an argument over innocuous comment

I see your point, but what you wrote infers that you find your own opinion better than anyone else's. The fact that it was your opinion and that you have read nothing better does in fact mean the same thing.

That is all I was poiting out.

I could have been biased by the fact that I feel the opposite to be true, though.