I think your comment demonstrates my point, johnnysaucepn. It is not false. It is an opinion. My opinion remains that post-2010 Who is more like a reboot than a continuation.

The question posed by the member who started this thread was "Will we ever find out who "The Women" was in The End of Time?"

My response was "I'm not sure Moffat will want to revisit it. He's not ever shown much interest in anything that was in Doctor Who prior to 2010, apart from stuff he wrote himself". Again, that's not a falsehood that's an opinion. Its quite shocking, to be honest, the way other forum members have posted comments to me/about me based purely on something that is clearly an opinion.

If, for you, post-2010 Who feels more like a continuation then a reboot then that is your opinion. And if you feel the points you have listed (e.g referencing Captain Jack, the recent appearances of the Shadow Proclamation and Davros) are what make it feel like a continuation then, again, that is your opinion.

It just isn't my opinion. For me, 2010 was a major change for the show - cast, direction, storylines, style, the lot. Its just a shame so few forum members on here are able to respect a different opinion and keep using words like 'false' and 'falsehood'.

I don't agree with your "line in the sand" remark. SM has clearly not ignored the RTD era (which is something you seem to have been asserting (correct me if I've misunderstood your there)). For example, do you really think the Time War (wholly conceived by RTD) has been ignored in the SM era? It's hard to think that when we have the 50th anniversary special as hard evidence to the contrary.

Myself, I don't see a huge difference between the RTD and SM eras. I find that, whenever there's a fair criticism of, say, SM's era, exactly the same criticism can also be fairly levelled at, say, RTD's era (and usually any other era too).

We can all be guilty at times of cherry picking evidence, putting our own interpretations of motivations behind events to suit our preconceived notions and ignoring or downplaying the significance of any evidence that doesn't fit our preconceived opinions. It's a human frailty.

It's not that there are no differences. For a start, SM's version had to bear the additional costs of making the programme in HD. However, that's just a technical issue. In story telling terms, SM's version has occasionally strayed a little further towards fairytale magic than RTD's. I feel SM's version also sometimes prioritises plot over consistent character development. On the other hand, RTD's 10 was a little too human, not quite alien enough, and sometimes his character development was flawed too (Timelord triumphant), but perhaps RTD was better at making you care about the characters. I still care about SM's characters too though.

Thank you GDK. a very polite and considered way of disagreeing with me!

Opinions can be wrong. Opinions can be held mistakenly, decided on through incomplete or biased evidence, or held tight to despite evidence to the contrary.

Opinions are not inviolable.

I'm not being accused of being wrong, johnnysaucepn. I have no problem with someone telling me they think I'm wrong.

I'm being accused of lying/promoting falsehoods etc. That's different and deserves to be thoroughly challenged.

Thankyou.

I have to say, though, that it still mystifies me how you can hold the opinion that you do when there is so much evidence that contradicts it.

C'est la vie.

I won't accuse you of lying but you are beginning to sound a little like DariaM in this thread

Exactly - and how does that fit in with the fact the BBC and Moffat tried desperately to convince David Tennant to stay on as the Doctor for the whole of Moffat's first season?