Actually, I read your review and I was fascinated by the fact that on first viewing, you obviously had some reservations, but on re-viewing you thought it was great.  (I believe I'm paraphrasing your review accurately, but do correct me if I'm wrong.)

What magic spell does Moffat cast that gets people to ignore the gargantuan plot problems?  How does he do it and is the mind control somehow filtered out as the data streams from the UK, through Abu Dhabi and to the US? :-)

I'm not aware of ignoring gargantuan plot-holes (it may be there are plot-holes I've just missed, of course, but I'm not consciously ignoring them). The things that bugged me were either explanations that were too sketchy or not to my taste, and generally tangential to the plot. The key for me is the balance between the central sweep of the story (which I think is very strong) and the little details that make up the texture and contribute much to my enjoyment when they are "right" (and in fairness, for the most-part, they were in this).

I'm astonished and impressed that after that full-on episode-long assault on LKH you have the energy and stamina to mount a fresh diatribe, but I look forward to hearing it!

Here's my question:  Do you ever do jigsaw puzzles?  Ever done one that someone else bought and gave you after they finished with it?

I've done this.  I've built a complex, difficult, second-hand puzzle, and as I worked on it it got harder and harder.  Eventually I realized that they've mistakenly put the pieces of two puzzles in the box, and that both puzzles are similar enough to be confusing....  but until I got to that realization, I got increasing frustrated by the pieces that just didn't seem to fit.

That's what's happening here in the River Song story.  The pieces just don't fit, and I need them to fit.  It's a crap puzzle (read: story) if the pieces don't fit in the end.

If I want crap stories, I'll read L. Ron Hubbard.

Now, once I've learned that the pieces don't fit I can come to terms with the mistake.  Obviously, the person giving me the puzzle made and honest mistake.  But what if it was a new puzzle, hand-crafted by some puzzle artisan who was an evil mastermind!

Then I'd be mad, and that's how I'm increasingly feeling every time Moffat returns to this timey-wimey nonsense.  If he actually manages to put the pieces together he'll be a genius, otherwise, it's a colossal fail.

First of all, it's not easy to tell that you've got a piece from the wrong puzzle. I'm certainly not convinced that's the case. Of the pieces we've got, some fit, and others don't - but that's because there are gaps still, the missing pieces that go in between.

Secondly, when I'm doing a puzzle and there's a wrong/missing piece at the end, it is a niggle for me. There's something unsatisfying about it. But it doesn't ruin all the enjoyment I've had making the puzzle because it's not seeing the picture that makes me do a jigsaw, it's the process of figuring things out and building up a picture. I'm one of those people who don't look at the picture on the front of the box - which is just as well, because Mr Moffatt isn't going to let us have the box - but that's also why I'm avoiding spoilers.

Thirdly, I don't attach the same significance to authorial intent. That unsatisfying niggle when the jigsaw cannot be completed is no different whether the cause is accidental, deliberate or unknown. I was very curious to know whether the whole River arc was planned by Moffatt when he wrote her in Silence in the Library and Forest of the Dead and I was pleased to find out the answer. But it doesn't in any way affect my enjoyment of the ongoing storyline. Either it's consistent and fits, or it doesn't. If it is a good story and it doesn't contradict what's gone before I don't care if it wasn't originally planned (indeed, I'd prefer it to something that had been planned but executed with less care and attention to detail). For me, all the matters is what ends up on the screen.

I also think that intent is incredibly important.  If this weren't script writing, if someone intended to sell you a product that was less than advertised that could be considered fraud.  

While I'm not saying fraud is the appropriate term for an inadequate delivered product of a script/storyline, I certainly draw a distinction between incompetently failing to piece the script together and intentionally not bothering to get it right.  The former is regrettable, the later is an insult to the audience.

I do understand intent matters to some people. Sometimes - for example you see this on a grand scale with Wagner - it arouses huge passion in people. It's just - and this is a personal thing - it's just it doesn't matter to me. I'll view, listen or watch a piece and decide if it's good or bad based on that alone. For me, good intentions don't make a bad work better, just as malign intent wouldn't marr something I liked.

But it's rather the balance; if it all ends badly on Saturday I think that will matter less to me than to you and Eugene because although the neatness of fit matters to me, perhaps it's not as much. Also there's the not insignificant fact that unlike you two, I've not had an issue with the story construction so far and really enjoyed all the River episodes!