In article <v05fh6$tjau$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>Blueshirt wrote on 22/4/24 10:52 am:
>> The Doctor wrote:
>>> In article <xn0okv0j1dzlrrl001@post.eweka.nl>,
>>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>>> In article <xn0okufqzdooud7004@post.eweka.nl>,
>>>>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or care that the producers of a TV show can change things
>>>>>> to suit themselves if they want to, like our friend Mr
>>>>>> Chibnall chose to do with Doctor Ruth!
>>>>>
>>>>> Retcon the Timeless Child!
>>>>
>>>> Yes Dave, we heard you the 674th time... but thanks again for
>>>> your welcome contribution to the debate. At least your reply
>>>> is slightly relevant to the discussion, for once!
>>>
>>> Mention it and you get called out.
>
>Hang on, a&%^()?ge, Why don't YOU, asswipe, actually try DISCUSSING
>'Doctor Who' and see what happens, a&%^()?ge??
>
>Note: *DISCUSS* !! YOU, a&%^()?ge, DO know what that means, don't YOU,
>a&%^()?ge??
>

The Timeless Child is not about Doctor Who!

>> That's your idea of calling somebody out? Methinks you'll need
>> to get up a bit earlier in the morning!
>>
>> You are like a broken record...
>>
>> If someone mentions Chris Chibnall, you say..
>> Retcon the Timeless Child!
>>
>> If someone mentions the 15th Doctor, you say...
>> The REal 14th Doctor
>>
>> If some says Easter, you say...
>> Ishtar
>
>And Ishtar isn't connected with Easter in any way!!

Only in your deluded mind.

>--
>Daniel

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

In article <v05gb3$torv$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>Blueshirt wrote on 22/4/24 5:34 am:
>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>> On 20/04/2024 22:05, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Robert Holmes re-wrote the script as you well know and it was
>>>> the intent of the Production team of that story that those
>>>> were the faces of the Doctor. When you watched "The Brain of
>>>> Morbius" as a child, that was the intent behind that scene.
>>>
>>> Nope. When I watched the story as a child the faces were
>>> presumed to be those of Morbius as he was winning.
>>
>> You were very clever then wasn't you, as that's not what the
>> intention behind that scene was, as you know. However, as I said
>> to Dave, people are free to take whatever interpretation they
>> want to from that scene, it doesn't change what the original
>> intent was. If people had read the Target novel first, before
>> watching the story on VHS or DVD (etc.), the idea that those
>> faces were pre-Hartnell Doctors would be a strange proposition
>> indeed. So I can accept that point of view.
>>
>> But trying to say that the producer of "The Brain of Morbius"
>> didn't intend for them to be the faces of 'The Doctor' when
>> those episodes were filmed is historical revisionism.
>
>Did I read someone here or was it in the UseNet Archives??....
>
>Did someone post that in 'The Brain of Morbius' there are actually TWO
>SCREENS and The Doctor is viewing one of these screens, seeing all those
>faces flash past.
>
>So, I presume, Morbius could be watching the other screen, also seeing
>faces flash past.
>
>So couldn't each of them be seeing their own previous incarnations flash
>past .... which then brings up the question of all those other, extra,
>faces ... that, to the best of the TV Viewer knowledge AT THAT TIME
>hadn't been worn by The Doctor .... but the TV Viewer NOW knows could
>have been previous Doctor Who incarnations.
>
>>>> [ Snip]
>>>>
>>>> The [second Doctor] line about a previous "renewal" was cut
>>>> from the draft script following a discussion among the
>>>> production team.
>>>
>>> So they realized it would contradict what Hartnell said in The
>>> Tenth Planet.
>
>Not if the Second Doctor mentioned only one previous incarnation!
>

Check out Power of the Daleks.

>> It's possible somebody mentioned that. It was 1967, so who knows?
>> <shrugs> That line from the draft script was excised and we got
>> what we got in the episode.
>
>--
>Daniel

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

In article <v05gj5$tqih$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>Blueshirt wrote on 22/4/24 5:34 am:
>> The True Doctor wrote:
>
><Snip>
>
>>> Bi-generation is out of a Bugs Bunny cartoon and cannot be
>>> accepted as being canon.
>>
>> You make your own 'canon', or continuity... if you don't like
>> something in Doctor Who, just ignore it. I'm happy to do that.
>> Life is too short to get over-excited about what a TV producer
>> decides to do in an episode of a show.
>>
>>> Doctor Who ended in 2017.
>>
>> I look forward to your reviews of the new Doctor Who episodes in
>> three weeks time. Oh hang on, it is 2024 right?! ;-)
>>
>I don't!! My idea of a Review and the a!@#~@$%^&@%&^@e's idea of a Review differ
>drastically!!
>
>I might accept Aggy's Review but, I'm guessing, it would basically be
>"Garbage!! Misogynistic!! Kiddie-fiddling!! Child Grooming!!" and not
>much else.

IYIO!

>--
>Daniel

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

Daniel70 wrote:

> Blueshirt wrote on 22/4/24 5:34 am:
> > The True Doctor wrote:
> > > On 20/04/2024 22:05, Blueshirt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The [second Doctor] line about a previous "renewal" was
> > > > cut from the draft script following a discussion among
> > > > the production team.
> > >
> > > So they realized it would contradict what Hartnell said in
> > > The Tenth Planet.
>
> Not if the Second Doctor mentioned only one previous
> incarnation!

The words "incarnation" and "regeneration" were not used in
Doctor Who at that time, it was termed a "renewal". The Second
Doctor said in The Power of the Daleks, "life depends on change,
and renewal." The term regeneration didn't come along until the
1970's. (Planet of the Spiders)

The line that myself and Agamemnon were discussing, subsequently
cut from the draft script of The Power of the Daleks, had the
Second Doctor mention a "previous renewal" in that episode.
Which would have implied it had happened before. (i.e. before
the one that had just happened.) Somebody in 1967 thought better
of that idea so the second Doctor didn't say that line when the
episode was filmed.

When first cast as the Doctor in 1963 William Hartnell's
departure from the show in 1967 would not have been foreseen.
(They had no way of knowing the show would even last four
years!) So the change/renewal idea was only created when the
time came from William Hartnell to leave the show and be
replaced by another actor. Every subsequent change since 1967
has revealed more aspects of the regenerative process right up
to 2023 when RTD evolved it even further with his "bigeration"
idea.

Daniel70 wrote:

> Blueshirt wrote on 22/4/24 5:34 am:
> > The True Doctor wrote:
> > >
> > > Doctor Who ended in 2017.
> >
> > I look forward to your reviews of the new Doctor Who
> > episodes in three weeks time. Oh hang on, it is 2024 right?!
> >
> I don't!! My idea of a Review and the asswipe's idea of a
> Review differ drastically!!

It's a good job my reply wasn't to Dave then wasn't it?! ;-)

On 22/04/2024 12:06, Daniel70 wrote:
> Blueshirt wrote on 22/4/24 5:34 am:
>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>> On 20/04/2024 22:05, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Robert Holmes re-wrote the script as you well know and it was
>>>> the intent of the Production team of that story that those
>>>> were the faces of the Doctor. When you watched "The Brain of
>>>> Morbius" as a child, that was the intent behind that scene.
>>>
>>> Nope. When I watched the story as a child the faces were
>>> presumed to be those of Morbius as he was winning.
>>
>> You were very clever then wasn't you, as that's not what the
>> intention behind that scene was, as you know. However, as I said
>> to Dave, people are free to take whatever interpretation they
>> want to from that scene, it doesn't change what the original
>> intent was. If people had read the Target novel first, before
>> watching the story on VHS or DVD (etc.), the idea that those
>> faces were pre-Hartnell Doctors would be a strange proposition
>> indeed. So I can accept that point of view.
>>
>> But trying to say that the producer of "The Brain of Morbius"
>> didn't intend for them to be the faces of 'The Doctor' when
>> those episodes were filmed is historical revisionism.
>
> Did I read someone here or was it in the UseNet Archives??....
>
> Did someone post that in 'The Brain of Morbius' there are actually TWO
> SCREENS and The Doctor is viewing one of these screens, seeing all those
> faces flash past.

There is only one screen. See
https://thedoctorwhocompanion.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The-Brain-of-Morbius-4th-Fourth-Tom-Baker-Philip-Hinchcliffe.jpg

>
> So, I presume, Morbius could be watching the other screen, also seeing
> faces flash past.

No. The screen is in the middle between them. The BBC probably intended
it to be a 3D projection but the effects are too simple to make that
look realistic enough.

>
> So couldn't each of them be seeing their own previous incarnations flash
> past .... which then brings up the question of all those other, extra,
> faces ... that, to the best of the TV Viewer knowledge AT THAT TIME
> hadn't been worn by The Doctor .... but the TV Viewer NOW knows could
> have been previous Doctor Who incarnations.
>

At the start Tom Baker is winning which is why you see his face first.
Then his faces run out as Morbius takes control and Morbius's faces
start appearing and stay there until he wins. It would be ridiculous
writing if the Doctor never had a chance to dominate during any part of
the game.

>>>> [ Snip]
>>>>
>>>> The [second Doctor] line about a previous "renewal" was cut
>>>> from the draft script following a discussion among the
>>>> production team.
>>>
>>> So they realized it would contradict what Hartnell said in The
>>> Tenth Planet.
>
> Not if the Second Doctor mentioned only one previous incarnation!
>

That of Hartnell.

>> It's possible somebody mentioned that. It was 1967, so who knows?
>> <shrugs>  That line from the draft script was excised and we got
>> what we got in the episode.
>

--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
stands for." -William Shatner

In article <xn0okvrq1f0ipf2001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>Daniel70 wrote:
>
>> Blueshirt wrote on 22/4/24 5:34 am:
>> > The True Doctor wrote:
>> > > On 20/04/2024 22:05, Blueshirt wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > The [second Doctor] line about a previous "renewal" was
>> > > > cut from the draft script following a discussion among
>> > > > the production team.
>> > >
>> > > So they realized it would contradict what Hartnell said in
>> > > The Tenth Planet.
>>
>> Not if the Second Doctor mentioned only one previous
>> incarnation!
>
>The words "incarnation" and "regeneration" were not used in
>Doctor Who at that time, it was termed a "renewal". The Second
>Doctor said in The Power of the Daleks, "life depends on change,
>and renewal." The term regeneration didn't come along until the
>1970's. (Planet of the Spiders)
>
>The line that myself and Agamemnon were discussing, subsequently
>cut from the draft script of The Power of the Daleks, had the
>Second Doctor mention a "previous renewal" in that episode.
>Which would have implied it had happened before. (i.e. before
>the one that had just happened.) Somebody in 1967 thought better
>of that idea so the second Doctor didn't say that line when the
>episode was filmed.
>
>When first cast as the Doctor in 1963 William Hartnell's
>departure from the show in 1967 would not have been foreseen.
>(They had no way of knowing the show would even last four
>years!) So the change/renewal idea was only created when the
>time came from William Hartnell to leave the show and be
>replaced by another actor. Every subsequent change since 1967
>has revealed more aspects of the regenerative process right up
>to 2023 when RTD evolved it even further with his "bigeration"
>idea.

Script check time!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

In article <xn0okvrr7f0kddx002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>Daniel70 wrote:
>
>> Blueshirt wrote on 22/4/24 5:34 am:
>> > The True Doctor wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Doctor Who ended in 2017.
>> >
>> > I look forward to your reviews of the new Doctor Who
>> > episodes in three weeks time. Oh hang on, it is 2024 right?!
>> >
>> I don't!! My idea of a Review and the a%e's idea of a
>> Review differ drastically!!
>
>It's a good job my reply wasn't to Dave then wasn't it?! ;-)

there you go.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

The Doctor wrote on 23/4/24 12:29 am:
> In article <v05dnl$t66m$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel70
> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> The True Doctor wrote on 21/4/24 11:11 am:
>>> On 19/04/2024 22:39, Blueshirt wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>>> Fan fic as a term doesn't automatically make something bad or
>>>> wrong. I've read some good fan fic over the years. I'd also
>>>> consider most of what Big Finish produce as fan fic, just
>>>> licensed by the BBC and released on audio... and a lot of it is
>>>> very good.
>>>>
>>>> Being fair I suppose that's what any Doctor Who is really when
>>>> it all boils down to it if a fan of the show is the Executive
>>>> Producer... it's their ideas and their vision of the show.
>>>> Just like it would be yours or mine if we were writing our
>>>> ideas down on paper. The only difference is, they are paid by
>>>> the BBC which makes their ideas legitimately part of the show.
>>>
>>> It's fan fic if it's written in order to entertain fans instead
>>> of the general audience
>>
>> Is there really any such thing as 'the general audience"??
>>
>> Sure, anybody could watch a program once or twice, three times
>> even, but if they keep coming back again and again and again and
>> again, aren't they, then, really, FANS??
>>
>>> or just one group of fans or one fan or fake fan alone as in the
>>> case of Chibnall who utterly despised the show
>>
>> "utterly despised the show"?? REALLY?? If someone 'utterly despised
>> a show', couldn't they just STOP watching it?? Or are they strapped
>> into a chair with toothpicks keeping their eyes open?? -- Daniel
>
> blah! Blah! Blah! from Red-Beard.

.... which is WAAYYY better than Gobble-de-gook from the asswipe!!
--
Daniel

The Doctor wrote on 23/4/24 12:29 am:
> In article <v05e0v$t66m$2@dont-email.me>,
> Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> The Last Doctor wrote on 22/4/24 12:54 am:
>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> In article <v02gsc$6qn1$1@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
>>>> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <v00q4r$3onc1$1@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
>>>>>> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>>>>>> It’s a simple request. What do you think you mean by
>>>>>>> “skewered”?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You really are skewered MM!
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, so since you didn’t correct me by giving your alternative
>>>>> meaning, I take it you do mean “brilliant”.
>>>>
>>>> MM - The brilliant fool of atheism.
>>>
>>> You do know that that incomplete sentence makes no sense, don’t you,
>>> Dave?
>>>
>>> And whoever told you that people using rational thought, reason and
>>> logic are all atheists was a liar.
>>>
>>> You don’t HAVE to be a gullible, unthinking parrot of nonsense to be
>>> religious. But people like you do a damn good job of making it seem
>>> that way sometimes.
>>>
>> .... and making it less likely that those other peoples would join in!!
>
> Atheism are for the diabolic fools that join in.

Well, asswipe, YOU join in and YOU, asswipe, ARE a fool, asswipe.
--
Daniel

The Doctor wrote on 23/4/24 12:31 am:
> In article <v05fh6$tjau$1@dont-email.me>,
> Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> Blueshirt wrote on 22/4/24 10:52 am:
>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>> In article <xn0okv0j1dzlrrl001@post.eweka.nl>,
>>>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>> In article <xn0okufqzdooud7004@post.eweka.nl>,
>>>>>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or care that the producers of a TV show can change things
>>>>>>> to suit themselves if they want to, like our friend Mr
>>>>>>> Chibnall chose to do with Doctor Ruth!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Retcon the Timeless Child!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes Dave, we heard you the 674th time... but thanks again for
>>>>> your welcome contribution to the debate. At least your reply
>>>>> is slightly relevant to the discussion, for once!
>>>>
>>>> Mention it and you get called out.
>>
>> Hang on, a&%^()?ge, Why don't YOU, asswipe, actually try DISCUSSING
>> 'Doctor Who' and see what happens, a&%^()?ge??
>>
>> Note: *DISCUSS* !! YOU, a&%^()?ge, DO know what that means, don't YOU,
>> a&%^()?ge??
>>
>
> The Timeless Child is not about Doctor Who!
>
>>> That's your idea of calling somebody out? Methinks you'll need
>>> to get up a bit earlier in the morning!
>>>
>>> You are like a broken record...
>>>
>>> If someone mentions Chris Chibnall, you say..
>>> Retcon the Timeless Child!
>>>
>>> If someone mentions the 15th Doctor, you say...
>>> The REal 14th Doctor
>>>
>>> If some says Easter, you say...
>>> Ishtar
>>
>> And Ishtar isn't connected with Easter in any way!!
>
> Only in your deluded mind.

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/search.php?hs=1&q=Ishtar
*NOTE* King James Bible.

Quote
No Results. No direct matches for your keyword(s) were found in King
James Bible text, however, please consider one of the following actions:

1. If unsure of spelling, try searching only one word at a time.
2. Try changing your keyword(s).
3. Try modifying and expanding your search.
4. Try the related matches on the right-side of the page (or below).
5. Try the search options below: Smart Search (if available) or Search
Everything (including web pages in addition to the KJV text).
End Quote

Bloody KJV!! It knows nothing, ah, asswipe!!
--
Daniel

The Doctor wrote on 23/4/24 12:30 am:
> In article <v05er9$teco$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel70
> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> The True Doctor wrote on 21/4/24 10:45 am:
>>> On 21/04/2024 01:21, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>>> In article <xn0okt4k1cdpbe1000@post.eweka.nl>, Blueshirt
>>>>> <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>>>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Morbius is winning the game because his faces are on the
>>>>>>> screen indicating that the more past regenerations you
>>>>>>> have had the stronger your mind becomes in the game.
>>>>>>> Hinchcliffe didn't write the story, it was Dicks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Robert Holmes re-wrote the script as you well know and it
>>>>>> was the intent of the Production team of that story that
>>>>>> those were the faces of the Doctor. When you watched "The
>>>>>> Brain of Morbius" as a child, that was the intent behind
>>>>>> that scene. This is a simple fact that has been mentioned
>>>>>> many times over the years by members of the production team
>>>>>> (whose faces they actually were) and it is easily
>>>>>> researched.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Terrance Dicks - like some fans - did not like the idea of
>>>>>> pre-Hartnell Doctors, so revised it in his novelisation.
>>>>>> So yes, in the Target novel they are the faces of Morbius.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There has been plenty of interviews with Uncle Terrance
>>>>>> over the years where he explained why he changed it. But
>>>>>> him not liking the idea of pre-Hartnell Doctors is the
>>>>>> short version! He was aware of the original intent behind
>>>>>> that scene in the episode though and has often talked about
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I go with 4 Doctors taking on Morbius!
>>>>
>>>> You can take from that scene whatever you like... it doesn't
>>>> change the way the scene was conceived. There is no Doctor Who
>>>> bible so whatever works for you and your enjoyment of the show
>>>> is fine. We are all free to make our own head-canon.
>>>
>>> What there is are established facts. No regenerations existed
>>> before Hartnell as stated by Hartnell in The Tenth Planet and the
>>> 1st Doctor in The Five Doctors.
>>
>> Hey, Aggy, in "An Unearthly Child" or any of the other William
>> Hartnell Episodes, did DoctorBill state that he was the First
>> Incarnation of The Doctor or that he could, in fact, regenerate
>> (pick a number, any number) of times at all?? Did he mention that
>> ability at any time during his reign??
>>
>> Or was this "ability" ONLY mentioned AFTER Bill Hartnell had
>> left??
>
> Why just An Unearthly Child?

Do try READING FOR COMPREHENSION, asswipe!! 'in "An Unearthly Child" or
*any of the other* William Hartnell Episodes'!!
--
Daniel

The True Doctor wrote on 23/4/24 5:03 am:
> On 22/04/2024 12:06, Daniel70 wrote:
>> Blueshirt wrote on 22/4/24 5:34 am:
>>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>>> On 20/04/2024 22:05, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert Holmes re-wrote the script as you well know and it was
>>>>> the intent of the Production team of that story that those
>>>>> were the faces of the Doctor. When you watched "The Brain of
>>>>> Morbius" as a child, that was the intent behind that scene.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. When I watched the story as a child the faces were
>>>> presumed to be those of Morbius as he was winning.
>>>
>>> You were very clever then wasn't you, as that's not what the
>>> intention behind that scene was, as you know. However, as I said
>>> to Dave, people are free to take whatever interpretation they
>>> want to from that scene, it doesn't change what the original
>>> intent was. If people had read the Target novel first, before
>>> watching the story on VHS or DVD (etc.), the idea that those
>>> faces were pre-Hartnell Doctors would be a strange proposition
>>> indeed. So I can accept that point of view.
>>>
>>> But trying to say that the producer of "The Brain of Morbius"
>>> didn't intend for them to be the faces of 'The Doctor' when
>>> those episodes were filmed is historical revisionism.
>>
>> Did I read someone here or was it in the UseNet Archives??....
>>
>> Did someone post that in 'The Brain of Morbius' there are actually TWO
>> SCREENS and The Doctor is viewing one of these screens, seeing all
>> those faces flash past.
>
> There is only one screen. See
> https://thedoctorwhocompanion.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The-Brain-of-Morbius-4th-Fourth-Tom-Baker-Philip-Hinchcliffe.jpg
>
>> So, I presume, Morbius could be watching the other screen, also seeing
>> faces flash past.
>
> No. The screen is in the middle between them. The BBC probably intended
> it to be a 3D projection but the effects are too simple to make that
> look realistic enough.

Ah!! O.K., I thought I had read that there were (at least) two screens.
--
Daniel

On 21/04/2024 19:59, Blueshirt wrote:
> The True Doctor wrote:
>
>> On 21/04/2024 01:21, Blueshirt wrote:
>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I go with 4 Doctors taking on Morbius!
>>>
>>> You can take from that scene whatever you like... it doesn't
>>> change the way the scene was conceived. There is no Doctor
>>> Who bible so whatever works for you and your enjoyment of
>>> the show is fine. We are all free to make our own
>>> head-canon.
>>
>> What there is are established facts. No regenerations existed
>> before Hartnell as stated by Hartnell in The Tenth Planet and
>> the 1st Doctor in The Five Doctors. What transpired in The
>> Brain of Morbius can only be interpreted one way, the faces
>> viewers did not recognise were those of Morbius, just as
>> Terrance Dicks states in the Target novelization.
>
> At the time, the kiddies didn't know that. Uncle Terrance's "The

At the time the kiddies all figured it out by themselves. When the
Doctor was winning his face appeared on the screen. When you didn't
recognise his face then it was obviously that of Morbius or his previous
incarnations since his mind was clearly stronger.

This of course assumed that everyone watching has seen Robot or the end
of Planet of the Spiders which established regeneration and the kiddies
parents knew that Hartnell was the first Doctor otherwise most of the
kiddies would have only recognised the faces of Tom Baker and Jon Pertwee.

> Brain of Morbius" Target novel wasn't published until a year or
> two later. So the BBC1 viewers of the day would have seen the
> Doctor's faces on the screen go 4 -> 3 -> 2 -> 1 -> then a few
> more faces... so they could easily have interpreted it as they
> were the faces of the Doctor. (As intended by Phillip
> Hinchcliffe.)

Terrance Dicks wrote the story and that was never his intention nor the
intention of the director, since the visual symbolism implies that the
person whose face is on the screen is the one who is winning, just like
a camera follows the lead runner running a marathon when they near the
finish line or a quiz show focuses on the contestant who is currently
active or gives the right answer.

Imagine that both Time Lords had never regenerated before, since this
was supposed to be a Gallyfreyan children's game. Who's face would have
been displayed on the screen? Natural logic dictates that it's the face
of the one who is winning. There wasn't even any sign of whinging in the
facts shown on screen so clearly they were not in plain because they
were losing. They were the faces of the Time Lord who was winning.

>
> Some children in 1976 wouldn't have been around to see any
> William Hartnell episodes as a reference. We all watched Doctor

No, but my mum had watched William Hartnell before and knew he was the
first actor to play the Doctor.

> Who 'fresh' back then in the 1970's, with no repeat viewings,
> videos or internet. A ten year old child in front of the
> television in 1976 isn't going to know or care about established
> "facts" that you maintain existed.

A 6 year old child in front of the TV is going to figure out from the
start that the person whose face is on the screen is the one who is
winning. The Doctor lost and died. All the faces after Tom Baker may as
well have been those of Morbius to the uninitiated.

>
> Or care that the producers of a TV show can change things to
> suit themselves if they want to, like our friend Mr Chibnall
> chose to do with Doctor Ruth!

Stop insulting the intelligence of the audience. Even a 6 year old child
knows more about story writing and can write better Doctor Who episodes
than Chris Chibnall.

Doctor Who ended in 2017 since the character of the main protagonist
stopped being that of the Doctor.

--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
stands for." -William Shatner

On 22/04/2024 01:52, Blueshirt wrote:
> The Doctor wrote:
>
>> In article <xn0okv0j1dzlrrl001@post.eweka.nl>,
>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <xn0okufqzdooud7004@post.eweka.nl>,
>>>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Or care that the producers of a TV show can change things
>>>>> to suit themselves if they want to, like our friend Mr
>>>>> Chibnall chose to do with Doctor Ruth!
>>>>
>>>> Retcon the Timeless Child!
>>>
>>> Yes Dave, we heard you the 674th time... but thanks again for
>>> your welcome contribution to the debate. At least your reply
>>> is slightly relevant to the discussion, for once!
>>
>> Mention it and you get called out.
>
> That's your idea of calling somebody out? Methinks you'll need
> to get up a bit earlier in the morning!
>
> You are like a broken record...
>
> If someone mentions Chris Chibnall, you say..
> Retcon the Timeless Child!
>
> If someone mentions the 15th Doctor, you say...
> The REal 14th Doctor
>
> If some says Easter, you say...
> Ishtar
>

Except that Easter was originally the celebration of the rites of Ishtar.

> And on and on... <yawn>
>
> You contribute nothing here bar one line sound bites, repeated
> over and over again. You are such a bore.

--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
stands for." -William Shatner

On 22/04/2024 11:40, Daniel70 wrote:
> The True Doctor wrote on 21/4/24 10:45 am:
>> On 21/04/2024 01:21, Blueshirt wrote:
>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>> In article <xn0okt4k1cdpbe1000@post.eweka.nl>,
>>>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Morbius is winning the game because his faces are on the
>>>>>> screen indicating that the more past regenerations you have
>>>>>> had the stronger your mind becomes in the game. Hinchcliffe
>>>>>> didn't write the story, it was Dicks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert Holmes re-wrote the script as you well know and it was
>>>>> the intent of the Production team of that story that those
>>>>> were the faces of the Doctor. When you watched "The Brain of
>>>>> Morbius" as a child, that was the intent behind that scene.
>>>>> This is a simple fact that has been mentioned many times
>>>>> over the years by members of the production team (whose
>>>>> faces they actually were) and it is easily researched.
>>>>>
>>>>> Terrance Dicks - like some fans - did not like the idea of
>>>>> pre-Hartnell Doctors, so revised it in his novelisation. So
>>>>> yes, in the Target novel they are the faces of Morbius.
>>>>>
>>>>> There has been plenty of interviews with Uncle Terrance over
>>>>> the years where he explained why he changed it. But him not
>>>>> liking the idea of pre-Hartnell Doctors is the short
>>>>> version! He was aware of the original intent behind that
>>>>> scene in the episode though and has often talked about it.
>>>>
>>>> I go with 4 Doctors taking on Morbius!
>>>
>>> You can take from that scene whatever you like... it doesn't
>>> change the way the scene was conceived. There is no Doctor Who
>>> bible so whatever works for you and your enjoyment of the show
>>> is fine. We are all free to make our own head-canon.
>>
>> What there is are established facts. No regenerations existed before
>> Hartnell as stated by Hartnell in The Tenth Planet and the 1st Doctor
>> in The Five Doctors.
>
> Hey, Aggy, in "An Unearthly Child" or any of the other William Hartnell
> Episodes, did DoctorBill state that he was the First Incarnation of The
> Doctor or that he could, in fact, regenerate (pick a number, any number)
> of times at all?? Did he mention that ability at any time during his
> reign??

It was implied from the very beginning that the character Hartnell
played was like any other human, other than the fact that he was a
fugitive from another world, as was his biological grand daughter Susan.

>
> Or was this "ability" ONLY mentioned AFTER Bill Hartnell had left??

His possession of ability to perform bodily renewal is stated by
Hartnell in at the end of The Tenth Planet, as is the fact that he did
not know if it would work since he'd never had to perform it before,
just before he is shown to rejuvenate himself. Troughton was intended to
be a de-aged version of Hartnell.

When Troughton is interrogated by the Time Lords at the end of The War
Games no past forms of the Doctor are shown except those of Troughton
and Hartnell. In The Three Doctors it is also demonstrated that there
are were only ever 3 incarnations of the Doctor at this time, and
Hartnell was the earliest. Same goes for The Five Doctors. Same goes for
the Doctor's memories in The Family of Blood. Same goes for The Eleventh
Hour. Same goes for Listen. Same goes for Twice Upon A Time.

--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
stands for." -William Shatner

In article <v07vg0$1i0ti$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote on 23/4/24 12:29 am:
>> In article <v05dnl$t66m$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel70
>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>> The True Doctor wrote on 21/4/24 11:11 am:
>>>> On 19/04/2024 22:39, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>
>>> <Snip>
>>>
>>>>> Fan fic as a term doesn't automatically make something bad or
>>>>> wrong. I've read some good fan fic over the years. I'd also
>>>>> consider most of what Big Finish produce as fan fic, just
>>>>> licensed by the BBC and released on audio... and a lot of it is
>>>>> very good.
>>>>>
>>>>> Being fair I suppose that's what any Doctor Who is really when
>>>>> it all boils down to it if a fan of the show is the Executive
>>>>> Producer... it's their ideas and their vision of the show.
>>>>> Just like it would be yours or mine if we were writing our
>>>>> ideas down on paper. The only difference is, they are paid by
>>>>> the BBC which makes their ideas legitimately part of the show.
>>>>
>>>> It's fan fic if it's written in order to entertain fans instead
>>>> of the general audience
>>>
>>> Is there really any such thing as 'the general audience"??
>>>
>>> Sure, anybody could watch a program once or twice, three times
>>> even, but if they keep coming back again and again and again and
>>> again, aren't they, then, really, FANS??
>>>
>>>> or just one group of fans or one fan or fake fan alone as in the
>>>> case of Chibnall who utterly despised the show
>>>
>>> "utterly despised the show"?? REALLY?? If someone 'utterly despised
>>> a show', couldn't they just STOP watching it?? Or are they strapped
>>> into a chair with toothpicks keeping their eyes open?? -- Daniel
>>
>> blah! Blah! Blah! from Red-Beard.
>
>... which is WAAYYY better than Gobble-de-gook from the a%e!!

I doubt it with bright minds.

>--
>Daniel

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

In article <v07vkh$1i0ti$2@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote on 23/4/24 12:29 am:
>> In article <v05e0v$t66m$2@dont-email.me>,
>> Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>> The Last Doctor wrote on 22/4/24 12:54 am:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <v02gsc$6qn1$1@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
>>>>> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <v00q4r$3onc1$1@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
>>>>>>> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <Snip>
>>>
>>>>>>>> It’s a simple request. What do you think you mean by
>>>>>>>> “skewered”?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You really are skewered MM!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, so since you didn’t correct me by giving your alternative
>>>>>> meaning, I take it you do mean “brilliant”.
>>>>>
>>>>> MM - The brilliant fool of atheism.
>>>>
>>>> You do know that that incomplete sentence makes no sense, don’t you,
>>>> Dave?
>>>>
>>>> And whoever told you that people using rational thought, reason and
>>>> logic are all atheists was a liar.
>>>>
>>>> You don’t HAVE to be a gullible, unthinking parrot of nonsense to be
>>>> religious. But people like you do a damn good job of making it seem
>>>> that way sometimes.
>>>>
>>> .... and making it less likely that those other peoples would join in!!
>>
>> Atheism are for the diabolic fools that join in.
>
>Well, a%e, YOU join in and YOU, a%e, ARE a fool, a%e.

I oppose the Hooly see and the ultimate office of Faux Christianity!

>--
>Daniel

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

In article <v07vuq$1i3mb$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote on 23/4/24 12:31 am:
>> In article <v05fh6$tjau$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>> Blueshirt wrote on 22/4/24 10:52 am:
>>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>>> In article <xn0okv0j1dzlrrl001@post.eweka.nl>,
>>>>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <xn0okufqzdooud7004@post.eweka.nl>,
>>>>>>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or care that the producers of a TV show can change things
>>>>>>>> to suit themselves if they want to, like our friend Mr
>>>>>>>> Chibnall chose to do with Doctor Ruth!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Retcon the Timeless Child!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes Dave, we heard you the 674th time... but thanks again for
>>>>>> your welcome contribution to the debate. At least your reply
>>>>>> is slightly relevant to the discussion, for once!
>>>>>
>>>>> Mention it and you get called out.
>>>
>>> Hang on, a&%^()?ge, Why don't YOU, asswipe, actually try DISCUSSING
>>> 'Doctor Who' and see what happens, a&%^()?ge??
>>>
>>> Note: *DISCUSS* !! YOU, a&%^()?ge, DO know what that means, don't YOU,
>>> a&%^()?ge??
>>>
>>
>> The Timeless Child is not about Doctor Who!
>>
>>>> That's your idea of calling somebody out? Methinks you'll need
>>>> to get up a bit earlier in the morning!
>>>>
>>>> You are like a broken record...
>>>>
>>>> If someone mentions Chris Chibnall, you say..
>>>> Retcon the Timeless Child!
>>>>
>>>> If someone mentions the 15th Doctor, you say...
>>>> The REal 14th Doctor
>>>>
>>>> If some says Easter, you say...
>>>> Ishtar
>>>
>>> And Ishtar isn't connected with Easter in any way!!
>>
>> Only in your deluded mind.
>
>https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/search.php?hs=1&q=Ishtar
>*NOTE* King James Bible.
>
>Quote
>No Results. No direct matches for your keyword(s) were found in King
>James Bible text, however, please consider one of the following actions:
>
>1. If unsure of spelling, try searching only one word at a time.
>2. Try changing your keyword(s).
>3. Try modifying and expanding your search.
>4. Try the related matches on the right-side of the page (or below).
>5. Try the search options below: Smart Search (if available) or Search
>Everything (including web pages in addition to the KJV text).
>End Quote
>
>Bloody KJV!! It knows nothing, ah, a%e!!

What else did you search, red-beard?

>--
>Daniel

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

In article <v08036$1i3mb$2@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote on 23/4/24 12:30 am:
>> In article <v05er9$teco$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel70
>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>> The True Doctor wrote on 21/4/24 10:45 am:
>>>> On 21/04/2024 01:21, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>> In article <xn0okt4k1cdpbe1000@post.eweka.nl>, Blueshirt
>>>>>> <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>>>>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Morbius is winning the game because his faces are on the
>>>>>>>> screen indicating that the more past regenerations you
>>>>>>>> have had the stronger your mind becomes in the game.
>>>>>>>> Hinchcliffe didn't write the story, it was Dicks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Robert Holmes re-wrote the script as you well know and it
>>>>>>> was the intent of the Production team of that story that
>>>>>>> those were the faces of the Doctor. When you watched "The
>>>>>>> Brain of Morbius" as a child, that was the intent behind
>>>>>>> that scene. This is a simple fact that has been mentioned
>>>>>>> many times over the years by members of the production team
>>>>>>> (whose faces they actually were) and it is easily
>>>>>>> researched.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Terrance Dicks - like some fans - did not like the idea of
>>>>>>> pre-Hartnell Doctors, so revised it in his novelisation.
>>>>>>> So yes, in the Target novel they are the faces of Morbius.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There has been plenty of interviews with Uncle Terrance
>>>>>>> over the years where he explained why he changed it. But
>>>>>>> him not liking the idea of pre-Hartnell Doctors is the
>>>>>>> short version! He was aware of the original intent behind
>>>>>>> that scene in the episode though and has often talked about
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I go with 4 Doctors taking on Morbius!
>>>>>
>>>>> You can take from that scene whatever you like... it doesn't
>>>>> change the way the scene was conceived. There is no Doctor Who
>>>>> bible so whatever works for you and your enjoyment of the show
>>>>> is fine. We are all free to make our own head-canon.
>>>>
>>>> What there is are established facts. No regenerations existed
>>>> before Hartnell as stated by Hartnell in The Tenth Planet and the
>>>> 1st Doctor in The Five Doctors.
>>>
>>> Hey, Aggy, in "An Unearthly Child" or any of the other William
>>> Hartnell Episodes, did DoctorBill state that he was the First
>>> Incarnation of The Doctor or that he could, in fact, regenerate
>>> (pick a number, any number) of times at all?? Did he mention that
>>> ability at any time during his reign??
>>>
>>> Or was this "ability" ONLY mentioned AFTER Bill Hartnell had
>>> left??
>>
>> Why just An Unearthly Child?
>
>Do try READING FOR COMPREHENSION, a%e!! 'in "An Unearthly Child" or
>*any of the other* William Hartnell Episodes'!!

And what abot the 10th Planet?

>--
>Daniel

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

In article <v080tl$1iakk$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>The True Doctor wrote on 23/4/24 5:03 am:
>> On 22/04/2024 12:06, Daniel70 wrote:
>>> Blueshirt wrote on 22/4/24 5:34 am:
>>>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>>>> On 20/04/2024 22:05, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Robert Holmes re-wrote the script as you well know and it was
>>>>>> the intent of the Production team of that story that those
>>>>>> were the faces of the Doctor. When you watched "The Brain of
>>>>>> Morbius" as a child, that was the intent behind that scene.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. When I watched the story as a child the faces were
>>>>> presumed to be those of Morbius as he was winning.
>>>>
>>>> You were very clever then wasn't you, as that's not what the
>>>> intention behind that scene was, as you know. However, as I said
>>>> to Dave, people are free to take whatever interpretation they
>>>> want to from that scene, it doesn't change what the original
>>>> intent was. If people had read the Target novel first, before
>>>> watching the story on VHS or DVD (etc.), the idea that those
>>>> faces were pre-Hartnell Doctors would be a strange proposition
>>>> indeed. So I can accept that point of view.
>>>>
>>>> But trying to say that the producer of "The Brain of Morbius"
>>>> didn't intend for them to be the faces of 'The Doctor' when
>>>> those episodes were filmed is historical revisionism.
>>>
>>> Did I read someone here or was it in the UseNet Archives??....
>>>
>>> Did someone post that in 'The Brain of Morbius' there are actually TWO
>>> SCREENS and The Doctor is viewing one of these screens, seeing all
>>> those faces flash past.
>>
>> There is only one screen. See
>>
>https://thedoctorwhocompanion.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The-Brain-of-Morbius-4th-Fourth-Tom-Baker-Philip-Hinchcliffe.jpg
>>
>>> So, I presume, Morbius could be watching the other screen, also seeing
>>> faces flash past.
>>
>> No. The screen is in the middle between them. The BBC probably intended
>> it to be a 3D projection but the effects are too simple to make that
>> look realistic enough.
>
>Ah!! O.K., I thought I had read that there were (at least) two screens.

Well the definition was not there.

>--
>Daniel

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

In article <v086rc$1jlmd$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>On 21/04/2024 19:59, Blueshirt wrote:
>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/04/2024 01:21, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I go with 4 Doctors taking on Morbius!
>>>>
>>>> You can take from that scene whatever you like... it doesn't
>>>> change the way the scene was conceived. There is no Doctor
>>>> Who bible so whatever works for you and your enjoyment of
>>>> the show is fine. We are all free to make our own
>>>> head-canon.
>>>
>>> What there is are established facts. No regenerations existed
>>> before Hartnell as stated by Hartnell in The Tenth Planet and
>>> the 1st Doctor in The Five Doctors. What transpired in The
>>> Brain of Morbius can only be interpreted one way, the faces
>>> viewers did not recognise were those of Morbius, just as
>>> Terrance Dicks states in the Target novelization.
>>
>> At the time, the kiddies didn't know that. Uncle Terrance's "The
>
>At the time the kiddies all figured it out by themselves. When the
>Doctor was winning his face appeared on the screen. When you didn't
>recognise his face then it was obviously that of Morbius or his previous
>incarnations since his mind was clearly stronger.
>
>This of course assumed that everyone watching has seen Robot or the end
>of Planet of the Spiders which established regeneration and the kiddies
>parents knew that Hartnell was the first Doctor otherwise most of the
>kiddies would have only recognised the faces of Tom Baker and Jon Pertwee.
>
>> Brain of Morbius" Target novel wasn't published until a year or
>> two later. So the BBC1 viewers of the day would have seen the
>> Doctor's faces on the screen go 4 -> 3 -> 2 -> 1 -> then a few
>> more faces... so they could easily have interpreted it as they
>> were the faces of the Doctor. (As intended by Phillip
>> Hinchcliffe.)
>
>Terrance Dicks wrote the story and that was never his intention nor the
>intention of the director, since the visual symbolism implies that the
>person whose face is on the screen is the one who is winning, just like
>a camera follows the lead runner running a marathon when they near the
>finish line or a quiz show focuses on the contestant who is currently
>active or gives the right answer.
>
>Imagine that both Time Lords had never regenerated before, since this
>was supposed to be a Gallyfreyan children's game. Who's face would have
>been displayed on the screen? Natural logic dictates that it's the face
>of the one who is winning. There wasn't even any sign of whinging in the
>facts shown on screen so clearly they were not in plain because they
>were losing. They were the faces of the Time Lord who was winning.
>
>>
>> Some children in 1976 wouldn't have been around to see any
>> William Hartnell episodes as a reference. We all watched Doctor
>
>No, but my mum had watched William Hartnell before and knew he was the
>first actor to play the Doctor.
>
>> Who 'fresh' back then in the 1970's, with no repeat viewings,
>> videos or internet. A ten year old child in front of the
>> television in 1976 isn't going to know or care about established
>> "facts" that you maintain existed.
>
>A 6 year old child in front of the TV is going to figure out from the
>start that the person whose face is on the screen is the one who is
>winning. The Doctor lost and died. All the faces after Tom Baker may as
>well have been those of Morbius to the uninitiated.
>
>>
>> Or care that the producers of a TV show can change things to
>> suit themselves if they want to, like our friend Mr Chibnall
>> chose to do with Doctor Ruth!
>
>Stop insulting the intelligence of the audience. Even a 6 year old child
>knows more about story writing and can write better Doctor Who episodes
>than Chris Chibnall.
>
>Doctor Who ended in 2017 since the character of the main protagonist
>stopped being that of the Doctor.
>

Retcon the Timeless Child!

>--
>The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
>
>"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
>stands for." -William Shatner
>

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

In article <v086vm$1jlmd$3@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>On 22/04/2024 01:52, Blueshirt wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote:
>>
>>> In article <xn0okv0j1dzlrrl001@post.eweka.nl>,
>>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <xn0okufqzdooud7004@post.eweka.nl>,
>>>>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or care that the producers of a TV show can change things
>>>>>> to suit themselves if they want to, like our friend Mr
>>>>>> Chibnall chose to do with Doctor Ruth!
>>>>>
>>>>> Retcon the Timeless Child!
>>>>
>>>> Yes Dave, we heard you the 674th time... but thanks again for
>>>> your welcome contribution to the debate. At least your reply
>>>> is slightly relevant to the discussion, for once!
>>>
>>> Mention it and you get called out.
>>
>> That's your idea of calling somebody out? Methinks you'll need
>> to get up a bit earlier in the morning!
>>
>> You are like a broken record...
>>
>> If someone mentions Chris Chibnall, you say..
>> Retcon the Timeless Child!
>>
>> If someone mentions the 15th Doctor, you say...
>> The REal 14th Doctor
>>
>> If some says Easter, you say...
>> Ishtar
>>
>
>Except that Easter was originally the celebration of the rites of Ishtar.
>

Exactly!!!!

>> And on and on... <yawn>
>>
>> You contribute nothing here bar one line sound bites, repeated
>> over and over again. You are such a bore.
>
>--
>The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
>
>"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
>stands for." -William Shatner
>

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

In article <v0881g$1ju4d$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>On 22/04/2024 11:40, Daniel70 wrote:
>> The True Doctor wrote on 21/4/24 10:45 am:
>>> On 21/04/2024 01:21, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>>> In article <xn0okt4k1cdpbe1000@post.eweka.nl>,
>>>>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>>>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Morbius is winning the game because his faces are on the
>>>>>>> screen indicating that the more past regenerations you have
>>>>>>> had the stronger your mind becomes in the game. Hinchcliffe
>>>>>>> didn't write the story, it was Dicks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Robert Holmes re-wrote the script as you well know and it was
>>>>>> the intent of the Production team of that story that those
>>>>>> were the faces of the Doctor. When you watched "The Brain of
>>>>>> Morbius" as a child, that was the intent behind that scene.
>>>>>> This is a simple fact that has been mentioned many times
>>>>>> over the years by members of the production team (whose
>>>>>> faces they actually were) and it is easily researched.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Terrance Dicks - like some fans - did not like the idea of
>>>>>> pre-Hartnell Doctors, so revised it in his novelisation. So
>>>>>> yes, in the Target novel they are the faces of Morbius.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There has been plenty of interviews with Uncle Terrance over
>>>>>> the years where he explained why he changed it. But him not
>>>>>> liking the idea of pre-Hartnell Doctors is the short
>>>>>> version! He was aware of the original intent behind that
>>>>>> scene in the episode though and has often talked about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I go with 4 Doctors taking on Morbius!
>>>>
>>>> You can take from that scene whatever you like... it doesn't
>>>> change the way the scene was conceived. There is no Doctor Who
>>>> bible so whatever works for you and your enjoyment of the show
>>>> is fine. We are all free to make our own head-canon.
>>>
>>> What there is are established facts. No regenerations existed before
>>> Hartnell as stated by Hartnell in The Tenth Planet and the 1st Doctor
>>> in The Five Doctors.
>>
>> Hey, Aggy, in "An Unearthly Child" or any of the other William Hartnell
>> Episodes, did DoctorBill state that he was the First Incarnation of The
>> Doctor or that he could, in fact, regenerate (pick a number, any number)
>> of times at all?? Did he mention that ability at any time during his
>> reign??
>
>It was implied from the very beginning that the character Hartnell
>played was like any other human, other than the fact that he was a
>fugitive from another world, as was his biological grand daughter Susan.
>
>>
>> Or was this "ability" ONLY mentioned AFTER Bill Hartnell had left??
>
>His possession of ability to perform bodily renewal is stated by
>Hartnell in at the end of The Tenth Planet, as is the fact that he did
>not know if it would work since he'd never had to perform it before,
>just before he is shown to rejuvenate himself. Troughton was intended to
>be a de-aged version of Hartnell.
>
>When Troughton is interrogated by the Time Lords at the end of The War
>Games no past forms of the Doctor are shown except those of Troughton
>and Hartnell. In The Three Doctors it is also demonstrated that there
>are were only ever 3 incarnations of the Doctor at this time, and
>Hartnell was the earliest. Same goes for The Five Doctors. Same goes for
>the Doctor's memories in The Family of Blood. Same goes for The Eleventh
>Hour. Same goes for Listen. Same goes for Twice Upon A Time.
>

Exactly!

Chibnall's revisions must be retconned!

>--
>The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
>
>"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
>stands for." -William Shatner
>

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <v08036$1i3mb$2@dont-email.me>,
> Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> > The Doctor wrote on 23/4/24 12:30 am:
> >> In article <v05er9$teco$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel70
> >> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hey, Aggy, in "An Unearthly Child" or any of the other
> >>> William Hartnell Episodes, did DoctorBill state that he
> >>> was the First Incarnation of The Doctor or that he could,
> >>> in fact, regenerate (pick a number, any number) of times
> >>> at all?? Did he mention that ability at any time during
> >>> his reign??
> >>> Or was this "ability" ONLY mentioned AFTER Bill Hartnell
> >>> had left??
> >>
> >> Why just An Unearthly Child?
> >
> > Do try READING FOR COMPREHENSION, a%e!! 'in "An Unearthly
> > Child" or *any of the other* William Hartnell Episodes'!!
>
> And what abot the 10th Planet?

By the time of "The Tenth Planet" William Hartnell knew that he
would be leaving the show and his character was being replaced
by another actor.

In 1963 he couldn't have known that he would be leaving the show
in four years time so he was just the Doctor. He was not the
first incarnation, as the idea of a "Second" Doctor hadn't been
thought up. It was an idea that sprang out of explaining the
change from William Hartnell to Patrick Troughton. And even
then, the term 'regeneration' and the limit of twelve
regenerations was years away... the Doctor being a "Time Lord"
wasn't known at that stage either.

A lot of what we know about "Doctor Who" has been added over the
years, brick by brick, by various production teams. (The show
was a lot more simpler in William Hartnell's time.)