In article <v0bm0v$2g6e1$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>On 24/04/2024 14:08, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <v0a8mg$261sh$1@dont-email.me>,
>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>
>> The clueless of MM is for all to see.
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> “The timelines and … canon … are rupturing” - the Doctor
>>
>
>Squealer wants us to believe that the faces of Morbius are those of the
>Doctor, but if we believe in the Timeless Child monster then Jo Martin
>came immediately before Hartnell. I don't see any face of a woman before
>Hartnell or before anyone. There's isn't even the face of a black person.
>
>Just how stupid has Squealer become?
>

Very!

>--
>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 <v0bmep$2g6e1$3@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>On 22/04/2024 11:21, Daniel70 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??
>
>Chibnall hated Doctor Who so much that he destroyed it for every. No one
>one can watch it at all.
>

The Timless Child is an albatross around Doctor Who!

>--
>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 True Doctor wrote:

> On 24/04/2024 00:44, The Last Doctor wrote:
> >
> > Hartnell says nothing about his ability to perform a
> > renewal or whether he’d ever done it before.
>
> It's stated in the Novelization.

Which was written years after the episodes were
written/broadcast and with hindsight. (i.e. after "Time Lords"
and "regeneration" had been added to Doctor Who lore.)
> > Here’s everything the Doctor says at the end of The Tenth
> > Planet. He’s just been rescued from captivity in the
> > Cyberman ship.
> >
> > DOCTOR: What did you say, my boy? It's all over. It's all
> > over. That's what you said. No, but it isn't all over. It's
> > far from being all over. BEN: What are you taking about?
> > DOCTOR: I must get back to the Tardis immediately!
> > POLLY: All right, Doctor.
> > DOCTOR: Yes, I must go now.
> > BEN: Aren't we going to go back to say goodbye or anything?
> > DOCTOR: No. No, I must go at once.
> > BEN: Oh well, you better have this. We don't want you
> > catching your death of cold.
> > (Ben hands the Doctor his cloak.)
> > DOCTOR: Ah, yes. Thank you. It's good. Keep warm.
> > (The Doctor leaves.)
> >
> > Near the start of the episode he says everything else that
> > is said about his bodily condition:
> >
> > POLLY: What's happened to you, Doctor?
> > DOCTOR: Oh, I'm not sure, my dear. Comes from an outside
> > influence. Unless this old body of mine is wearing a bit
> > thin. POLLY: What do you mean, wearing a bit thin?
> > DOCTOR: Oh, don't worry child, don't worry, don't worry.
> >
> > No mention of renewal or how many times it’s happened. At
> > all.
>
> It's in the Novelization of the story.

Are you Jonathan Blum in disguise? IT WASN'T MENTIONED IN THE TV
EPISODE! Any additional material in novelisation might become
part of the Doctor Who expanded universe by being featured in a
novel, but a book doesn't supersede what people saw on-screen.
Not every person who watched Doctor Who read the Target books.
Doctor Who is a TV show first and foremost.

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <v09h5j$1th3u$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
> >The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> Chibnall's revisions must be retconned!
> >
> > As shown above, Chibnall’s Timeless Child narrative can be
> > made to be completely consistent with the entire history of
> > the show. It was crafted that way.
> >
> > It’s awfully convoluted and contrived, and completely
> > unnecessary. But it hasn’t harmed the show.
> >
> > So be like Elsa, and let it go.
>
> I doubt anything in the Timeless Child is accurate!

How can it be inaccurate? The "Timeless Child" was created and
written by the Doctor Who Executive Producer and broadcast on
BBC1. You can't get anything more legitimate. Therefore it can't
be inaccurate and the Timeless Child has become part of Doctor
Who lore.

YOU may not like the idea. I may not like the idea. But it is
officially part of the show... and it's not likely to change
anytime soon. (Based on what we've seen from RTD so far.)

In article <xn0okyrq9i4rmsb001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>The True Doctor wrote:
>
>> On 24/04/2024 00:44, The Last Doctor wrote:
>> >
>> > Hartnell says nothing about his ability to perform a
>> > renewal or whether he’d ever done it before.
>>
>> It's stated in the Novelization.
>
>Which was written years after the episodes were
>written/broadcast and with hindsight. (i.e. after "Time Lords"
>and "regeneration" had been added to Doctor Who lore.)
>
>> > Here’s everything the Doctor says at the end of The Tenth
>> > Planet. He’s just been rescued from captivity in the
>> > Cyberman ship.
>> >
>> > DOCTOR: What did you say, my boy? It's all over. It's all
>> > over. That's what you said. No, but it isn't all over. It's
>> > far from being all over. BEN: What are you taking about?
>> > DOCTOR: I must get back to the Tardis immediately!
>> > POLLY: All right, Doctor.
>> > DOCTOR: Yes, I must go now.
>> > BEN: Aren't we going to go back to say goodbye or anything?
>> > DOCTOR: No. No, I must go at once.
>> > BEN: Oh well, you better have this. We don't want you
>> > catching your death of cold.
>> > (Ben hands the Doctor his cloak.)
>> > DOCTOR: Ah, yes. Thank you. It's good. Keep warm.
>> > (The Doctor leaves.)
>> >
>> > Near the start of the episode he says everything else that
>> > is said about his bodily condition:
>> >
>> > POLLY: What's happened to you, Doctor?
>> > DOCTOR: Oh, I'm not sure, my dear. Comes from an outside
>> > influence. Unless this old body of mine is wearing a bit
>> > thin. POLLY: What do you mean, wearing a bit thin?
>> > DOCTOR: Oh, don't worry child, don't worry, don't worry.
>> >
>> > No mention of renewal or how many times it’s happened. At
>> > all.
>>
>> It's in the Novelization of the story.
>
>Are you Jonathan Blum in disguise? IT WASN'T MENTIONED IN THE TV
>EPISODE! Any additional material in novelisation might become
>part of the Doctor Who expanded universe by being featured in a
>novel, but a book doesn't supersede what people saw on-screen.
>Not every person who watched Doctor Who read the Target books.
>Doctor Who is a TV show first and foremost.
>

Bring back Jon Blum!
--
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 ;

In article <xn0okyrzpi55cpz002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
>
>> In article <v09h5j$1th3u$1@dont-email.me>,
>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> >The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Chibnall's revisions must be retconned!
>> >
>> > As shown above, Chibnall’s Timeless Child narrative can be
>> > made to be completely consistent with the entire history of
>> > the show. It was crafted that way.
>> >
>> > It’s awfully convoluted and contrived, and completely
>> > unnecessary. But it hasn’t harmed the show.
>> >
>> > So be like Elsa, and let it go.
>>
>> I doubt anything in the Timeless Child is accurate!
>
>How can it be inaccurate? The "Timeless Child" was created and
>written by the Doctor Who Executive Producer and broadcast on
>BBC1. You can't get anything more legitimate. Therefore it can't
>be inaccurate and the Timeless Child has become part of Doctor
>Who lore.
>
>YOU may not like the idea. I may not like the idea. But it is
>officially part of the show... and it's not likely to change
>anytime soon. (Based on what we've seen from RTD so far.)

The Timeless Child is Anti-doctorWho!
--
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 ;

On 2024-04-24 1:27 p.m., The True Doctor wrote:
> On 22/04/2024 11:21, Daniel70 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??
>
> Chibnall hated Doctor Who so much that he destroyed it for every. No one
> one can watch it at all.
>

Well except for those millions of viewers, don't forget about them.

You can't stop either so 'nuff said.

--
Facisim: The first step is to fascinate fools and muzzle the intelligent

Bertrand Russell

On 24/04/2024 22:49, Blueshirt wrote:
> The Doctor wrote:
>
>> In article <v09h5j$1th3u$1@dont-email.me>,
>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Chibnall's revisions must be retconned!
>>>
>>> As shown above, Chibnall’s Timeless Child narrative can be
>>> made to be completely consistent with the entire history of
>>> the show. It was crafted that way.
>>>
>>> It’s awfully convoluted and contrived, and completely
>>> unnecessary. But it hasn’t harmed the show.
>>>
>>> So be like Elsa, and let it go.
>>
>> I doubt anything in the Timeless Child is accurate!
>
> How can it be inaccurate? The "Timeless Child" was created and
> written by the Doctor Who Executive Producer and broadcast on
> BBC1. You can't get anything more legitimate. Therefore it can't
> be inaccurate and the Timeless Child has become part of Doctor
> Who lore.
>

Wrong! Bobby was shot dead in a series made by the Executive Producer of
Dallas. Except it never happened.

> YOU may not like the idea. I may not like the idea. But it is
> officially part of the show... and it's not likely to change
> anytime soon. (Based on what we've seen from RTD so far.)

No it isn't. It's not canon and it's not part of Doctor Who. Doctor Who
ended in 2017.

--
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 25/04/2024 00:58, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <xn0okyrzpi55cpz002@post.eweka.nl>,
> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote:
>>
>>> In article <v09h5j$1th3u$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Chibnall's revisions must be retconned!
>>>>
>>>> As shown above, Chibnall’s Timeless Child narrative can be
>>>> made to be completely consistent with the entire history of
>>>> the show. It was crafted that way.
>>>>
>>>> It’s awfully convoluted and contrived, and completely
>>>> unnecessary. But it hasn’t harmed the show.
>>>>
>>>> So be like Elsa, and let it go.
>>>
>>> I doubt anything in the Timeless Child is accurate!
>>
>> How can it be inaccurate? The "Timeless Child" was created and
>> written by the Doctor Who Executive Producer and broadcast on
>> BBC1. You can't get anything more legitimate. Therefore it can't
>> be inaccurate and the Timeless Child has become part of Doctor
>> Who lore.
>>
>> YOU may not like the idea. I may not like the idea. But it is
>> officially part of the show... and it's not likely to change
>> anytime soon. (Based on what we've seen from RTD so far.)
>
> The Timeless Child is Anti-doctorWho!

It's degenerate fan fiction created and written by someone who totally
despised the entire show so decided to destroy everything in it.

--
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 24/04/2024 22:41, Blueshirt wrote:
> The True Doctor wrote:
>
>> On 24/04/2024 00:44, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>
>>> Hartnell says nothing about his ability to perform a
>>> renewal or whether he’d ever done it before.
>>
>> It's stated in the Novelization.
>
> Which was written years after the episodes were
> written/broadcast and with hindsight. (i.e. after "Time Lords"
> and "regeneration" had been added to Doctor Who lore.)
>

From the start all the televised episodes established that William
Hartnell was the very first Doctor and there was never any suggestion
that there were any other incarnations before him, not even in The Brain
of Morbius. Hartnell is explicitly stated and shown as being the ORIGINAL.

>>> Here’s everything the Doctor says at the end of The Tenth
>>> Planet. He’s just been rescued from captivity in the
>>> Cyberman ship.
>>>
>>> DOCTOR: What did you say, my boy? It's all over. It's all
>>> over. That's what you said. No, but it isn't all over. It's
>>> far from being all over. BEN: What are you taking about?
>>> DOCTOR: I must get back to the Tardis immediately!
>>> POLLY: All right, Doctor.
>>> DOCTOR: Yes, I must go now.
>>> BEN: Aren't we going to go back to say goodbye or anything?
>>> DOCTOR: No. No, I must go at once.
>>> BEN: Oh well, you better have this. We don't want you
>>> catching your death of cold.
>>> (Ben hands the Doctor his cloak.)
>>> DOCTOR: Ah, yes. Thank you. It's good. Keep warm.
>>> (The Doctor leaves.)
>>>
>>> Near the start of the episode he says everything else that
>>> is said about his bodily condition:
>>>
>>> POLLY: What's happened to you, Doctor?
>>> DOCTOR: Oh, I'm not sure, my dear. Comes from an outside
>>> influence. Unless this old body of mine is wearing a bit
>>> thin. POLLY: What do you mean, wearing a bit thin?
>>> DOCTOR: Oh, don't worry child, don't worry, don't worry.
>>>
>>> No mention of renewal or how many times it’s happened. At
>>> all.
>>
>> It's in the Novelization of the story.
>
> Are you Jonathan Blum in disguise? IT WASN'T MENTIONED IN THE TV
> EPISODE! Any additional material in novelisation might become
> part of the Doctor Who expanded universe by being featured in a
> novel, but a book doesn't supersede what people saw on-screen.
> Not every person who watched Doctor Who read the Target books.
> Doctor Who is a TV show first and foremost.
>

What people saw on screen was Hartnell de-age and there was never any
suggestion that he had ever done it before. We are explicitly told this
by the first Doctor in Twice Upon A Time speaking to Capaldi.

--
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

The True Doctor wrote on 25/4/24 5:27 am:
> On 22/04/2024 11:21, Daniel70 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??
>
> Chibnall hated Doctor Who so much that he destroyed it for every. No
> one one can watch it at all.
>
Sorry, Aggy, but I think you might have forgotten the "IMHO" or
something!! I mean, obviously PEOPLE *ARE* WATCHING!!
--
Daniel

In article <v0ceqc$2p63j$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>On 25/04/2024 00:58, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <xn0okyrzpi55cpz002@post.eweka.nl>,
>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <v09h5j$1th3u$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chibnall's revisions must be retconned!
>>>>>
>>>>> As shown above, Chibnall’s Timeless Child narrative can be
>>>>> made to be completely consistent with the entire history of
>>>>> the show. It was crafted that way.
>>>>>
>>>>> It’s awfully convoluted and contrived, and completely
>>>>> unnecessary. But it hasn’t harmed the show.
>>>>>
>>>>> So be like Elsa, and let it go.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt anything in the Timeless Child is accurate!
>>>
>>> How can it be inaccurate? The "Timeless Child" was created and
>>> written by the Doctor Who Executive Producer and broadcast on
>>> BBC1. You can't get anything more legitimate. Therefore it can't
>>> be inaccurate and the Timeless Child has become part of Doctor
>>> Who lore.
>>>
>>> YOU may not like the idea. I may not like the idea. But it is
>>> officially part of the show... and it's not likely to change
>>> anytime soon. (Based on what we've seen from RTD so far.)
>>
>> The Timeless Child is Anti-doctorWho!
>
>It's degenerate fan fiction created and written by someone who totally
>despised the entire show so decided to destroy everything in it.
>

"The Doctor" hjaving murderous tendencies?

>--
>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 ;

In article <v0ceqc$2p63j$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>On 25/04/2024 00:58, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <xn0okyrzpi55cpz002@post.eweka.nl>,
>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <v09h5j$1th3u$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chibnall's revisions must be retconned!
>>>>>
>>>>> As shown above, Chibnall’s Timeless Child narrative can be
>>>>> made to be completely consistent with the entire history of
>>>>> the show. It was crafted that way.
>>>>>
>>>>> It’s awfully convoluted and contrived, and completely
>>>>> unnecessary. But it hasn’t harmed the show.
>>>>>
>>>>> So be like Elsa, and let it go.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt anything in the Timeless Child is accurate!
>>>
>>> How can it be inaccurate? The "Timeless Child" was created and
>>> written by the Doctor Who Executive Producer and broadcast on
>>> BBC1. You can't get anything more legitimate. Therefore it can't
>>> be inaccurate and the Timeless Child has become part of Doctor
>>> Who lore.
>>>
>>> YOU may not like the idea. I may not like the idea. But it is
>>> officially part of the show... and it's not likely to change
>>> anytime soon. (Based on what we've seen from RTD so far.)
>>
>> The Timeless Child is Anti-doctorWho!
>
>It's degenerate fan fiction created and written by someone who totally
>despised the entire show so decided to destroy everything in it.
>

The Timeless Child destroys the essence of Doctor Who!

>--
>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 ;

In article <v0ciia$2pp02$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>On 24/04/2024 22:41, Blueshirt wrote:
>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/04/2024 00:44, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hartnell says nothing about his ability to perform a
>>>> renewal or whether he’d ever done it before.
>>>
>>> It's stated in the Novelization.
>>
>> Which was written years after the episodes were
>> written/broadcast and with hindsight. (i.e. after "Time Lords"
>> and "regeneration" had been added to Doctor Who lore.)
>>
>
> From the start all the televised episodes established that William
>Hartnell was the very first Doctor and there was never any suggestion
>that there were any other incarnations before him, not even in The Brain
>of Morbius. Hartnell is explicitly stated and shown as being the ORIGINAL.
>
>
>>>> Here’s everything the Doctor says at the end of The Tenth
>>>> Planet. He’s just been rescued from captivity in the
>>>> Cyberman ship.
>>>>
>>>> DOCTOR: What did you say, my boy? It's all over. It's all
>>>> over. That's what you said. No, but it isn't all over. It's
>>>> far from being all over. BEN: What are you taking about?
>>>> DOCTOR: I must get back to the Tardis immediately!
>>>> POLLY: All right, Doctor.
>>>> DOCTOR: Yes, I must go now.
>>>> BEN: Aren't we going to go back to say goodbye or anything?
>>>> DOCTOR: No. No, I must go at once.
>>>> BEN: Oh well, you better have this. We don't want you
>>>> catching your death of cold.
>>>> (Ben hands the Doctor his cloak.)
>>>> DOCTOR: Ah, yes. Thank you. It's good. Keep warm.
>>>> (The Doctor leaves.)
>>>>
>>>> Near the start of the episode he says everything else that
>>>> is said about his bodily condition:
>>>>
>>>> POLLY: What's happened to you, Doctor?
>>>> DOCTOR: Oh, I'm not sure, my dear. Comes from an outside
>>>> influence. Unless this old body of mine is wearing a bit
>>>> thin. POLLY: What do you mean, wearing a bit thin?
>>>> DOCTOR: Oh, don't worry child, don't worry, don't worry.
>>>>
>>>> No mention of renewal or how many times it’s happened. At
>>>> all.
>>>
>>> It's in the Novelization of the story.
>>
>> Are you Jonathan Blum in disguise? IT WASN'T MENTIONED IN THE TV
>> EPISODE! Any additional material in novelisation might become
>> part of the Doctor Who expanded universe by being featured in a
>> novel, but a book doesn't supersede what people saw on-screen.
>> Not every person who watched Doctor Who read the Target books.
>> Doctor Who is a TV show first and foremost.
>>
>
>What people saw on screen was Hartnell de-age and there was never any
>suggestion that he had ever done it before. We are explicitly told this
>by the first Doctor in Twice Upon A Time speaking to Capaldi.
>

Only retribates caanot clue in!

>--
>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 ;

In article <v0d8g9$2u99b$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>The True Doctor wrote on 25/4/24 5:27 am:
>> On 22/04/2024 11:21, Daniel70 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??
>>
>> Chibnall hated Doctor Who so much that he destroyed it for every. No
>> one one can watch it at all.
>>
>Sorry, Aggy, but I think you might have forgotten the "IMHO" or
>something!! I mean, obviously PEOPLE *ARE* WATCHING!!

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 ;

The Doctor wrote on 25/4/24 9:18 pm:

<Snip>

> Only retribates caanot clue in!

"retribates"???
--
Daniel

The Doctor wrote on 25/4/24 9:16 pm:

<Snip>

> "The Doctor" hjaving murderous tendencies?

"hjaving"??

If YOU, asswipe, have 'murderous tendencies', asswipe, YOU should report
yourself directly to The Police directly, asswipe!!
--
Daniel

Daniel declared:

> The Doctor wrote on 25/4/24 9:18 pm:
>
> <Snip>
>
>> Only retribates caanot clue in!
>
> "retribates"???

And "caanot"??

--
solar penguin

In article <v0df6c$2vp2v$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote on 25/4/24 9:16 pm:
>
><Snip>
>
>> "The Doctor" hjaving murderous tendencies?
>
>"hjaving"??
>
>If YOU, a&e, have 'murderous tendencies', a&e, YOU should report
>yourself directly to The Police directly, a&e!!

Yet again, Red-Beard demonstrates why he failed Aus got Talent, comedy edition.

>--
>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 ;

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <xn0okyrq9i4rmsb001@post.eweka.nl>,
> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
> > The True Doctor wrote:
> >>
> >> It's in the Novelization of the story.
> >
> > Are you Jonathan Blum in disguise? IT WASN'T MENTIONED IN
> > THE TV EPISODE! Any additional material in novelisations
> > might become part of the Doctor Who expanded universe by
> > being featured in a novel, but a book doesn't supersede what
> > people saw on-screen. Not every person who watched Doctor
> > Who read the Target books. Doctor Who is a TV show first
> > and foremost.
>
> Bring back Jon Blum!

He chose to leave when the Google disconnect happened... but
RADW is like a drug, I'm sure he's lurking in the shadows
somewhere.

Everyone knows, the only real escape from RADW is death!

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <xn0okyrzpi55cpz002@post.eweka.nl>,
> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
> > The Doctor wrote:
> >>
> >> I doubt anything in the Timeless Child is accurate!
> >
> > How can it be inaccurate? The "Timeless Child" was created
> > and written by the Doctor Who Executive Producer and
> > broadcast on BBC1. You can't get anything more legitimate.
> > Therefore it can't be inaccurate and the Timeless Child has
> > become part of Doctor Who lore.
> >
> > YOU may not like the idea. I may not like the idea. But it is
> > officially part of the show... and it's not likely to change
> > anytime soon. (Based on what we've seen from RTD so far.)
>
> The Timeless Child is Anti-doctorWho!

In your opinion. Which is fine if that's what you believe.

Idlehands wrote:

> On 2024-04-24 1:27 p.m., The True Doctor wrote:
> > On 22/04/2024 11:21, Daniel70 wrote:
> > >
> > > 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??
> > > "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??
> >
> > Chibnall hated Doctor Who so much that he destroyed it for
> > every. No one one can watch it at all.
>
> Well except for those millions of viewers, don't forget about
> them.

These types of self-entitled fans believe it's only about their
opinion, Doctor Who should be made for THEM.

But ignoring the millions that do watch Doctor Who now, even
Agamemnon still watches it! So Doctor Who finished in 2017,
nobody watches it... but he still tunes in to watch every new
episode. <face palm>

The True Doctor wrote:

> On 24/04/2024 22:49, Blueshirt wrote:
> > The Doctor wrote:
> > >
> > > I doubt anything in the Timeless Child is accurate!
> >
> > How can it be inaccurate? The "Timeless Child" was created
> > and written by the Doctor Who Executive Producer and
> > broadcast on BBC1. You can't get anything more legitimate.
> > Therefore it can't be inaccurate and the Timeless Child has
> > become part of Doctor Who lore.
>
> Wrong! Bobby was shot dead in a series made by the Executive
> Producer of Dallas. Except it never happened.

Yes it did happen. That year.

The following year they changed their mind.

The current Executive Producer of Doctor Who has not changed his
mind though has he? He also said he won't un-write his
predecessor, (his "friend"). Plus, from snippets of dialogue
we've already had in RTD's episodes so far, he has basically
reaffirmed The Timeless Child. So Bobby Ewing is a red herring.
The Timeless Child is part of Doctor Who.

Don't like it? Tough.

> > YOU may not like the idea. I may not like the idea. But it is
> > officially part of the show... and it's not likely to change
> > anytime soon. (Based on what we've seen from RTD so far.)
>
> No it isn't. It's not canon and it's not part of Doctor Who.
> Doctor Who ended in 2017.

There is no official Doctor Who canon as well you know. There's
what you like about the show and there's what you dislike about
the show. That's it. But Doctor Who is not made for you, or me
even, so our opinion is pretty much irrelevant in the big scheme
of things.

The Idiot Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <v0akoq$28crk$1@dont-email.me>,
> The False Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>> On 24/04/2024 07:26, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> In article <v09lch$1ublm$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> The False Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>>>> On 24/04/2024 00:10, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was fourteen and it was completely obvious on-screen and from the in-show
>>>>>> dialogue that the eleven faces shown going back in time were meant to be
>>>>>> earlier faces of the Doctor in order. And it still is when the scene is
>>>>>> rewatched.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it isn't. Everything shown on screen is deliberately designed to
>>>>> indicate that the person who is winning the game is the one whose face
>>>>> is shown on screen and that is made to obvious even to a 6 year old.
>>>
>>> Contradiction is not an argument.
>>>
>>
>> Yes it is. It's used all the time in mathematical proofs.

As Aggie knows full well, there is a significant difference between a
rigorous mathematical proof and a fool yelling “No it isn’t!” over and over
again.

If someone says “2+2=4” and the response is “no it isn’t! I say 2+2=-7!”
there is no proof there, merely an asserted contradiction.

The Faces of Morbius is a much more nuanced case and the facts are there on
screen and in interviews with those responsible.

When the producer and writer say that they are faces of the Doctor, and
what we see on screen is :

The Doctor challenges Morbius to a mind-bending contest. He characterises
it as “Time Lord wrestling” but what it looks like is a sort of
visualisation of a tug of war of personal timelines.

The first image we see is Morbius as he is now. Then, as the Doctor
initially has the upper hand, the image “pushes back” to the previous face
of Morbius. Then Morbius pushes back and we see Tom’s face. Then Jon
Pertwee’s. Then Tom doubles down and we see his face again. But then
Morbius gleefully powers up and Tom becomes Pertwee again, then Troughton,
then Hartnell, then the eight mystery faces. And Morbius is crowing, as
this montage shows on screen:

“Is your mind, Doctor, going?” (As Tom’s face first changes to Jon’s).

(Then silence as they wrestle for a few moments and as Morbius gains the
upper hand and Tom’s face becomes Jon’s again:)

“How far, Doctor? How long have you lived?”

(Jon turns into Pat, then Bill)

And then he continues over the next sequence:

“Your puny mind is powerless against the strength of Morbius! … Back. To.
Your. Beginning!”

(Bill changes to another face, then another, and another … 8 more faces in
all, until Morbius’ Brian case overloads and the contest ends abruptly with
Morbius staggering away and Tom falling unconscious.)

If those were Morbius’s faces, why didn’t the Doctor’s faces roll forward
to Tom again? Or why didn’t the image switch back to show the current or
previous Morbius first before rolling back to show the earlier faces, as
the Doctor’s did?

Morbius says “How far, how long have you lived?” as the screen goes back
from Baker to Hartnell - and as the same sequence continues into the
unknown faces, he cries “Back to YOUR beginning!” … although, of course,
as the contest is cut short, there could be many more lives still to go
that are not seen there …

The logic of what is seen on screen, and the accompanying dialogue, are
obvious. People can argue otherwise, or argue from Terrance Dicks’s retcon
in the novelisation of the script he hated so much he refused to be
associated with it … but they’re arguing from emotion and a desire for
later restrictions to be consistent and not contradictory to this scene.
Not from logic. And I hate to say it but squaring that circle without
denying the truth of one or more televised stories, requires a convoluted
twist in the history like the Timeless Child.

>>
>>>>> It's fully explained in that exact manner the original script writer
>>>>> himself in his own novelization of his own script.
>>>
>>> Aggie needs to make up his mind.
>>>
>>> Does he want to include all off screen material by the writers directly
>>> relating to the show? If not, then no elaboration or additional fan fic
>>> added in novelisations counts. If it was in the scripts but cut or changed
>>> on screen then it is also no longer relevant. And on screen it’s clear
>>> those are pre-Hartnell Doctors and it’s so no matter how many times Aggie
>>> screams “IS NOT!”
>>>
>>> But if so, then the material excised from the original writer’s scripts
>>> counts, and Whitaker’s take on renewal for the Power of the Daleks counts.
>>> And as that is earlier than Morbius then it takes precedence according to
>>> Aggie, and there are pre-Hartnell Doctors.
>>>
>>
>> Absolute rubbish.
>>
>> Terrance Dicks wrote the original script and wrote the novelization.

Terrance Dicks disowned the script - the story was saw was a compete
rewrite by Robert Holmes.

The novelization is irrelevant to what is on screen. And what is on screen
is a subset of prior incarnations of the Doctor.

>>>>> all the faces the viewer does not recognize are those
>>>>> generated by Morbius of himself as he appeared in the past and in
>>>>> disguise, since it's clearly not Tom Baker.
>>>
>>> Aggie thinks Morbius was Tom Baker and the faces are meant to be Tom Baker
>>> in disguise? Is that in Terrance Dicks novelisation too (or attempted total
>>> rewrite of the story, as it would seem)?
>>
>> I said nothing of the kind.

Aggie wrote: “all the faces the viewer does not recognize are those
generated by Morbius of himself as he appeared in the past and in disguise,
since it's clearly not Tom Baker.”

So he wrote that he thinks the faces are Morbius, in the past, and in
disguise: because it’s not Tom Baker. Logically, therefore, if Morbius
hadn’t been in disguise, Aggie thinks he WOULD have been Tom Baker. It’s
right there in what Aggie wrote, all in one unedited sentence. “Nothing of
the kind”, indeed. That’s EXACTLY what he wrote. And since he is such a
self-proclaimed master of good writing, what he wrote must be what he
meant.

>>>>> You think Chibnall can write better than a 6 year old child? Don't make
>>>>> me laugh. Chibnall writes like a child with autism which has never read
>>>>> a book before in its entire life. He doesn't understand characters, he
>>>>> doesn't understand interpersonal relationships, he doesn't understand
>>>>> social interaction, and he doesn't understand romance. Oh, and he
>>>>> doesn't understand science in any way, shape, or form, whatsoever.
>>>
>>> Sounds like Aggie thinks he and Chris Chibnall are soulmates! He certainly
>>> seems to be describing himself (well, to be fair, Aggie does know a bit of
>>> science. But as he’s rejected logic and rationality, it doesn’t do him any
>>> good).
>>
>> Sounds like a depiction of your own self.
>>
>
> Hear! Hear!! AGA!

Correct Dave - it is a description of Aggie.

--
“The timelines and … canon … are rupturing” - the Doctor

On 2024-04-25 6:23 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
> Idlehands wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-24 1:27 p.m., The True Doctor wrote:
>>> On 22/04/2024 11:21, Daniel70 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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??
>>>> "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??
>>>
>>> Chibnall hated Doctor Who so much that he destroyed it for
>>> every. No one one can watch it at all.
>>
>> Well except for those millions of viewers, don't forget about
>> them.
>
> These types of self-entitled fans believe it's only about their
> opinion, Doctor Who should be made for THEM.
>
> But ignoring the millions that do watch Doctor Who now, even
> Agamemnon still watches it! So Doctor Who finished in 2017,
> nobody watches it... but he still tunes in to watch every new
> episode. <face palm>
>

But Aggy does speak for the majority of the world....LOLOLOLOLOL.

He claims to watch it so other's don't have to which is pretty heroic,
he's a legend in his own mind.

--
Facisim: The first step is to fascinate fools and muzzle the intelligent

Bertrand Russell