In article <xn0ol14z5ke38vd002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>The True Doctor wrote:
>
>> On 25/04/2024 15:01, Blueshirt wrote:
>>
>> > Doctor Who history features a pre-First Doctor incarnation
>> > now, and right or wrong - or until it's rewritten by another
>> > Doctor Who showrunner at some stage in the future - that is
>> > the way it is.
>>
>> There are no incarnations of the Doctor before Hartnell.
>
>Apart from the one that appeared in Doctor Who recently of
>course.
>
>I know it must hurt, but unfortunately it is part of the show.
>
>Don't shoot the messenger!
>

Shoot chibnall!

>> > Doctor Ruth/The Fugitive Doctor exists in episodes of Doctor
>> > Who as broadcast on BBC1 and has her own range of Big Finish
>> > audio adventures coming next year, licensed and approved by
>> > the BBC.
>>
>> Big Finish is not canon and neither is Doctor Ruth, unless you
>> mean the psychologist.
>>
>> Officially non-canon.
>
>There is no official Doctor Who canon. So therefore there can be
>no official non-canon. BUT, if there was such a thing as Doctor
>Who canon, the Fugitive Doctor would be considered part of it!
>As the people who do claim there is a canon usually mean what is
>seen on-screen in an episode of Doctor Who.
>
>> The ones claiming incarnations before Hartnell are
>> hallucinating and smoking opium.
>
>Or they have watched Doctor Who in recent years and seen a
>pre-Hartnell incarnation.
>
>> No one in their right mind could be stupid enough to believe a
>> totally insane conspiracy theory that completely erases the
>> character of the Doctor and replaces him with a monster based
>> on Doomsday.
>
>Well, it is a bit weird and definitely poorly conceived but the
>simple fact is, it's there.
>
>> And now with the bigeneration bullshit attached to it it's
>> become even more incredulous, unbelievable,
>
>But you can believe in an alien that can change his face, his
>gender, his skin colour, can travel around time and space in a
>blue wooden box...that's bigger on the outside, and fights
>pepper-pots on wheels (with men inside) to save the universe?!
>
>WELL THAT'S ALRIGHT THEN!

Is it?
--
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 <xn0ol159gkei4rh001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>The True Doctor wrote:
>
>> On 25/04/2024 10:41, Daniel70 wrote:
>> > The True Doctor wrote on 25/4/24 5:27 am:
>> >
>> > Sorry, Aggy, but I think you might have forgotten the "IMHO"
>> > or something!! I mean, obviously PEOPLE ARE WATCHING!!
>>
>> Since Doctor Who ended in 2017 how can anyone possibly be
>> watching? Unless it's old episodes.
>
>But you watched it! You've posted your thoughts on every episode
>of Doctor Who broadcast since 2017! So clearly your grasp of
>reality has gone awry, or something...
>
>Says nobody watches it, but then watches it!
>
>How can anyone take you seriously?

And yourself?
--
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 ;

Daniel70 wrote:

> The True Doctor wrote on 26/4/24 7:45 am:
> >
> > Doctor Who ended in 2017.
>
> I thought, basically, Canon IS whatever appears on T.V.!
> Books/Comic/Whatever can ADD to Canon BUT can NEVER contradict
> Canon!!

Unlike some other sci-fi shows there is no official Doctor Who
canon laid down by the BBC. But as I said earlier, IF there was
a Doctor Who canon, then by most people's ideas of what
'counts', the Fugitive Doctor would be part of it.

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <v0fbsu$3gce4$1@dont-email.me>,
> Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> > Opps!!
> >
>
> Just adding to your post count?

<VBG> !

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <xn0ol159gkei4rh001@post.eweka.nl>,
> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
> > The True Doctor wrote:
> >>
> >> Since Doctor Who ended in 2017 how can anyone possibly be
> >> watching? Unless it's old episodes.
> >
> > But you watched it! You've posted your thoughts on every
> > episode of Doctor Who broadcast since 2017! So clearly your
> > grasp of reality has gone awry, or something...
> >
> > Says nobody watches it, but then watches it!
> >
> > How can anyone take you seriously?
>
> And yourself?

Well, in my humble opinion, I think I have a reasonable grasp of
what's what and I know that Doctor Who didn't end in 2017 and
that people still watch it. So yeah, I'm okay thanks.

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <xn0ol14jkkdgo7q000@post.eweka.nl>,
> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
> > The True Doctor wrote:
> >
> >> Then there might be a possibility of Doctor Who
> >> returning to out screens in place of the stupid and
> >> nonsensical Bugs Bunny inspired Adventures of the Timeless
> >> Child monster cartoon, circus mallets and all, that RTD and
> >> the BBC have replaced it with.
> >
> > "Chibnall out" they cried, because he dared to cast a female
> > as the Doctor. Then RTD came back, "hurrah" they said. But
> > then RTD cast a gay man as the Doctor... now they say, sack
> > RTD!
> >
> > The good news is, Doctor Who returns in two weeks time.
>
> Sack RTD? Who is saying that.

If the "anti-woke" brigade are not saying it now on some YouTube
channel, I'm sure it's only a matter of time!

With Doctor Who showrunners it doesn't usually take long.

Watch this space...

In article <xn0ol15itkevpwe002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>Daniel70 wrote:
>
>> The True Doctor wrote on 26/4/24 7:45 am:
>> >
>> > Doctor Who ended in 2017.
>>
>> I thought, basically, Canon IS whatever appears on T.V.!
>> Books/Comic/Whatever can ADD to Canon BUT can NEVER contradict
>> Canon!!
>
>Unlike some other sci-fi shows there is no official Doctor Who
>canon laid down by the BBC. But as I said earlier, IF there was
>a Doctor Who canon, then by most people's ideas of what
>'counts', the Fugitive Doctor would be part of it.

Bogus!
--
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 <xn0ol15khkey4qa003@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
>
>> In article <v0fbsu$3gce4$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> > Opps!!
>> >
>>
>> Just adding to your post count?
>
><VBG> !

YMMV!
--
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 <xn0ol1632kfjv8u005@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
>
>> In article <xn0ol159gkei4rh001@post.eweka.nl>,
>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>> > The True Doctor wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Since Doctor Who ended in 2017 how can anyone possibly be
>> >> watching? Unless it's old episodes.
>> >
>> > But you watched it! You've posted your thoughts on every
>> > episode of Doctor Who broadcast since 2017! So clearly your
>> > grasp of reality has gone awry, or something...
>> >
>> > Says nobody watches it, but then watches it!
>> >
>> > How can anyone take you seriously?
>>
>> And yourself?
>
>Well, in my humble opinion, I think I have a reasonable grasp of
>what's what and I know that Doctor Who didn't end in 2017 and
>that people still watch it. So yeah, I'm okay thanks.

The Timeless Child part of Doctor Who?
--
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 <xn0ol168wkfs8sb006@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
>
>> In article <xn0ol14jkkdgo7q000@post.eweka.nl>,
>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>> > The True Doctor wrote:
>> >
>> >> Then there might be a possibility of Doctor Who
>> >> returning to out screens in place of the stupid and
>> >> nonsensical Bugs Bunny inspired Adventures of the Timeless
>> >> Child monster cartoon, circus mallets and all, that RTD and
>> >> the BBC have replaced it with.
>> >
>> > "Chibnall out" they cried, because he dared to cast a female
>> > as the Doctor. Then RTD came back, "hurrah" they said. But
>> > then RTD cast a gay man as the Doctor... now they say, sack
>> > RTD!
>> >
>> > The good news is, Doctor Who returns in two weeks time.
>>
>> Sack RTD? Who is saying that.
>
>If the "anti-woke" brigade are not saying it now on some YouTube
>channel, I'm sure it's only a matter of time!
>
>With Doctor Who showrunners it doesn't usually take long.
>
>Watch this space...

For?
--
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 <xn0ol14z5ke38vd002@post.eweka.nl>,
> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
> > The True Doctor wrote:
> >>
> >> There are no incarnations of the Doctor before Hartnell.
> >
> > Apart from the one that appeared in Doctor Who recently of
> > course.
> >
> > I know it must hurt, but unfortunately it is part of the
> > show.
> >
> > Don't shoot the messenger!
>
> Shoot chibnall!

That's a very Christian attitude Dave. Shooting somebody because
they made some episodes of TV show you don't like!

You could just ignore it and move on, like normal people...

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <v0g36b$3lpuo$1@dont-email.me>,
> The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> > On 26/04/2024 12:18, Blueshirt wrote:
> >> The True Doctor wrote:
> >>>
> >>> He's got something useful to contribute. Retcon the
> >>> Timeless Child.
> >>
> >> Only people with no life would waste their time campaigning
> >> for something that's not going to happen... well, not in the
> >> immediate future anyway.
> >
> > If the BBC want to resurrect Doctor Who and start making
> > money from it again then the Timeless Child monster has to
> > go.
>
> And retconned!

What happens if The Timeless Child era is ever retconned, does
somebody come round to my house and take the Blu-rays off my
shelf?

In article <xn0ol16d0kfy8x5007@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
>
>> In article <xn0ol14z5ke38vd002@post.eweka.nl>,
>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>> > The True Doctor wrote:
>> >>
>> >> There are no incarnations of the Doctor before Hartnell.
>> >
>> > Apart from the one that appeared in Doctor Who recently of
>> > course.
>> >
>> > I know it must hurt, but unfortunately it is part of the
>> > show.
>> >
>> > Don't shoot the messenger!
>>
>> Shoot chibnall!
>
>That's a very Christian attitude Dave. Shooting somebody because
>they made some episodes of TV show you don't like!
>
>You could just ignore it and move on, like normal people...

You were saying about shooting a messenger ...
--
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 <xn0ol16iokg6eci008@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
>
>> In article <v0g36b$3lpuo$1@dont-email.me>,
>> The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>> > On 26/04/2024 12:18, Blueshirt wrote:
>> >> The True Doctor wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> He's got something useful to contribute. Retcon the
>> >>> Timeless Child.
>> >>
>> >> Only people with no life would waste their time campaigning
>> >> for something that's not going to happen... well, not in the
>> >> immediate future anyway.
>> >
>> > If the BBC want to resurrect Doctor Who and start making
>> > money from it again then the Timeless Child monster has to
>> > go.
>>
>> And retconned!
>
>What happens if The Timeless Child era is ever retconned, does
>somebody come round to my house and take the Blu-rays off my
>shelf?

Do it yourself.
--
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 <xn0ol15itkevpwe002@post.eweka.nl>,
> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
> > Daniel70 wrote:
> >
> >> The True Doctor wrote on 26/4/24 7:45 am:
> >> >
> >> > Doctor Who ended in 2017.
> >>
> >> I thought, basically, Canon IS whatever appears on T.V.!
> >> Books/Comic/Whatever can ADD to Canon BUT can NEVER
> >> contradict Canon!!
> >
> > Unlike some other sci-fi shows there is no official Doctor
> > Who canon laid down by the BBC. But as I said earlier, IF
> > there was a Doctor Who canon, then by most people's ideas of
> > what 'counts', the Fugitive Doctor would be part of it.
>
> Bogus!

Prove otherwise or STFU about something you clearly know nothing
about.

If there is an official BBC Doctor Who canon please provide a
link to something that would back up this claim...

The Idiot Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <v0ehbd$37ds0$1@dont-email.me>,
> The False Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>> On 25/04/2024 13:49, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>> 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 Idiot 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.
>>
>> Squealer either doesn't know how proof by contradiction works or is
>> pretending he doesn't in order to perpetuate his lies and false narratives.

Quite apart from the infantile name calling from one who would fit the role
of “Squealer” in Animal Farm rather better than I would, it is Aggie who’s
dissembling, as I quite clearly differentiated between a mathematical proof
and the blind contradictions he offers up.

>>> 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.
>>
>> That's not proof by contradiction.

No. But it’s the kind of contradiction Aggie was offering, which is a very
different thing from the mathematical usage of the word “contradiction”.

Rather like the word “theory” means something very different in common
usage than it does in science.

I’m going to skip over most of the very forced interpretation Aggie tries
to apply by begging the question, assuming his result instead of observing
the evidence. Or we’ll be into back-and-forth contradiction again.

[SNIP]

But I will just note the point where Aggie outright lies. Anyone who cares
to check - just review the eigthteenth minute of episode 4 of “The Brain of
Morbius”.

>> The Doctor already went back to his beginning when we saw Hartnell's
>> face. That's when Morbius tells him that.

That is simply a lie to support Aggie’s argument.

As the faces roll back from Baker to Hartnell, Morbius cries out “How far
back do you go?”

Then, as the sequence of the Doctor’s earlier faces continues into unknown
incarnations, Morbius crows about his power.

And as the last few pre-Hartnell faces that we see roll along … THEN the
“Back to your beginning” line occurs.

The proof is right there on screen. Aggie is welcome to believe differently
- after all, he is continually lying about the current state of existence
of the show in n his deluded arrogance - but he really should stop making
statements that can be easily refuted by actually watching the footage.

[SNIP Aggie bringing Dicks’ attempt to retcon Holmes’ work in the
novelisation AGAIN.]

>> fails. If they're the faces of the Doctor going back to his beginning
>> why isn't even one of them female, let alone black. Where is Jo Martin's
>> face. Where is the face of the Timeless Child Monster?

Out of Universe, even Aggie can’t really expect the TV producers of 1976 to
be able to show pictures of a woman who wouldn’t be cast in the role for
another 44 years to be placed in the montage. The actress playing the
Fugitive Doctor wasn’t even born then. That’s a truly idiotic argument.

In Universe, the contest was cut short when Morbius’ brain case blew a
fuse. Luckily for the Doctor, who it is implied would have died if he’d
lost any further - as it is, he was knocked unconscious. So Morbius never
made it all the way back to the beginning - the Fugitive Doctor and other
earlier incarnations leading to the original Timeless Child … or earlier! -
are never reached.

>>
>> There, that's proof of my assertion by contradiction. Chibnall destroyed
>> any and all claim to using The Brain of Morbius to back up his childish
>> fan fiction the moment he declared that Ruth was Hartnell's immediate
>> predecessor.

Aggie is lying again, in order to construct his fallacious “proof”. At no
point is it asserted explicitly that the Fugitive Doctor immediately
precedes Hartnell. The Doctor who is erased and becomes Hartnell is shown
only via the “Brendan” analogy. The Fugitive could have carried on as a
rogue through many incarnations before being finally “reset”.

>>> 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
>>
>> They are so obvious that they entirely destroy your argument Squealer.
>> You fell off the ladder and were seen covered in paint because you tried
>> to alter the rules, alter continuity.

Aggie proves once again who is lying and altering not only the rules, but
the facts, to try to prop up his house of cards.

>> Terrance Dicks’s wasn't a retcon, because all existing continuity
>> established Hartnell as the first Doctor. Does The Three Doctor's give
>> you a hint?

The appallingly powerful “retcon” of the Timeless Child allows for those
apparent contradictions.

>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> The Timeless Child is not and can never be the Doctor. Doctor Who ended
>> in 2017.

Proof that Aggie is lying and delusional isn’t really needed, is it? He
provides the proof himself with his every post.

>>>>>>>> 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
>>
>> Everything we are shown on screen shows the viewer that those are the
>> faces of Morbius. There is not suggestion whatsoever that the Doctor had
>> lives before Hartnell.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I said nothing of you kind Squealer. Your dissembling isn't fooling
>> anyone. The person winning the tug-of-war is the person whose faces are
>> displayed on the screen, like in any game show or sporting event when
>> the gymnast with the highest score has their face repeatedly shown on
>> screen unless they are taken over by someone else, and their their face
>> replaces them.
>>
>> Where is the face of Jo Martin? Where is even one female face at all?
>> Where is even one black face? They're all white males, because they're
>> the faces, or disguises used by Morbius who we have already been told is
>> a fugitive from Gallifrey.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> It is a description of yourself.
>>
>
> Thank you.

The Doctor wrote on 26/4/24 9:33 pm:
> In article <v0fbsu$3gce4$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel70
> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> Opps!!
>
> Just adding to your post count?

<Snip>

>>> If you've nothing useful to contribute to a proper Doctor Who
>>> discussion, go and do something more useful with your time
>>> instead. Like playing with the traffic...
>>>
>> Or, didn't he have an (On-line) Animal Farm or something??
>> (On-line, because no one in their right mind would let the & NEAR
>> any real animals!!)
>
> 3 cats enjoying home life here and not street life.

WHAT?? YOU, asswipe, have three (On-line) cats that enjoy YOUR home,
asswipe!!

REALLY??
--
Daniel

In article <v0g97i$3n622$1@dont-email.me>,
The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>The Idiot Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>> In article <v0ehbd$37ds0$1@dont-email.me>,
>> The False Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>> On 25/04/2024 13:49, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>> 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 Idiot 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.
>>>
>>> Squealer either doesn't know how proof by contradiction works or is
>>> pretending he doesn't in order to perpetuate his lies and false narratives.
>
>Quite apart from the infantile name calling from one who would fit the role
>of “Squealer” in Animal Farm rather better than I would, it is Aggie who’s
>dissembling, as I quite clearly differentiated between a mathematical proof
>and the blind contradictions he offers up.
>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> That's not proof by contradiction.
>
>No. But it’s the kind of contradiction Aggie was offering, which is a very
>different thing from the mathematical usage of the word “contradiction”.
>
>Rather like the word “theory” means something very different in common
>usage than it does in science.
>
>I’m going to skip over most of the very forced interpretation Aggie tries
>to apply by begging the question, assuming his result instead of observing
>the evidence. Or we’ll be into back-and-forth contradiction again.
>
>[SNIP]
>
>But I will just note the point where Aggie outright lies. Anyone who cares
>to check - just review the eigthteenth minute of episode 4 of “The Brain of
>Morbius”.
>
>
>>> The Doctor already went back to his beginning when we saw Hartnell's
>>> face. That's when Morbius tells him that.
>
>That is simply a lie to support Aggie’s argument.
>
>As the faces roll back from Baker to Hartnell, Morbius cries out “How far
>back do you go?”
>
>Then, as the sequence of the Doctor’s earlier faces continues into unknown
>incarnations, Morbius crows about his power.
>
>And as the last few pre-Hartnell faces that we see roll along … THEN the
>“Back to your beginning” line occurs.
>
>The proof is right there on screen. Aggie is welcome to believe differently
>- after all, he is continually lying about the current state of existence
>of the show in n his deluded arrogance - but he really should stop making
>statements that can be easily refuted by actually watching the footage.
>
>
>[SNIP Aggie bringing Dicks’ attempt to retcon Holmes’ work in the
>novelisation AGAIN.]
>
>>> fails. If they're the faces of the Doctor going back to his beginning
>>> why isn't even one of them female, let alone black. Where is Jo Martin's
>>> face. Where is the face of the Timeless Child Monster?
>
>Out of Universe, even Aggie can’t really expect the TV producers of 1976 to
>be able to show pictures of a woman who wouldn’t be cast in the role for
>another 44 years to be placed in the montage. The actress playing the
>Fugitive Doctor wasn’t even born then. That’s a truly idiotic argument.
>
>In Universe, the contest was cut short when Morbius’ brain case blew a
>fuse. Luckily for the Doctor, who it is implied would have died if he’d
>lost any further - as it is, he was knocked unconscious. So Morbius never
>made it all the way back to the beginning - the Fugitive Doctor and other
>earlier incarnations leading to the original Timeless Child … or earlier! -
>are never reached.
>
>>>
>>> There, that's proof of my assertion by contradiction. Chibnall destroyed
>>> any and all claim to using The Brain of Morbius to back up his childish
>>> fan fiction the moment he declared that Ruth was Hartnell's immediate
>>> predecessor.
>
>Aggie is lying again, in order to construct his fallacious “proof”. At no
>point is it asserted explicitly that the Fugitive Doctor immediately
>precedes Hartnell. The Doctor who is erased and becomes Hartnell is shown
>only via the “Brendan” analogy. The Fugitive could have carried on as a
>rogue through many incarnations before being finally “reset”.
>
>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> They are so obvious that they entirely destroy your argument Squealer.
>>> You fell off the ladder and were seen covered in paint because you tried
>>> to alter the rules, alter continuity.
>
>Aggie proves once again who is lying and altering not only the rules, but
>the facts, to try to prop up his house of cards.
>
>
>>> Terrance Dicks’s wasn't a retcon, because all existing continuity
>>> established Hartnell as the first Doctor. Does The Three Doctor's give
>>> you a hint?
>
>The appallingly powerful “retcon” of the Timeless Child allows for those
>apparent contradictions.
>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Timeless Child is not and can never be the Doctor. Doctor Who ended
>>> in 2017.
>
>Proof that Aggie is lying and delusional isn’t really needed, is it? He
>provides the proof himself with his every post.
>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> Everything we are shown on screen shows the viewer that those are the
>>> faces of Morbius. There is not suggestion whatsoever that the Doctor had
>>> lives before Hartnell.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I said nothing of you kind Squealer. Your dissembling isn't fooling
>>> anyone. The person winning the tug-of-war is the person whose faces are
>>> displayed on the screen, like in any game show or sporting event when
>>> the gymnast with the highest score has their face repeatedly shown on
>>> screen unless they are taken over by someone else, and their their face
>>> replaces them.
>>>
>>> Where is the face of Jo Martin? Where is even one female face at all?
>>> Where is even one black face? They're all white males, because they're
>>> the faces, or disguises used by Morbius who we have already been told is
>>> a fugitive from Gallifrey.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is a description of yourself.
>>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>
>Dave, Aggie has you kill-filed because he thinks you are an idiot. And
>thanking him for his lunacy kind of supports that.
>
>As I have him kill-filed because he’s insane.
>

In article <v0gd3n$3ntgi$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote on 26/4/24 9:33 pm:
>> In article <v0fbsu$3gce4$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel70
>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>> Opps!!
>>
>> Just adding to your post count?
>
><Snip>
>
>>>> If you've nothing useful to contribute to a proper Doctor Who
>>>> discussion, go and do something more useful with your time
>>>> instead. Like playing with the traffic...
>>>>
>>> Or, didn't he have an (On-line) Animal Farm or something??
>>> (On-line, because no one in their right mind would let the & NEAR
>>> any real animals!!)
>>
>> 3 cats enjoying home life here and not street life.
>
>WHAT?? YOU, a%e, have three (On-line) cats that enjoy YOUR home,
>a%e!!
>
>REALLY??

Live not online and I miss the 5 kittens we had 3 years ago.

>--
>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 ;

On 26/04/2024 14:12, The Last Doctor wrote:
> The Idiot Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>> In article <v0ehbd$37ds0$1@dont-email.me>,
>> The False Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>> On 25/04/2024 13:49, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>> 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 Idiot 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.
>>>
>>> Squealer either doesn't know how proof by contradiction works or is
>>> pretending he doesn't in order to perpetuate his lies and false narratives.
>
> Quite apart from the infantile name calling from one who would fit the role
> of “Squealer” in Animal Farm rather better than I would, it is Aggie who’s
> dissembling, as I quite clearly differentiated between a mathematical proof
> and the blind contradictions he offers up.
>

I'm not the one who has been caught trying to change the rules/canon
written on the side of the barn after being caught falling off his
ladder covered in the contents of a tin of white paint. That's you
Squealer, and lying that it was Snowball instead of you isn't going to
believed by anyone. Snowball is dead. Doctor Who is also dead!

>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> That's not proof by contradiction.
>
> No. But it’s the kind of contradiction Aggie was offering, which is a very
> different thing from the mathematical usage of the word “contradiction”.
>

No it wasn't.

> Rather like the word “theory” means something very different in common
> usage than it does in science.
>

Squealer is now trying to publish the 11th Edition of the Newspeak
Dictionary ahead of schedule.

> But I will just note the point where Aggie outright lies. Anyone who cares
> to check - just review the eigthteenth minute of episode 4 of “The Brain of
> Morbius”.
>

Where's Doctor Ruth among the faces of the Doctor? She's not there
because there's no Doctor Ruth. The Doctor's regenerations begin at
Hartnell. Where's Ruth's before his face? It's not there because all the
faces after Hartnell are those of Morbius, and Hartnell is declared as
the beginning of the Doctor, not Ruth.

>
>>> The Doctor already went back to his beginning when we saw Hartnell's
>>> face. That's when Morbius tells him that.
>
> That is simply a lie to support Aggie’s argument.
>

That is not a lie. It is a concrete fact Squealer.

> As the faces roll back from Baker to Hartnell, Morbius cries out “How far
> back do you go?”

No further back than Hartnell, then Morbius starts winning the tug of
war and his faces dominate the screen. There's no Doctor Ruth there at
all. All the faces are white men.

>
> Then, as the sequence of the Doctor’s earlier faces continues into unknown
> incarnations, Morbius crows about his power.

Morbius crows about his power because they are his faces Squealer.
You're lies and dissembling are not fooling anyone. The white paint
covering your head and body proves it, and there's not Snowball in sight.

>
> And as the last few pre-Hartnell faces that we see roll along … THEN the
> “Back to your beginning” line occurs.

Those are the face's of Morbius which appear after he has sent the
Doctor back to his beginning and it is clear that the Doctor can't
summon up any other faces/previous minds to fight the tug of war any
further.

>
> The proof is right there on screen. Aggie is welcome to believe differently

Here is what actually happened on screen as described by the original
writer in his own novelization.

It appears Terrance Dicks is claiming that the person losing is the face
on the screen, but it makes no difference to what I said before, since
the Doctor is actually described as winning the game in the end,
therefore either interpretation demonstrates that the faces other than
those of the Doctor from Tom Baker to William Hartnell are those of
Morbius not those of the Doctor.

<<‘Now, now,’ said the Doctor reprovingly. ‘Mustn’t get the old brain
overheated, must we? You want to take care—it’s not as strong as it was!’

‘My brain functions perfectly!’

‘I doubt it, Morbius. All that time in the tank, it’s bound to have gone
a little soft. I say, would you care to put it to the test? How about a
small game of mind-bending? We have all the apparatus here.’

At last Sarah saw the Doctor’s plan. ‘No, Doctor, you mustn’t,’ she
called. The Doctor ignored her.

‘I challenge you, Morbius! Well, what do you say?’

The photo-electric cell that served Morbius for eyes surveyed the
apparatus. ‘I am a Time Lord of the first rank, Doctor. What are you?’

‘Oh I’m nothing,’ said the Doctor hastily. ‘A mere nobody. But you see,
Morbius, I don’t think you’re in the first rank any more.’

Morbius stepped forward and fixed the headset to his transparent
brain-case. ‘Very well, Doctor if that is how you choose to die. I
accept your challenge.’

‘Now there’s a sporting gentleman,’ said the Doctor cheerfully. But
inside he was far from lighthearted. He knew he stood little chance of
defeating Morbius. His only hope was that the tremendous stresses of the
game would expose some of the hidden weaknesses left by Solon’s operation.

The Doctor put on his headset. ‘To the death, Morbius?’

‘To the death, Doctor. I, Morbius, do not play games.’

‘Nor I,’ said the Doctor grimly. ‘Are you ready? On guard!’

The Doctor and Morbius braced themselves, gripping the gleaming
scaffolding. Sarah saw a swirl of images on the central screen. A
familiar face appeared—the face they had seen depicted on Solon’s clay
head. Morbius gave a cry of rage—clearly the appearance of ‘his’ face
was a sign that he was losing.

Morbius rallied, and the face of the Doctor appeared on the screen.

Sarah saw that the real Doctor’s face was twisted with effort. Drops of
perspiration covered his forehead. Another face appeared on the screen,
the debonair white-haired features of the Doctor, as Sarah had first
known him.

‘You are going, Doctor, going!’ roared Morbius triumphantly. ‘How far,
Doctor? How long have you lived?’

Yet another Doctor appeared on the screen—a dark-haired little man with
a whimsical expression. Then another face... a proud-looking old man.
Exultantly Morbius shouted, ‘Your puny mind is powerless against the
brain of Morbius. Back, Doctor, back to your beginnings. To your
birth—and to your death!’ Sarah had a confused impression of even more
faces on the screen.>>

So we see the Doctor's first face last, that of Hartnell, and then the
other faces are those of Morbius, since the Doctor is winning if Dicks
assertion that the faces on screen are those of the person losing. Since...

<<The Doctor was groaning, clutching the scaffolding for support...

Morbius gave a sudden terrible scream. There was a blue flash, and the
transparent brain-case filled with smoke. The Doctor pulled himself
upright and smiled weakly. Static electricity had fused the circuits in
the brain-case, and Morbius was reduced once more to a mindless Monster.
The last thing the Doctor saw was the Monster lurching out of the open
door. Then blackness swallowed him up.>>

On 2024-04-26 6:27 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
> The Doctor wrote:
>
>> In article <xn0ol14z5ke38vd002@post.eweka.nl>,
>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are no incarnations of the Doctor before Hartnell.
>>>
>>> Apart from the one that appeared in Doctor Who recently of
>>> course.
>>>
>>> I know it must hurt, but unfortunately it is part of the
>>> show.
>>>
>>> Don't shoot the messenger!
>>
>> Shoot chibnall!
>
> That's a very Christian attitude Dave. Shooting somebody because
> they made some episodes of TV show you don't like!
>
> You could just ignore it and move on, like normal people...

Binky is the idiot who compared the Russian invasion of the Ukraine to
Chibnall and Doctor Who.

Face it, he is not dealing from a full deck and has the mind of a 10
year old. And I am being generous because he spells like a six year old.

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

Bertrand Russell

On 2024-04-26 8:18 a.m., Daniel70 wrote:
> The Doctor wrote on 26/4/24 9:33 pm:
>> In article <v0fbsu$3gce4$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel70
>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>> Opps!!
>>
>> Just adding to your post count?
>
> <Snip>
>
>>>> If you've nothing useful to contribute to a proper Doctor Who
>>>> discussion, go and do something more useful with your time instead.
>>>> Like playing with the traffic...
>>>>
>>> Or, didn't he have an (On-line) Animal Farm or something?? (On-line,
>>> because no one in their right mind would let the & NEAR any real
>>> animals!!)
>>
>> 3 cats enjoying home life here and not street life.
>
> WHAT?? YOU, asswipe, have three (On-line) cats that enjoy YOUR home,
> asswipe!!
>
> REALLY??

I am sure mummy makes sure the litter box is clean and the cats are fed
while binky sits in his basement playing EmpireKred and patting himself
on the back.

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

Bertrand Russell

On 4/26/2024 18:31, Idlehands wrote:

>
> Face it, he is not dealing from a full deck and has the mind of a 10
> year old.  And I am being generous because he spells like a six year old.
>

Please don't insult 10 year olds, and 6 year olds like that!

--

Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
--Carl Sagan

In article <v0h81i$3u3vn$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>On 26/04/2024 14:12, The Last Doctor wrote:
>> The Idiot Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <v0ehbd$37ds0$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The False Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>>> On 25/04/2024 13:49, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>>> 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 Idiot 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.
>>>>
>>>> Squealer either doesn't know how proof by contradiction works or is
>>>> pretending he doesn't in order to perpetuate his lies and false narratives.
>>
>> Quite apart from the infantile name calling from one who would fit the role
>> of “Squealer” in Animal Farm rather better than I would, it is
>Aggie who’s
>> dissembling, as I quite clearly differentiated between a mathematical proof
>> and the blind contradictions he offers up.
>>
>
>I'm not the one who has been caught trying to change the rules/canon
>written on the side of the barn after being caught falling off his
>ladder covered in the contents of a tin of white paint. That's you
>Squealer, and lying that it was Snowball instead of you isn't going to
>believed by anyone. Snowball is dead. Doctor Who is also dead!
>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> That's not proof by contradiction.
>>
>> No. But it’s the kind of contradiction Aggie was offering, which is a very
>> different thing from the mathematical usage of the word “contradiction”.
>>
>
>No it wasn't.
>
>> Rather like the word “theory” means something very different in common
>> usage than it does in science.
>>
>
>Squealer is now trying to publish the 11th Edition of the Newspeak
>Dictionary ahead of schedule.
>
>
>> But I will just note the point where Aggie outright lies. Anyone who cares
>> to check - just review the eigthteenth minute of episode 4 of “The Brain of
>> Morbius”.
>>
>
>Where's Doctor Ruth among the faces of the Doctor? She's not there
>because there's no Doctor Ruth. The Doctor's regenerations begin at
>Hartnell. Where's Ruth's before his face? It's not there because all the
>faces after Hartnell are those of Morbius, and Hartnell is declared as
>the beginning of the Doctor, not Ruth.
>
>>
>>>> The Doctor already went back to his beginning when we saw Hartnell's
>>>> face. That's when Morbius tells him that.
>>
>> That is simply a lie to support Aggie’s argument.
>>
>
>That is not a lie. It is a concrete fact Squealer.
>
>> As the faces roll back from Baker to Hartnell, Morbius cries out “How far
>> back do you go?”
>
>No further back than Hartnell, then Morbius starts winning the tug of
>war and his faces dominate the screen. There's no Doctor Ruth there at
>all. All the faces are white men.
>
>>
>> Then, as the sequence of the Doctor’s earlier faces continues into unknown
>> incarnations, Morbius crows about his power.
>
>Morbius crows about his power because they are his faces Squealer.
>You're lies and dissembling are not fooling anyone. The white paint
>covering your head and body proves it, and there's not Snowball in sight.
>
>>
>> And as the last few pre-Hartnell faces that we see roll along … THEN the
>> “Back to your beginning” line occurs.
>
>Those are the face's of Morbius which appear after he has sent the
>Doctor back to his beginning and it is clear that the Doctor can't
>summon up any other faces/previous minds to fight the tug of war any
>further.
>
>>
>> The proof is right there on screen. Aggie is welcome to believe differently
>
>Here is what actually happened on screen as described by the original
>writer in his own novelization.
>
>It appears Terrance Dicks is claiming that the person losing is the face
>on the screen, but it makes no difference to what I said before, since
>the Doctor is actually described as winning the game in the end,
>therefore either interpretation demonstrates that the faces other than
>those of the Doctor from Tom Baker to William Hartnell are those of
>Morbius not those of the Doctor.
>
><<‘Now, now,’ said the Doctor reprovingly. ‘Mustn’t get the old brain
>overheated, must we? You want to take care—it’s not as strong as it was!’
>
>‘My brain functions perfectly!’
>
>‘I doubt it, Morbius. All that time in the tank, it’s bound to have gone
>a little soft. I say, would you care to put it to the test? How about a
>small game of mind-bending? We have all the apparatus here.’
>
>At last Sarah saw the Doctor’s plan. ‘No, Doctor, you mustn’t,’ she
>called. The Doctor ignored her.
>
>‘I challenge you, Morbius! Well, what do you say?’
>
>The photo-electric cell that served Morbius for eyes surveyed the
>apparatus. ‘I am a Time Lord of the first rank, Doctor. What are you?’
>
>‘Oh I’m nothing,’ said the Doctor hastily. ‘A mere nobody. But you see,
>Morbius, I don’t think you’re in the first rank any more.’
>
>Morbius stepped forward and fixed the headset to his transparent
>brain-case. ‘Very well, Doctor if that is how you choose to die. I
>accept your challenge.’
>
>‘Now there’s a sporting gentleman,’ said the Doctor cheerfully. But
>inside he was far from lighthearted. He knew he stood little chance of
>defeating Morbius. His only hope was that the tremendous stresses of the
>game would expose some of the hidden weaknesses left by Solon’s operation.
>
>The Doctor put on his headset. ‘To the death, Morbius?’
>
>‘To the death, Doctor. I, Morbius, do not play games.’
>
>‘Nor I,’ said the Doctor grimly. ‘Are you ready? On guard!’
>
>The Doctor and Morbius braced themselves, gripping the gleaming
>scaffolding. Sarah saw a swirl of images on the central screen. A
>familiar face appeared—the face they had seen depicted on Solon’s clay
>head. Morbius gave a cry of rage—clearly the appearance of ‘his’ face
>was a sign that he was losing.
>
>Morbius rallied, and the face of the Doctor appeared on the screen.
>
>Sarah saw that the real Doctor’s face was twisted with effort. Drops of
>perspiration covered his forehead. Another face appeared on the screen,
>the debonair white-haired features of the Doctor, as Sarah had first
>known him.
>
>‘You are going, Doctor, going!’ roared Morbius triumphantly. ‘How far,
>Doctor? How long have you lived?’
>
>Yet another Doctor appeared on the screen—a dark-haired little man with
>a whimsical expression. Then another face... a proud-looking old man.
>Exultantly Morbius shouted, ‘Your puny mind is powerless against the
>brain of Morbius. Back, Doctor, back to your beginnings. To your
>birth—and to your death!’ Sarah had a confused impression of even more
>faces on the screen.>>
>
>So we see the Doctor's first face last, that of Hartnell, and then the
>other faces are those of Morbius, since the Doctor is winning if Dicks
>assertion that the faces on screen are those of the person losing. Since...
>
><<The Doctor was groaning, clutching the scaffolding for support...
>
>Morbius gave a sudden terrible scream. There was a blue flash, and the
>transparent brain-case filled with smoke. The Doctor pulled himself
>upright and smiled weakly. Static electricity had fused the circuits in
>the brain-case, and Morbius was reduced once more to a mindless Monster.
>The last thing the Doctor saw was the Monster lurching out of the open
>door. Then blackness swallowed him up.>>
>
>Morbius has lost the game to the Doctor. Therefore according to Terrance
>Dicks the faces on the screen when he lost must be those of Morbius.
>
><<Sarah ran to the Doctor as he fell from the scaffolding.
>
>She tried to lift him to his feet, but he collapsed on the floor.
>
>Sarah felt for his pulse, but she could feel nothing.
>
>Sobbing she remembered the Doctor’s words, ‘The winner can think his
>opponent to death.’ Had Morbius triumphed, even in defeat?>>
>
>Confirmation of Morbius's defeat in the narration. Therefore the
>confused faces were his not the Doctor's. And still no Jo Martin.
>
>> - after all, he is continually lying about the current state of existence
>> of the show in n his deluded arrogance - but he really should stop making
>> statements that can be easily refuted by actually watching the footage.
>>
>
>The character of the main protagonist is no longer the character of the
>Doctor, therefore the show no longer exists. Doctor Who ended in 2017.
>
>>
>> [SNIP Aggie bringing Dicks’ attempt to retcon Holmes’ work in the
>> novelisation AGAIN.]
>>
>
>See above. Hadn't read the novel again since I was around 8.
>
>>>> fails. If they're the faces of the Doctor going back to his beginning
>>>> why isn't even one of them female, let alone black. Where is Jo Martin's
>>>> face. Where is the face of the Timeless Child Monster?
>>
>> Out of Universe, even Aggie can’t really expect the TV producers of 1976 to
>> be able to show pictures of a woman who wouldn’t be cast in the role for
>> another 44 years to be placed in the montage. The actress playing the
>> Fugitive Doctor wasn’t even born then. That’s a truly idiotic argument.
>>
>
>Stop dissembling Squealer. If the producers intended that The Brain of
>Morbius showed the Doctor's faces before Hartnell then they should have
>made Hartnell's immediate predecessor have the face of a white male
>instead instead of that of a black woman. Squealer is exposed as a liar
>once again, because this is something not dependent of the producers
>from 1975/6 but on those from 2018-2024. Chibnall erased all claim to
>The Brain of Morbius when he made Jo Martin William Hartnell's immediate
>predecessor. He simply wanted to destroy Doctor Who at all costs.
>
>> In Universe, the contest was cut short when Morbius’ brain case blew a
>> fuse.
>
>It was cut short because the Doctor tricked him into played and the
>Doctor defeated him. See Terrance Dicks above.
>
> >
>Luckily for the Doctor, who it is implied would have died if he’d
>> lost any further - as it is, he was knocked unconscious. So Morbius never
>
>No he isn't. He is declared the winner. Morbius is the one who lost.
>
>> made it all the way back to the beginning - the Fugitive Doctor and other
>> earlier incarnations leading to the original Timeless Child … or earlier! -
>> are never reached.
>>
>
>The Timeless Child monster and Doctor Ruth are never reached because
>those are not the faces of either Morbius or the Doctor.
>
>Morbius was defeated by the Doctor according to Dicks and therefore
>according to Dicks his faces flashed by until the equipment blew up.
>
>>>>
>>>> There, that's proof of my assertion by contradiction. Chibnall destroyed
>>>> any and all claim to using The Brain of Morbius to back up his childish
>>>> fan fiction the moment he declared that Ruth was Hartnell's immediate
>>>> predecessor.
>>
>> Aggie is lying again, in order to construct his fallacious “proof”. At no
>> point is it asserted explicitly that the Fugitive Doctor immediately
>> precedes Hartnell. The Doctor who is erased and becomes Hartnell is shown
>
>It's asserted by Chibnall and by Big Finish.
>
>> only via the “Brendan” analogy. The Fugitive could have carried on as a
>> rogue through many incarnations before being finally “reset”.
>>
>
>Not according to Chibnall. Ruth is the fugitive Doctor and the one
>caught by the Timelords and turned into Hartnell. It's straight out of
>Chibnall's own mouth.
>
>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> They are so obvious that they entirely destroy your argument Squealer.
>>>> You fell off the ladder and were seen covered in paint because you tried
>>>> to alter the rules, alter continuity.
>>
>> Aggie proves once again who is lying and altering not only the rules, but
>> the facts, to try to prop up his house of cards.
>>
>
>I've not altered anything Squealer. I'm not the one covered in a pot of
>white paint with a fallen down ladder pinning him to the ground.
>
>>
>>>> Terrance Dicks’s wasn't a retcon, because all existing continuity
>>>> established Hartnell as the first Doctor. Does The Three Doctor's give
>>>> you a hint?
>>
>> The appallingly powerful “retcon” of the Timeless Child allows for those
>> apparent contradictions.
>>
>
>The Timeless Child is pure bullshit instilling no suspension of
>disbelief whatsoever and requiring belief in an all encompassing
>conspiracy theory which rewrites the entire history of Doctor Who. No
>one in their right mind can possibly believe such a ridiculous
>conspiracy. Even War of the Daleks has more credibility and that was
>universally slammed in this group by everyone except John Peel who wrote it.
>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Timeless Child is not and can never be the Doctor. Doctor Who ended
>>>> in 2017.
>>
>> Proof that Aggie is lying and delusional isn’t really needed, is it? He
>> provides the proof himself with his every post.
>>
>
>The facts clearly demonstrate that Doctor Who ended in 2017. Nothing
>after that can possibly be accepted as having any part in Doctor Who at all.
>
>One Doctor being pulled out of another like in a Loony Tunes cartoon and
>the TARDIS doubling after being whacked with a circus mallet? Do you
>think that anyone in their right mind can possibly believe any of that?
>And billions or trillions or quintillions of Doctors roaming the
>universe each with their own copy of the TARDIS. This is deranged fan
>fiction, not Doctor Who.
>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> Everything we are shown on screen shows the viewer that those are the
>>>> faces of Morbius. There is not suggestion whatsoever that the Doctor had
>>>> lives before Hartnell.
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> I said nothing of you kind Squealer. Your dissembling isn't fooling
>>>> anyone. The person winning the tug-of-war is the person whose faces are
>>>> displayed on the screen, like in any game show or sporting event when
>>>> the gymnast with the highest score has their face repeatedly shown on
>>>> screen unless they are taken over by someone else, and their their face
>>>> replaces them.
>>>>
>>>> Where is the face of Jo Martin? Where is even one female face at all?
>>>> Where is even one black face? They're all white males, because they're
>>>> the faces, or disguises used by Morbius who we have already been told is
>>>> a fugitive from Gallifrey.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is a description of yourself.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>
>> Dave, Aggie has you kill-filed because he thinks you are an idiot. And
>> thanking him for his lunacy kind of supports that.
>
>I removed him from my killfile before Tim disappeared, and hopefully for
>good.
>

On 26/04/2024 12:35, Blueshirt wrote:
> The True Doctor wrote:
>
>> On 25/04/2024 15:01, Blueshirt wrote:
>>
>>> Doctor Who history features a pre-First Doctor incarnation
>>> now, and right or wrong - or until it's rewritten by another
>>> Doctor Who showrunner at some stage in the future - that is
>>> the way it is.
>>
>> There are no incarnations of the Doctor before Hartnell.
>
> Apart from the one that appeared in Doctor Who recently of
> course.

No. Doctor Who ended in 2017. There are no incarnations of the Doctor
before Hartnell.

>
> I know it must hurt, but unfortunately it is part of the show.
>

No it isn't. Doctor Who ended in 2017.

> Don't shoot the messenger!
>
>>> Doctor Ruth/The Fugitive Doctor exists in episodes of Doctor
>>> Who as broadcast on BBC1 and has her own range of Big Finish
>>> audio adventures coming next year, licensed and approved by
>>> the BBC.
>>
>> Big Finish is not canon and neither is Doctor Ruth, unless you
>> mean the psychologist.
>>
>> Officially non-canon.
>
> There is no official Doctor Who canon. So therefore there can be

Yes there is. William Hartnell is the first Doctor and there are no
incarnations of the Doctor before him. This is canon set and reinforced
by The Unearthly Child, The Tenth Planet, Power of the Daleks, The War
Games, Spearhead from Space, The Three Doctors, Planet of the Spiders,
Robot, The Brain of Morbius, The Deadly Assassin, The Underworld, The
Invasion of Time, The Keeper of Traken, Logopolis, Mawdrin Undead, The
Five Doctors, The Caves of Androzani, Time and the Rani, the TVM, The
Family of Blood, The Next Doctor, The End of Time, The Eleventh Hour,
almost every single episode featuring the 11th Doctor onwards, The Name
of the Doctor, The Night of the Doctor, The Day of the Doctor, The Time
of the Doctor, Listen, and Twice Upon A Time.

> no official non-canon. BUT, if there was such a thing as Doctor
> Who canon, the Fugitive Doctor would be considered part of it!

No they wouldn't as they would contradict all the above episodes and ask
for belief in a totally unbelievably conspiracy theory which erases all
Doctor Who continuity entirely and replaces it with something completely
different. No one in their right mind would believe such a thing, just
like no one in this group accepted War of the Daleks except John Peel
who write it, and the retcon of the entire series required by the
Timeless Child monster is infinitely worse beyond measure.

> As the people who do claim there is a canon usually mean what is
> seen on-screen in an episode of Doctor Who.
>
>> The ones claiming incarnations before Hartnell are
>> hallucinating and smoking opium.
>
> Or they have watched Doctor Who in recent years and seen a
> pre-Hartnell incarnation.

There has never been a pre-Hartnell incarnation. William Hartnell is the
First and Original Doctor as stated in The Five Doctors and is implicit
in all of the above stories I named.

>
>> No one in their right mind could be stupid enough to believe a
>> totally insane conspiracy theory that completely erases the
>> character of the Doctor and replaces him with a monster based
>> on Doomsday.
>
> Well, it is a bit weird and definitely poorly conceived but the
> simple fact is, it's there.

It's degenerate fan fiction and nothing to do with real Doctor Who.

Doctor Who ended in 2017.

>
>> And now with the bigeneration bullshit attached to it it's
>> become even more incredulous, unbelievable,
>
> But you can believe in an alien that can change his face, his

Nothing wrong with that. Anyone could change their face with plastic
surgery, even before Doctor Who was even concieved.

> gender, his skin colour, can travel around time and space in a

The latter two are not canon. We have never seen the Doctor change his
gender ever, not his skin colour. The only thing we have seen is Romana
changing into a humanoid lizard, and that may have been her dressed in a
lizard costume when the Doctor asked her to change clothing rather than
a regeneration, since the change was never shown on screen.

> blue wooden box...that's bigger on the outside, and fights

Nothing wrong with that. Disbelief can easily be suspended for that.

> pepper-pots on wheels (with men inside) to save the universe?!
>

They're an alien life from inside an armed and armoured travel machine.
Suspension of disbelief does not require everything we know and have
learned about the character of the Doctor and his history to be thrown
out of the window to accept the existence of Daleks.

> WELL THAT'S ALRIGHT THEN!

A deranged conspiracy theory that requires that everything we know about
the character of the Doctor, his entire history and past, his family,
his relationships, his adventures, and his origin and entire status as a
Time Lord, to be totally erased from our minds and replaced with
something completely different pertaining to the character of a
degenerate monster from another dimension created from a systematically
abused child is not alright then.

--
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