I've seen a couple of people make this incorrect assumption now and it surprises me each time. When I watched Cassandra I never for a second thought that Lister was somehow breaking the fourth wall and referring to an actual episode title. It was obvious to me that he was referring to the phenomenon of Future Echoes encountered in the episode of the same title, an episode that contains such dialogue as: HOLLY: Oh, that. You're seeing future echoes. Didn't I explain this to you? RIMMER: What are future echoes? You'll note that Holly's response is not to say "It's the name of this episode, Arnold!" That's becuase the Future Echoes being referred to are a named phenomena within the episode. The characters are not talking about the episode itself Similarly in Cassandra when we have this dialogue: LISTER: Future echoes, remember? CAT: Future echoes, oh right! KOCHANSKI: What was that? You'll again note that the response from Lister is not to say "It was episode 2 of Series 1 of this show!". Instead he offers this: LISTER: Well, we learnt that if the future's already decided...you can't change it... That's because Lister is referring to his memories of the future echoes phenomena they witnessed and what they learned from it not an episode title! It's contextually the same sort of reference as this segment from Series 4's D.N.A LISTER: Remember last Easter, twelve months ago to the day, the Polymorph? KRYTEN: That's right. You were attacked by a killer shami kebab! Again Lister is referring to the creature called the Polymorph, the fact that 'Polymorph' also happens to be the episode title doesn't change the context of his reference from one that makes sense to some sort of wink wink, fourth wall breaker. I can understand why alot of the things that went on in series eight might have made you lose faith with the writers of the show but I assure you that there is nothing "shambolic" about Lister's reference. It's a perfectly valid one for him to make. In defence of Wascallywabbit, there is a big difference between someone saying "I have never liked X television programme so will simply not watch it and ignore it" and saying "I have across twenty years of my life followed the story of a particular television show, I have read the novels, watched the series and attended the conventions. I have become deeply attached to the characters and now hold a real interest in what happens to them. The show has recently taken a direction that I strongly believe insults and tarnishes these memories and as such I would rather no more episodes were made." Yes, the latter view might indeed be selfish to those who DO still enjoy the show and would like it to go on existing but we must also understand that for someone as deeply attached to it as Wascallywabbit might possibly be, then it is close to impossible for him/her to just "switch off" as you suggest. The addicted fan will almost always keep watching, but it may be painful for them to do so if they are watching something they see as a decline and that's why they'd rather the pain was ended. It's not always as easy as simply saying "I won't watch". That's why the phenomena of "It used to be good but I hope they don't make any more" is so common. It's a feeling most of us have probably had at some point about something I expect. I myself do want more Red Dwarf but I can understand why others don't.