But see, I never said that. My initial discussion was with Trobadora who did come to it with a big OTP perception, and I always acknowledged that they are good friends etc. but I suggested again and again that in this particular story the text de-emphasizes the connection and foregrounds the community of two. Clearly that does not mean that there isn't any connection, b/c the story takes place within canon. But there's no special, unique, only-the-two-of-them connection either (which it'd have to be for Trobadora's reading who unlike you or me could *not* go to see Zelenka/McKay or Ronon/John in the same situation!)

Just for reference: this is the quote that got this entire discussion started:
Maybe I'm misreading this due to my OTP goggles, but the way I read it was neither that they are together because no one else is like them, nor that they discovered love; it's that they did love each other, but platonically, and that their experiences have messed with their identities to the point where sexual orientation becomes fluid as well. and I always maintined that clearly they were friends, but it wasn't their being friends that the story emphasized but their desire for the other's body and their connection via same experience.

And yes, I do believe that subverts the trope of 'meant-to-be-togetherness' that OTP suggests. Seriously, *g*, you started agreeeing with Dora and disagreeing with me. I never put you in an OTP position that you didn't align yourself with. My disagreement with Dora was one of degree from the getgo, and I still believe you're actually closer to me than her, so I'm not sure where our readings are so fundamentally different.

For the purposes of a rhetorical argument I foregrounded what was *different* from other stories above, tacitly assuming that it would be obvious where the stories are the same.

And I kind of resent the implication that by simply focusing on one aspect that the story foregrounds that my reading is either not logical or going against canon.