here (http://community.livejournal.com/who_anon/5574.html?thread=24340166#t24340166) is the thread so you can see the comment in question in its native environment. i re-read that thread so many times because i wanted to understand that comment! re-reading it again i think the commenter is saying that gallifrey should come back, because the show hasn't done a good enough job justifying its absence, because it keep being mentioned even though its gone? but again, if you're actually going to go ahead and make a storyline as insane as "the doctor destroys gallifrey, commits double genocide", i *do* think that the fact he did that should be brought up on occasion (otherwise... why do it?), so i don't understand the anon's concern. of course, i could have it completely turned around, because every time i read it i become confused anew.

Also, I'm not sure it's that clever, to equate Gallifrey with Rose. One embodies failure, unmet obligations, lost chances, lost family, domesticity. The other is his home planet.

knowing what you could have, but being unwilling to settle down in order to have those things. yes, sounds familiar.

What I meant to say, before I got distracted, is that it's not necessarily positive for Rose, equating her with Gallifrey.

sorry, i was about to make a profound statement, but then i pictured rose in a silly time lord hat.