It’s not a matter of like or dislike. You’re insisting that the episode features a narrative device that doesn’t actually exist in the story, and it’s the lack of it’s existence is why there are plot holes.
You’re arguing against basic facts.
Sidenote: it’s less annoying but the whole subplot of the ship crashing is also rendered mute because the previous rules of time travel established in the show is ignored.
Like hell I am. I’m basing my explanation on things that have been true for so many other episodes, that one can assume are true about this one, or otherwise things that actually happen in the episode. I think your “plot holes” are just a misreading of the episode. And I’m going to drop this particular discussion now before getting annoyed further.
“other episodes”
Right there. That’s where your argument falls apart, because A Christmas Carol ignores what’s been established in other episodes both before or since.
Not only does Doctor change history to try and make the guy nicer, thereby giving him a relationship he didn’t have before, he then goes back in time twice to make him meet his past self.
There’s no consequence for doing this, meaning he that ship crashing isn’t a problem and there’s nothing stopping him from going back again a third time to save the dying woman.
That’s why it’s a plot hole.
It’s hard to drop it when I keep being replied to. My argument doesn’t fall apart, and it doesn’t ignore what’s been established. I explained how it completely fits in established things. I think you’re wrong, I don’t think it’s a plot hole, we don’t agree, let it be the end of this.
Please can we be mindful of our tone when debating things like this! Thank you! <3
But the episode itself does ignore it, that’s why you can’t bring them in to defend it.
All arguments for said episode regarding how time travel works had to be contained to that episode because it doesn’t align with the rest of DW lore.
Why is this such a hard thing for you to grasp? Am I’m not wording my argument clearly enough?
I’m done.
Twelve characters.
Me too.
12 characters
I think it’s important to remember that Doctor Who constantly contradicts itself, especially in what is and isn’t possible when it comes to time travel.
Sure, but in this particular instance the story isn’t even consistent into itself that why it doesn’t work narratively.
There’s other things to enjoy about the episode, but the plot isn’t one of them.
Honestly this is just what happens with time travel in stories. “Why doesn’t the character just use time travel and do X thing? Are they stupid?” And while it depends from story to story, I’d say it often boils down to plot convenience, in a way. I mean if Eleven did what has been proposed here, there’d not really be much of a plot or an episode at all. So I think it then is simply a question of suspension of disbelief. If you can or can’t do that with something then that will affect your opinion.
Different viewers are able to forgive different things in stories which to others just don’t hold up. I think it’s important to remember we all come at stories differently and take away different things. TG is all about respecting different viewpoints regardless of whether they make sense to us personally or fit with the way we watch the show.
One definitely wonders what would have happened in A Christmas Carol if the Reapers had shown up.
I know you’re trying to defuse the situation but it’s really isn’t helping in this case, in large part because it’s not ‘different views’ as in different interpretations that is being debated, but what is or isn’t actually physically within the script itself.
FWIW I personally interpret/headcanon that the Eleventh Doctor (and maybe later ones, I haven’t gotten that far yet) still has quite a bit of lingering Time Lord Victorious-esque attitude from his precious incarnation’s journey off the deep end. So when he does something timey-wimey that makes me go “uhhhh that should really not be okay and also breaks rules you yourself have previously established,” I tend to chalk it up to him being reckless and (when there are no negative consequences) extremely lucky the fabric of the universe was in a forgiving mood. 
Whether it is ‘physically’ in the script or not isn’t the debate. TARDIS32 pointed out that he is able to rationalise the script choices because of what happens or doesn’t happen elsewhere in the show.
I totally get what you are saying about if this specific story is playing fast and loose with changing time then why can’t he change time to save Abigail means that is a ‘plot hole’ for you. It obviously isn’t for other people. It’s something that bothers you. It doesn’t bother TARDIS. That is what I meant about different viewpoints. We all have different tolerances for things like this and can make allowances or not depending on who we are and how we approach story. It doesn’t need anyone digging in their heels that what is being argued about is some sort of objective fact that people can’t disagree amicably on. That way madness lies.
There kind of is though. The Doctor changed Kazran so much that the damn isomorphic controls to control the clouds didn’t recognize Kazran was Kazran
To be fair, there’s a pretty significant difference between consequences as in “your actions lead to unanticipated results“ and consequences as in “your actions defy the fundamental laws of the universe”
Okay, what I’m getting from the above conversation is that we all agree Guy Crayford never realizing he still had two eyes is just not something we can buy into.
Glad we got that sorted!
Plot holes in Doctor Who?
Donna turned into the Doctor, then failed to spend several seasons as the Doctor.
Though I suppose that’s more of a missed opportunity then a plot hole…