Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Furious activity is no substitute for understanding. -- H. H. Williams


arts / rec.arts.drwho / Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

SubjectAuthor
* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
+- Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
`* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned fromThe True Doctor
 `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
  +* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
  |`- Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
  `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
   +* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
   |`* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
   | +* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
   | |+* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should besolar penguin
   | ||`* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
   | || `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
   | ||  `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
   | ||   +* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
   | ||   |`* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
   | ||   | `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
   | ||   |  `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
   | ||   |   `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
   | ||   |    `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
   | ||   |     `- Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
   | ||   `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should besolar penguin
   | ||    `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should besolar penguin
   | ||     `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned fromDaniel65
   | ||      `- Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should besolar penguin
   | |`* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
   | | `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
   | |  `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
   | |   `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
   | |    +* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who loBlueshirt
   | |    |`* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who loBlueshirt
   | |    | `- Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned fromDaniel65
   | |    `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
   | |     +- Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned fromIdlehands
   | |     `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
   | |      +* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should besolar penguin
   | |      |+- Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned fromDaniel65
   | |      |`* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should besolar penguin
   | |      | +* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who loBlueshirt
   | |      | |`- Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned fromDaniel65
   | |      | `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should besolar penguin
   | |      |  `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should besolar penguin
   | |      |   +* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned fromIdlehands
   | |      |   |+* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should besolar penguin
   | |      |   ||+- Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned fromIdlehands
   | |      |   ||+- Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned fromDaniel65
   | |      |   ||`* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should besolar penguin
   | |      |   || `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned fromDaniel65
   | |      |   ||  +- Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lo%
   | |      |   ||  `- OT Was Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconnedDaniel65
   | |      |   |`- Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned fromDaniel65
   | |      |   `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should besolar penguin
   | |      |    `- Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lo%
   | |      `- Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
   | `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should besolar penguin
   |  `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should besolar penguin
   |   `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should besolar penguin
   |    `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should besolar penguin
   |     `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should besolar penguin
   |      `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should besolar penguin
   |       `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should besolar penguin
   |        `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should besolar penguin
   |         `- Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should besolar penguin
   `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned fromDaniel65
    `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
     `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned fromDaniel65
      `* Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should beThe Last Doctor
       `- Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned fromDaniel65

Pages:123
Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tkis75$i5na$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=12731&group=rec.arts.drwho#12731

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mik...@xenocyte.com (The Last Doctor)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be
retconned from the Doctor Who lore
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 12:52:53 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <tkis75$i5na$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 12:52:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="bc154c7900f1eed3ac1a7b7ffdca4e73";
logging-data="595690"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19wfNAl/p9zUEI3auNHtvhF"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DRa7A110fTdNB9zQqPXVcTXAwEQ=
sha1:CaL+py2G3DfO6WYD2nxUh18KwQQ=
 by: The Last Doctor - Thu, 10 Nov 2022 12:52 UTC

Dave Yadallee wrote:

Firstly, Dave, congratulations. You have made an original post that is on
topic and could result in a genuine discussion on Doctor Who. We should all
applaud this rare event of you not spamming or trolling. It’s also almost
all comprehensible as well! Bonus points!

However …

> 10) Chibnall trying to revised everything!

He has provided an origin story for the Doctor. It’s not actually revising
anything, though, because virtually nothing has been shown or discussed of
the Doctor’s life prior to “An Unearthly Child”, and the couple of points
the new origin might have contradicted are explained by the “reset” invoked
by the Division and alluded to in the “Brendan” analogy.

Besides, every new show runner revises things. Often major things. RTD
changed the whole premise of the character of the Doctor by introducing the
Great Time War and making the Doctor a war-warn sole survivor of a mythical
species, destroying Gallifrey off screen before the revival series even
started. So “the show runner changed things” is not a reason to require a
retcon. Strike 1.

> 9) The MAtrix overloaded and hacked when it could have been in Deadly Assassin

This point is incoherent - not sure what you’re getting at. The Matrix was
hacked in the Deadly Assassin, Arc of Infinity and Trial of a Time Lord,
but the Division and the Timeless Child were hidden memory locked away from
what most people knew of the Matrix at that time. In any case, not sure why
the Timeless Child would need to be retconned just because it mentions
hacking the Matrix, an action that has previously occurred. Strike 2.

> 8) Pre-Hartnell incarnations rewriting the Brain of Morbuis!

Pre Hartnell incarnations, as you well know, were explicitly shown in the
Brain of Morbius. The retconning there was done by fans winding their minds
into pretzels trying to claim otherwise. The Brain of Morbius is in fact a
point of VALIDATION for The Timeless Child, and so is a reason to approve
its narrative, not retcon it. Not only Strike 3, but also a bit of an own
goal!

> 7) The Master killing Gallifrey

The destruction of Gallifrey is nothing new. As noted above, RTD didn’t
just destroy Gallifrey, he made it so it had never existed - later
backtracked in The End of Time, rewritten by Moffat in The Day of the
Doctor, and mysteriously reappearing in Capaldi era with no explanation.
But why would the Timeless Child “need” to be retconned because this
happened? Strike 4.

> 6) Ridiculous unplausible new monsters

Because the Auton wheelie bins, Slitheen, Raxicofallipatiorians, Scribble
Monsters and moon-hatching dragons (to name but 5) were so rational and
plausible.

Anyway, the Timeless Child didn’t introduce any new monsters so not sure
how something that isn’t there can be a reason to retcon anything. Strike
5.

> 5) The Rasputin Master

This was in The Power of the Doctor, not The Timeless Children. And the
Master wearing a ludicrous disguise for no good reason is a long term
habit. Remember Time Flight? Strike 6.

> 4) Incomplete cybermen

Because that’s never happened. Oh wait - the Attack of the Cybermen had
some as major characters. And while physically largely complete, Yvonne
Hartman, Danny Pink and the corpse of Brigadier Alistair Gordon Lethbridge
Stewart were all “incomplete” cyber conversions. Strike 7.

> 3) Cyberised TimeLords by the Master

They were a bit shit, weren’t they? Luckily Chibnall realised this and
destroyed them by absorbing all their regeneration energy to restore
Jodie’s incarnation. So that one has pretty much retconned itself. Strike
8.

> 2) Tecteun is a contradiction of Rassilon and Omega

Telling the same lie over and over doesn’t make it the truth. We’ve been
through this over and over - the Tecteun narrative doesn’t change one thing
about how the Time Lords got power over time, which is what the Omega and
Rassilon legends refer to. An in fact, the Timeless Child narrative could
validate the concept of “the Other” being the Doctor.

And the Omega and Rassilon legends don’t say anything about how the Time
Lords gained their powers of regeneration. So Tecteun can’t contradict
something that was never stated. Strike 9.

> 1) The Doctor is not Gallifreyan but a being not from this universe

And? What does that actually change? Given that the Doctor’s DNA got
spliced into the Gallfreyan genome and all Time Lords get it activated to
provide their powers of regeneration, it is true that the Doctor was not
the same species as the original Shobogans of Gallifrey. But, the
Gallifreyans who became the Time Lords are all, to some extent, the Doctor.
So it’s a difference that is no real difference, in the end. Strike 10.

So there’s no NEED to retcon The Timeless Child that arises out of the
canon of the show, and no out-of-universe need to either when it can just
be ignored. Gallifrey will return when it is wanted, just as the Master
always does.

We all know you don’t LIKE the Timeless Children narrative. I don’t like it
much either. But inventing fake reasons to remove it doesn’t help. Let’s
all move on. In all probability, that fob watch will never be opened again.
And if it is - well, we’ll just have to see, won’t we?

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tkivqh$if5c$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=12733&group=rec.arts.drwho#12733

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mik...@xenocyte.com (The Last Doctor)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be
retconned from the Doctor Who lore
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 13:54:25 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 274
Message-ID: <tkivqh$if5c$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tkis75$i5na$1@dont-email.me>
<tkit13$1q52$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 13:54:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="bc154c7900f1eed3ac1a7b7ffdca4e73";
logging-data="605356"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19nyYF8xXRzsLPsNE0JrFr0"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qg3GMtjfiKwLbhIiz0iD3xiEwR4=
sha1:WTU3c5Snu7RR0s2Pb+HE4TGmoqo=
 by: The Last Doctor - Thu, 10 Nov 2022 13:54 UTC

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <tkis75$i5na$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> Dave Yadallee wrote:
>>
>> Firstly, Dave, congratulations. You have made an original post that is on
>> topic and could result in a genuine discussion on Doctor Who. We should all
>> applaud this rare event of you not spamming or trolling. It’s also almost
>> all comprehensible as well! Bonus points!
>>
>
> Time for the True Doctor to Turn up!

The true Doctor has been turning up for 59 years. A temporary Tennant
tenant in the role is no truer than the previous incarnation - and may even
be less true.

>
>> However …
>>
>>> 10) Chibnall trying to revised everything!
>>
>> He has provided an origin story for the Doctor. It’s not actually revising
>> anything, though, because virtually nothing has been shown or discussed of
>> the Doctor’s life prior to “An Unearthly Child”, and the couple of points
>> the new origin might have contradicted are explained by the “reset” invoked
>> by the Division and alluded to in the “Brendan” analogy.
>>
>> Besides, every new show runner revises things. Often major things. RTD
>> changed the whole premise of the character of the Doctor by introducing the
>> Great Time War and making the Doctor a war-warn sole survivor of a mythical
>> species, destroying Gallifrey off screen before the revival series even
>> started. So “the show runner changed things” is not a reason to require a
>> retcon. Strike 1.
>>
>
> Wrong!
> The revision was so sever that you might as well gut Hartnell to Capaldi!

State one aspect of the show that was changed by the introduction of the
Timeless Child narrative and that isn’t explained by the Timeless Child
narrative itself.

Don’t just lie about a contradiction - show one. So far, your arguments are
about as well proven as all the court cases where evidence has been
presented to demonstrate “election fraud” in the US 2020 Presidential
election. (There are zero such cases).

>>> 9) The MAtrix overloaded and hacked when it could have been in Deadly
>> Assassin
>>
>> This point is incoherent - not sure what you’re getting at. The Matrix was
>> hacked in the Deadly Assassin, Arc of Infinity and Trial of a Time Lord,
>> but the Division and the Timeless Child were hidden memory locked away from
>> what most people knew of the Matrix at that time. In any case, not sure why
>> the Timeless Child would need to be retconned just because it mentions
>> hacking the Matrix, an action that has previously occurred. Strike 2.
>
>
> Bogus! locked away!

Why must it be bogus? Where was it shown that the Marrix was inviolable and
secure to prevent such shenanigans? Oh wait - every time the Matrix has
been used in Doctor Who, it has been shown to be vulnerable to
exploitation. As in this case also.

>
> Yet again you buy into chibnall's tripe!
>

That’s the point of the exercise Dave - you have to show why the tripe
doesn’t work. Just saying so, without evidence, is what Donald Trump would
call “the truth”. But no rational person would.

>>
>>> 8) Pre-Hartnell incarnations rewriting the Brain of Morbuis!
>>
>> Pre Hartnell incarnations, as you well know, were explicitly shown in the
>> Brain of Morbius. The retconning there was done by fans winding their minds
>> into pretzels trying to claim otherwise. The Brain of Morbius is in fact a
>> point of VALIDATION for The Timeless Child, and so is a reason to approve
>> its narrative, not retcon it. Not only Strike 3, but also a bit of an own
>> goal!
>
> And the fail explanation by Hinchcliffe i nthe last 5 years?

You mean when he was promoting The God of Phantoms? This story?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-moribus-doctors-philip-hinchcliffe-exclusive-newsupdate/amp/

Here’s the key quote for those who can’t or won’t follow links.

“It is true to say that I attempted to imply that William Hartnell was not
the first Doctor. …

“it was totally ad hoc, really. It wasn't thought out at all. In fact, I
don't think Bob Holmes or any of us really thought about the repercussions
of all these previous incarnations of the Doctor. We hadn't thought about
it."

See where Hinchcliffe talks about “all these previous incarnations”? He
and I agree. He introduced a retcon, didn’t really think about it, and it
stood as an anomaly for over 40 years. An anomaly which Chibnall addressed
and resolved - is it a good answer? Well, I don’t like it, but it’s the
answer there now is.

>>
>>> 7) The Master killing Gallifrey
>>
>> The destruction of Gallifrey is nothing new. As noted above, RTD didn’t
>> just destroy Gallifrey, he made it so it had never existed - later
>> backtracked in The End of Time, rewritten by Moffat in The Day of the
>> Doctor, and mysteriously reappearing in Capaldi era with no explanation.
>> But why would the Timeless Child “need” to be retconned because this
>> happened? Strike 4.
>>
>
> Becuse that would be a major contradiction.

Let’s see. Gallifrey existed and now it’s been destroyed, all the remaining
Time Lords were converted to CyberMasters, and they are now dead. Where’s
the contradiction?

The Time War contained a paradox and a self contradiction - Gallifrey was
in a war and the end of the war removed Gallifrey from history so it had
never existed so it couldn’t have been embroiled in a time war - now THAT
is a contradiction.

>
>>> 6) Ridiculous unplausible new monsters
>>
>> Because the Auton wheelie bins, Slitheen, Raxicofallipatiorians, Scribble
>> Monsters and moon-hatching dragons (to name but 5) were so rational and
>> plausible.
>>
>> Anyway, the Timeless Child didn’t introduce any new monsters so not sure
>> how something that isn’t there can be a reason to retcon anything. Strike
>> 5.
>
> You do not recall Chibnall's first ridiculous year?!

Yes, but look at the thread title. You wanted to retcon the Timeless Child,
not Jodie’s whole tenure. Are you now wanting to move the goalposts?

And you’re not trying to tell me that the P’Ting is any worse than the
Adipose, the Ribbons are worse than a killer inflatable chair, or that a
frog is a less credible alien than a Zygon disguised as a horse, are you?

>>
>>> 5) The Rasputin Master
>>
>> This was in The Power of the Doctor, not The Timeless Children. And the
>> Master wearing a ludicrous disguise for no good reason is a long term
>> habit. Remember Time Flight? Strike 6.
>
> IN Time Flight, no historic figures were mocked!

Rasputin is a figure deserving of mockery. And how about The Kings Demons
then, if you want earlier examples of the Master mocking historical
figures?

>>
>>> 4) Incomplete cybermen
>>
>> Because that’s never happened. Oh wait - the Attack of the Cybermen had
>> some as major characters. And while physically largely complete, Yvonne
>> Hartman, Danny Pink and the corpse of Brigadier Alistair Gordon Lethbridge
>> Stewart were all “incomplete” cyber conversions. Strike 7.
>>
>
> What about the half-Mondasian half-cyber one?

What are you talking about now?

>
>>> 3) Cyberised TimeLords by the Master
>>
>> They were a bit shit, weren’t they? Luckily Chibnall realised this and
>> destroyed them by absorbing all their regeneration energy to restore
>> Jodie’s incarnation. So that one has pretty much retconned itself. Strike
>> 8.
>>
>
> Still leaving Gallifrey in limbo!

How exactly is that different from its situation at the end of The End of
Time, or The Day of the Doctor, or The Time of the Doctor?

In this case, Gallifrey exists in the past. All it takes is for a surviving
Time Lord to bypass the restrictions on going to Gallifrey’s past and
create a fork in reality so that the Master’s efforts fail. Or something,
let’s wait and see what the real writers come up with.

>
>>> 2) Tecteun is a contradiction of Rassilon and Omega
>>
>> Telling the same lie over and over doesn’t make it the truth. We’ve been
>> through this over and over - the Tecteun narrative doesn’t change one thing
>> about how the Time Lords got power over time, which is what the Omega and
>> Rassilon legends refer to. An in fact, the Timeless Child narrative could
>> validate the concept of “the Other” being the Doctor.
>>
>> And the Omega and Rassilon legends don’t say anything about how the Time
>> Lords gained their powers of regeneration. So Tecteun can’t contradict
>> something that was never stated. Strike 9.
>
> Still lapping up chibnall's revisions?


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tkrfdh$1gu3q$2@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=12870&group=rec.arts.drwho#12870

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM (The True Doctor)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from
the Doctor Who lore
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2022 19:09:36 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 263
Message-ID: <tkrfdh$1gu3q$2@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca> <tkis75$i5na$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2022 19:09:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="57191ef570fe2d67ac52b1b3b7bae587";
logging-data="1603706"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/3FtC0TXNB82ncgAiItK1QU6+M8tsRi7M="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.13.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3efZYoodJQy5E9b65tCwij9WKag=
In-Reply-To: <tkis75$i5na$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: The True Doctor - Sun, 13 Nov 2022 19:09 UTC

On 10/11/2022 12:52, The Last Doctor wrote:
> Dave Yadallee wrote:
>
> Firstly, Dave, congratulations. You have made an original post that is on
> topic and could result in a genuine discussion on Doctor Who. We should all
> applaud this rare event of you not spamming or trolling. It’s also almost
> all comprehensible as well! Bonus points!
>
> However …
>
>> 10) Chibnall trying to revised everything!
>
> He has provided an origin story for the Doctor. It’s not actually revising
> anything, though, because virtually nothing has been shown or discussed of
> the Doctor’s life prior to “An Unearthly Child”, and the couple of points
> the new origin might have contradicted are explained by the “reset” invoked
> by the Division and alluded to in the “Brendan” analogy.

Bullshit. The Doctor already had an origin story and that means he can
never be given another one.

We've seen the Doctor as a young schoolboy in Listen. We've seen the
Doctor refer to himself as having a human mother and walking on the
grass with his father on Gallifrey as a child. We've seen the Doctor
having a Time Lord DNA pattern The Ark of Infinity. We've seen the
Doctor's mother in The End of Time. We've seen the Doctor's
granddaughter. We've seen all the incarnations of the Doctor in The Name
of the Doctor and the reasons why and how he left Gallifrey explicitly
shown as well. We've seen the Doctor being given another cycle of
regenerations after Clara plead with the Time Lords for them in The Time
of the Doctor.

The Timeless Child is nothing more than deranged autistic fan-fic by a
clue hack that despises everything that Doctor Who stood for and
represented, and cannot be considered as canon.

>
> Besides, every new show runner revises things. Often major things. RTD

Chibnall didn't just reveal things. He destroyed everything about the
Doctor and created a completely new character.

> changed the whole premise of the character of the Doctor by introducing the
> Great Time War and making the Doctor a war-warn sole survivor of a mythical

RTD didn't change the whole premise of the Doctor. The Doctor was still
a Time Lord who fled his home planet in a stolen TARDIS with his
granddaughter. RTD even showed the Doctor's mother.

> species, destroying Gallifrey off screen before the revival series even

Mythical species that everyone seems to intimately know about.

> started. So “the show runner changed things” is not a reason to require a
> retcon. Strike 1.
>

This isn't just changing things, it replacing the character of the
Doctor with a completely new one which is a monster created through
torture and repeated murder in the same way as Doomsday in DC Comics.
It's no different to replaced Superman with Doomsday himself.

>> 9) The MAtrix overloaded and hacked when it could have been in Deadly Assassin
>
> This point is incoherent - not sure what you’re getting at. The Matrix was
> hacked in the Deadly Assassin, Arc of Infinity and Trial of a Time Lord,
> but the Division and the Timeless Child were hidden memory locked away from
> what most people knew of the Matrix at that time. In any case, not sure why
> the Timeless Child would need to be retconned just because it mentions
> hacking the Matrix, an action that has previously occurred. Strike 2.

The Doctor had full unrestricted access to the Matrix in The Invasion of
Time when he was made President of Gallifrey. He would have known about
any tampering and memory locks since he was attempting to combat the
Vardans and Sontarans.

>
>> 8) Pre-Hartnell incarnations rewriting the Brain of Morbuis!
>
> Pre Hartnell incarnations, as you well know, were explicitly shown in the
> Brain of Morbius. The retconning there was done by fans winding their minds

NO THEY WERE NOT. It was explicitly stated by the original writer
Terrance Dicks himself that they were incarnations of Morbius. The game
makes absolutely no sense if Morbius' past faces don't appear along with
those of the Doctor since the Doctor eventually won the game in the end.

> into pretzels trying to claim otherwise. The Brain of Morbius is in fact a
> point of VALIDATION for The Timeless Child, and so is a reason to approve
> its narrative, not retcon it. Not only Strike 3, but also a bit of an own
> goal!

None of the faces shown is that of Jo Martin who Chibnall's deranged
autistic fan-fic claims came immediately before Hartnell. Therefore
Chibnall is contradicted by The Brain of Morbius once again. All of the
faces were those of men, Morbius and the Doctor. Own goal to you and
Chibnall.

>
>> 7) The Master killing Gallifrey
>
> The destruction of Gallifrey is nothing new. As noted above, RTD didn’t
> just destroy Gallifrey, he made it so it had never existed - later

No he didn't. Everyone the Doctor met from at least The End of the World
knew about Gallifrey and that he was a Time Lord so it must have always
existed.

> backtracked in The End of Time, rewritten by Moffat in The Day of the
> Doctor, and mysteriously reappearing in Capaldi era with no explanation.
> But why would the Timeless Child “need” to be retconned because this
> happened? Strike 4.
>

Because Ashilda lived on Gallifrey from 5 billion years into the future
until when it existed at the end of the universe which Moffat needed to
show to prove her immortality. Also if Gallifrey is destroyed then so is
Clara in Hell Bent, since as we know from The Pirate Planet she needs
all the energy in the Eye of Harmony and an intact Gallifrey to project
her image to survive.

>> 6) Ridiculous unplausible new monsters
>
> Because the Auton wheelie bins, Slitheen, Raxicofallipatiorians, Scribble
> Monsters and moon-hatching dragons (to name but 5) were so rational and
> plausible.

He's talking about the Timeless Child itself, a monster created by the
repeated abuse, torture, and murder of a young child. Then there's the
child abusing cunt Tecteun herself, and then stupid Space and Time
monster which are contradicted by Einstein since space and time are
EXACTLY THE SAME THING and not divisible.

>
> Anyway, the Timeless Child didn’t introduce any new monsters so not sure

Yes it does.

> how something that isn’t there can be a reason to retcon anything. Strike
> 5.

against yourself.

>
>> 5) The Rasputin Master
>
> This was in The Power of the Doctor, not The Timeless Children. And the
> Master wearing a ludicrous disguise for no good reason is a long term
> habit. Remember Time Flight? Strike 6.

How can he regenerate himself into the body of the Doctor if the Doctor
is not a Time Lord but an alien from another dimension? Chibnall
contradicts himself once again.

>
>> 4) Incomplete cybermen
>
> Because that’s never happened. Oh wait - the Attack of the Cybermen had
> some as major characters. And while physically largely complete, Yvonne
> Hartman, Danny Pink and the corpse of Brigadier Alistair Gordon Lethbridge
> Stewart were all “incomplete” cyber conversions. Strike 7.

What he means is how can the Master have cloned the Lone Cybermen along
with his incomplete Cyberparts and face mask? If he'd cloned him based
on his DNA he'd be fully formed and fully human, let alone a broke blood
covered face mask. More evidence that Chibnall is mentally retarded and
doesn't have a clue how to write in a competent manner.

>
>> 3) Cyberised TimeLords by the Master
>
> They were a bit shit, weren’t they? Luckily Chibnall realised this and
> destroyed them by absorbing all their regeneration energy to restore
> Jodie’s incarnation. So that one has pretty much retconned itself. Strike
> 8.
>
>> 2) Tecteun is a contradiction of Rassilon and Omega
>
> Telling the same lie over and over doesn’t make it the truth. We’ve been
> through this over and over - the Tecteun narrative doesn’t change one thing
> about how the Time Lords got power over time, which is what the Omega and
> Rassilon legends refer to. An in fact, the Timeless Child narrative could
> validate the concept of “the Other” being the Doctor.

More bullshit. It's explicitly stated by Terrance Dicks, the creator of
the Time Lords, in the introduction of his Target Novelisation of The
Underworld, and also contained in the main body text and dialogue of the
story, that Time Lord regeneration was originally a completely
mechanical process, and then it was made into a biological one, unlike
the regeneration of the Minyans which was purely mechanical.

Chibnall's deranged fan-fic is totally contradicted by this sice he has
regeneration being obtained by an injection, which also contradicts The
Time of the Doctor, the TVM, The Keeper of Traken, and The Deadly
Assassin where regeneration requires the energy of the Eye of Harmony or
the Source to recreate.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tl896k$2vbai$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=13116&group=rec.arts.drwho#13116

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mik...@xenocyte.com (The Last Doctor)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be
retconned from the Doctor Who lore
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 15:43:17 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 566
Message-ID: <tl896k$2vbai$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tkis75$i5na$1@dont-email.me>
<tkrfdh$1gu3q$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 15:43:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="fbd9b13041fd67bf494090a427f25024";
logging-data="3124562"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+jJWIWBdkI+iJ6Nh7s01Cu"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CiVmtxdCxj0SkDmayARjVD3ngpw=
sha1:I6S3MTXh1dL4kbU9u0m3j02n9Zg=
 by: The Last Doctor - Fri, 18 Nov 2022 15:43 UTC

The Tool <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> On 10/11/2022 12:52, The Last Doctor wrote:
>> Dave Yadallee wrote:
>>
>> Firstly, Dave, congratulations. You have made an original post that is on
>> topic and could result in a genuine discussion on Doctor Who. We should all
>> applaud this rare event of you not spamming or trolling. It’s also almost
>> all comprehensible as well! Bonus points!
>>
>> However …
>>
>>> 10) Chibnall trying to revised everything!
>>
>> He has provided an origin story for the Doctor. It’s not actually revising
>> anything, though, because virtually nothing has been shown or discussed of
>> the Doctor’s life prior to “An Unearthly Child”, and the couple of points
>> the new origin might have contradicted are explained by the “reset” invoked
>> by the Division and alluded to in the “Brendan” analogy.

Please note, throughout, I’m not interested in how great or stupid the
Timeless Child story is. It’s pretty stupid. I’m discussing only whether it
breaks or contradicts the existing canon.

>
> Bullshit. The Doctor already had an origin story and that means he can
> never be given another one.

Where? Where is the origin story told? Not on TV. Until now.

>
> We've seen the Doctor as a young schoolboy in Listen.

The Timeless Child narrative says that the Doctor’s memory was wiped and
their next incarnation started as a young child.

> We've seen the
> Doctor refer to himself as having a human mother

No. We’ve heard the Doctor claim they are “half human on their mother’s
side”, and an assumption by the Master due to the retinal lock on the 8th
Doctor’s portal to the Eye of Harmony.

Both of which points you would have been decrying as bullshit were we
analysing the TV movie, as they are strong retcons making the Doctor
non-Gallifreyan.

Perhaps this idea of being half human was planted so that the Doctor could
explain to themselves why they felt different from all other Gallifreyans?

> and walking on the
> grass with his father on Gallifrey as a child.

Not explicitly stated to be the Doctor’s father or mother (could have
regenerated since the birth), and see above for how the Timeless Child
narrative would change the perception of this moment.

> We've seen the Doctor
> having a Time Lord DNA pattern The Ark of Infinity.

Since, apparently, the Time Lord DNA was spliced in to early Gallifreyans
by the Doctor, this statement actually boils down to “we’ve seen that the
Doctor has the Doctor’s DNA”.

> We've seen the
> Doctor's mother in The End of Time.

Offscreen intentions are not evidence. On screen, we saw a woman. Could
have been a mother, father, foster parent, old friend, Susan, or indeed
anyone.

> We've seen the Doctor's granddaughter.

Which proves what exactly? Doesn’t impact on the validity or otherwise of
the Timeless Child narrative.

We've seen all the incarnations of the Doctor in The Name
> of the Doctor and the reasons why and how he left Gallifrey explicitly
> shown as well.

Incorrect. Not all the known incarnations were shown anyway, and since
Clara as the Impossible Girl was working with the Doctor’s memories and
that’s what we were shown, we wouldn’t have seen any snippets of future
incarnations such as Capaldi, Whittaker or Gatwa, nor would we have seen
any incarnations that were blotted from the Doctor’s memory. He was not
pleased to see an image of an incarnation he was only consciously trying to
repress!

> We've seen the Doctor being given another cycle of
> regenerations after Clara plead with the Time Lords for them in The Time
> of the Doctor.

We saw regeneration energy being supplied. The Time Lords in general were
not aware of the earlier incarnations or of the Timeless Child. Nor was the
Doctor, which is why he allowed himself to age so much, believing he was
the last incarnation.

Maybe the fact that the Doctor didn’t need the energy he was sent was the
reason he was able to use it like a deus ex machina laser weapon to shoot
down a Dalek fleet?

> The Timeless Child is nothing more than deranged autistic fan-fic by a
> clue hack that despises everything that Doctor Who stood for and
> represented, and cannot be considered as canon.
>

It’s pretty poor, but if you want examples of deranged autistic fan fic by
a clueless hack, you can find many much more egregious examples in your own
postings.

>>
>> Besides, every new show runner revises things. Often major things. RTD
>
> Chibnall didn't just reveal things. He destroyed everything about the
> Doctor and created a completely new character.

As above, and very carefully explained so that anyone with more
intellectual capability that a concussed bee could follow, no he didn’t.

>
>> changed the whole premise of the character of the Doctor by introducing the
>> Great Time War and making the Doctor a war-warn sole survivor of a mythical
>
> RTD didn't change the whole premise of the Doctor.

Oh, so the Doctor was always the sole survivor of an almost forgotten
mythical species remembered only by temporally and spatially transcendent
beings, and haunted by the horror of what he had done to end the Time War,
was he? Wow, how did I miss that for 26 years?

> The Doctor was still
> a Time Lord who fled his home planet in a stolen TARDIS with his
> granddaughter.

And he still is.

> RTD even showed the Doctor's mother.

Repetition. No he didn’t, and in fact is on record as having left it
deliberately ambiguous.

>
>> species, destroying Gallifrey off screen before the revival series even
>
> Mythical species that everyone seems to intimately know about.

No, until things start coming back the only one who knows is the Forest of
Cheam. Anyone else encountered knows if the Doctor, but not the Time Lords.

>
>> started. So “the show runner changed things” is not a reason to require a
>> retcon. Strike 1.
>>
>
> This isn't just changing things, it replacing the character of the
> Doctor with a completely new one which is a monster created through
> torture and repeated murder in the same way as Doomsday in DC Comics.
> It's no different to replaced Superman with Doomsday himself.

I’m not familiar with the DC character, but the new story doesn’t change
the character of the Doctor, it gives them an origin story that was
previously shrouded in mystery. I don’t think there was any need to remove
that mystery and replace it with this unpleasant and complex new mystery -
but it’s been done.
>
>>> 9) The MAtrix overloaded and hacked when it could have been in Deadly Assassin
>>
>> This point is incoherent - not sure what you’re getting at. The Matrix was
>> hacked in the Deadly Assassin, Arc of Infinity and Trial of a Time Lord,
>> but the Division and the Timeless Child were hidden memory locked away from
>> what most people knew of the Matrix at that time. In any case, not sure why
>> the Timeless Child would need to be retconned just because it mentions
>> hacking the Matrix, an action that has previously occurred. Strike 2.
>
> The Doctor had full unrestricted access to the Matrix in The Invasion of
> Time when he was made President of Gallifrey. He would have known about
> any tampering and memory locks since he was attempting to combat the
> Vardans and Sontarans.

What do you know of the Doctor’s mind? Maybe he was conditioned not to look
into those areas of the Matrix that contained memories he didn’t know he
had, and had no reason to look for anyway. If you had complete access to a
newspaper’s vaults, would you randomly go to open a door you didn’t know
was there to look for articles you didn’t know existed?

>
>>
>>> 8) Pre-Hartnell incarnations rewriting the Brain of Morbuis!
>>
>> Pre Hartnell incarnations, as you well know, were explicitly shown in the
>> Brain of Morbius. The retconning there was done by fans winding their minds
>
> NO THEY WERE NOT. It was explicitly stated by the original writer
> Terrance Dicks himself that they were incarnations of Morbius. The game
> makes absolutely no sense if Morbius' past faces don't appear along with
> those of the Doctor since the Doctor eventually won the game in the end.

Offscreen intentions don’t count, and Holmes and Hinchcliffe both say the
opposite to Dicks, and Holmes did the rewrite which Dicks disliked
sufficiently that the credit went to “Robin Bland”, Dicks opinion is the
minority one - and the wrong one. The intentions of the final writer trump
the intentions of the original one.

And the Doctor doesn’t win - the machine explodes because Morbius tries to
push back to the Doctor’s beginning and it overloads. At the end Morbius
staggers away but the Doctor is knocked unconscious - hardly winning!


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tl8ajd$2vfjr$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=13117&group=rec.arts.drwho#13117

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.media.tv.sf.drwho rec.arts.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mik...@xenocyte.com (The Last Doctor)
Newsgroups: uk.media.tv.sf.drwho,rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be
retconned from the Doctor Who lore
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 16:07:09 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <tl8ajd$2vfjr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tkis75$i5na$1@dont-email.me>
<tkrfdh$1gu3q$2@dont-email.me>
<tl896k$2vbai$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 16:07:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="fbd9b13041fd67bf494090a427f25024";
logging-data="3128955"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18UUR+pu11lYawc92RzBpMz"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ekPI4z4vGy5SEKhs+5eTcig8VCI=
sha1:1qhj+hTJ7CcLanXPehy4NoWUAOE=
 by: The Last Doctor - Fri, 18 Nov 2022 16:07 UTC

The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:

> Since, apparently, the Time Lord DNA was spliced in to early Gallifreyans
> by the Doctor, this statement actually boils down to “we’ve seen that the
> Doctor has the Doctor’s DNA”.

Oops. By Tecteun, not by the Doctor. Error on my part, no doubt one of many
but this is the one that stood out.

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tl9rjs$363if$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=13138&group=rec.arts.drwho#13138

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mik...@xenocyte.com (The Last Doctor)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be
retconned from the Doctor Who lore
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2022 06:03:40 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <tl9rjs$363if$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tkrfdh$1gu3q$2@dont-email.me>
<tl896k$2vbai$1@dont-email.me>
<tl8ajd$2vfjr$1@dont-email.me>
<tl95e9$dda$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2022 06:03:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c9787ecd7edb197bb425965a63fed59a";
logging-data="3345999"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/QuwjBPnLlBJjrujdfVTWW"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tIU9HWkbPMVQHIefTOB4q4Lt0zc=
sha1:Od7L3cCP8pM8sMnYQKgGSjPGozY=
 by: The Last Doctor - Sat, 19 Nov 2022 06:03 UTC

The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <tl8ajd$2vfjr$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Since, apparently, the Time Lord DNA was spliced in to early Gallifreyans
>>> by the Doctor, this statement actually boils down to “we’ve seen that the
>>> Doctor has the Doctor’s DNA”.
>>
>> Oops. By Tecteun, not by the Doctor. Error on my part, no doubt one of many
>> but this is the one that stood out.
>>
>
> Tectuen is an error from the Timeless Child Era.

Tectuen is indeed an error. As would be Rallison, Ogema or the Dcotor.

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tlbaav$39ind$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=13172&group=rec.arts.drwho#13172

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mik...@xenocyte.com (The Last Doctor)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be
retconned from the Doctor Who lore
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2022 19:21:03 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 269
Message-ID: <tlbaav$39ind$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tkis75$i5na$1@dont-email.me>
<tkrfdh$1gu3q$2@dont-email.me>
<tl896k$2vbai$1@dont-email.me>
<tl95dd$dda$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2022 19:21:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="130e40d493ce4a4f4aa4ee66d66490a3";
logging-data="3459821"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+uOW/P0asxDlz2Y9oca41C"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bGAiC5+gGB0G1j/OmDStoA35irQ=
sha1:AMlk0RM0bBL836Q+v/egf+rI/oA=
 by: The Last Doctor - Sat, 19 Nov 2022 19:21 UTC

The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <tl896k$2vbai$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Tool <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:

[snip]

>> Please note, throughout, I’m not interested in how great or stupid the
>> Timeless Child story is. It’s pretty stupid. I’m discussing only whether it
>> breaks or contradicts the existing canon.
>>
>
> IT does hence the call for retconning.

It doesn’t, as I’ve repeatedly proved to you. Your call for retconning is
due to your misogynistic hatred of Jodie as the Doctor, not due to the
Timeless Child. You’ve been calling for a retcon since the 13th Doctor was
reveale and before you saw a single episodes helmed by Chibnall.

[snip]

>> The Timeless Child narrative says that the Doctor’s memory was wiped and
>> their next incarnation started as a young child.
>>
>
> Hollus bogus!
>
> That is the Timeless Child lie!

No, it’s part of the Timeless Child narrative. It’s one of the complex ways
in which it was written in order to evade contradictions. You’re trying to
claim that “there is a contradiction because I don’t like the reason given
for there being no contradiction”. What is bogus, therefore, is your
argument.

[snip]

>> Perhaps this idea of being half human was planted so that the Doctor could
>> explain to themselves why they felt different from all other Gallifreyans?
>
> Doubtful.

Would you rather the Doctor actually be half human?
Why is that better than being of an unknown species.

>
>>
>>> and walking on the
>>> grass with his father on Gallifrey as a child.
>>
>> Not explicitly stated to be the Doctor’s father or mother (could have
>> regenerated since the birth), and see above for how the Timeless Child
>> narrative would change the perception of this moment.
>
> Then explain what Calara saw when she was on Gallifrey like Hide!

Hide was set in the 70s and didn’t feature any of the Doctor’s history, nor
was it set on Gallifrey.

If you mean “Listen”, I already explained that according to the Timeless
Child narrative, after the Division wiped all the Doctor’s previous lives
from their memory, they forced a regeneration to early childhood.
Everything we have seen in the show can reflect that second childhood,
including adoptive or foster parents (who may even be agents for Division)
and the Doctor may not even have known.

[snip]

>>> We've seen the
>>> Doctor's mother in The End of Time.
>>
>> Offscreen intentions are not evidence. On screen, we saw a woman. Could
>> have been a mother, father, foster parent, old friend, Susan, or indeed
>> anyone.
>>
>
> Certainly not Susan.

So where have you seen it categorically stated that Susan lived out her
whole life on 22nd - 23rd century Earth? Why couldn’t other members of her
family or the Time Lords have located her and brought her home, perhaps
elevating her to full Time Lord status allowing her to regenerate?

“Certainly” not Susan? It may not be the likeliest answer to “who was the
woman?” but it is “certainly” a possible answer.

[snip]

>> We saw regeneration energy being supplied. The Time Lords in general were
>> not aware of the earlier incarnations or of the Timeless Child. Nor was the
>> Doctor, which is why he allowed himself to age so much, believing he was
>> the last incarnation.
>
> Major contradictions!

No. Major gaps in understanding caused by the secrecy and manipulations of
the Division.

[snip]

>> It’s pretty poor, but if you want examples of deranged autistic fan fic by
>> a clueless hack, you can find many much more egregious examples in your own
>> postings.
>>
>
> Fanning flames MM?

Evidence-based opinion with a solid body of tedious deranged fan fic, and
hundreds of posts by Aggie proving him a clueless hack. But yes, I concede
this is inflammatory as the Tool has no awareness of his actual quality of
work.

>> I’m not familiar with the DC character, but the new story doesn’t change
>> the character of the Doctor, it gives them an origin story that was
>> previously shrouded in mystery. I don’t think there was any need to remove
>> that mystery and replace it with this unpleasant and complex new mystery -
>> but it’s been done.
>
> A new mystery that could be a deranged lie.

It could be - but it’s canon until someone changes it. Which is unlikely to
happen as it’s easier to ignore than to deal with.

[snip]

>> What do you know of the Doctor’s mind? Maybe he was conditioned not to look
>> into those areas of the Matrix that contained memories he didn’t know he
>> had, and had no reason to look for anyway. If you had complete access to a
>> newspaper’s vaults, would you randomly go to open a door you didn’t know
>> was there to look for articles you didn’t know existed?
>>
>
> We found out about the MAtrix in the Deadly Assassin.

Yes, Dave. We already agreed that. In the Deadly Assassin, what mention was
made of secure storage for which the index file was secret and hidden from
all normal access?

[snip]

>> No, as usual you are making stuff up in your head and creating phantom
>> illogical straw men to knock down.
>>
>
> What logic are you following?

The correct kind for discussing the canon of the TV show - relying only on
the evidence of what we have been shown and told on screen, and not, as
Aggie persists in doing, inventing house-of-cards fantasies constructed by
selectively cherry picking quotes from show production members that agree
with my position while ignoring those from others, and making up things
that were never in the show OR in the novelisations and falsely claiming
they were, as the basis of my arguments.

[snip]

>> In any case, the Eye of Harmony isn’t physically on Gallifrey any more than
>> it’s physically in the Heart of a TARDIS. What we see are trans dimensional
>> gateways to where the Eye of Harmony really is - powering the Vortex.
>
>
> Moreso the Deadly Assassin.

Moreso the Deadly Assassin what? We know what the Eye of Harmony is - some
form of energetic explosion engineered by manipulating a black hole in ways
well beyond our knowledge of physics. Logically such a thing cannot be kept
behind a doorway on a planet - so what we see must be a space-time extra
dimensional gateway to the Eye. That explanation allows us to accept the
Eye in the TARDIS in the TV movie and gives us a perception of how the
Vortex can be “in” the TARDIS in Series 1, and what “the Heart of the
TARDIS” might be.

[snip]

> The Ravashers, The P'Ting , the tooth monster should all be retconned!

The Ravagers are poor but why do they need to be retconned? The P’ting is a
perfectly acceptable monster poorly visualised, and no sillier or worse
than the Adipose. Tim Shaw (so boring that nobody can remember his real
name) is just a weak villain.

Of those, only the Ravagers are linked to the Timeless Child and even then
only because they were apparently captured by the Jo Martin Doctor and
secretly incarcerated by the Division.

>> Wrong - all Time Lord regeneration stems from The Timeless Child. All
>> Gallifreyans are at least partly of the Doctor’s species, so there’s no
>> reason to question the regeneration.
>
> The Black hole is more plausible.

Is it? Why? And, more to the point, where in the show is it ever stated
that regeneration has anything to do with black holes? Name at least a
story or episode so that I can check. Stupider things have happened in the
show.

[snip]

>> Dave’s point - in full - was “incomplete cybermen”, a concept that goes
>> back to Stratton and Bates in Attack of the Cybermen.
>
>
> No I refer to Chibnall's incomplete Mondasian.

I know you meant to refer to Ashad, although as noted above, the entire
statement you made was “incomplete Cybermen”. This is, in fact, why I
mentioned two incomplete, as in, still half human, cybermen from over 35
years ago as the first examples of such.

>>> If he'd cloned him based
>>> on his DNA he'd be fully formed and fully human, let alone a broke blood
>>> covered face mask. More evidence that Chibnall is mentally retarded and
>>> doesn't have a clue how to write in a competent manner.
>>
>> Well, it takes one to know one I guess. But I disagree - Chibnall’s not a
>> great writer but he’s no Aggie.
>>
>
> TTD is better than Chibnall!

Opinions differ on this, Dave. Approximately 8 billion people have never
heard of Aggie or ever read anything he has written (admittedly the same
can be said of Chibnall for more than 9/10 of them).


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tlcmle$3fm30$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=13180&group=rec.arts.drwho#13180

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mik...@xenocyte.com (The Last Doctor)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be
retconned from the Doctor Who lore
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 07:57:34 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 318
Message-ID: <tlcmle$3fm30$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tl896k$2vbai$1@dont-email.me>
<tl95dd$dda$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlbaav$39ind$1@dont-email.me>
<tlc3ee$30se$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 07:57:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="84174ee9c540cea2005323481143711e";
logging-data="3659872"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/JP+8Y5Ytke04xug4km5QC"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oV9DyKvzg8tuzVsa+kAXo8mRsZA=
sha1:aVFDeUW0ZXb+Jy/lWRDcp9YqufI=
 by: The Last Doctor - Sun, 20 Nov 2022 07:57 UTC

The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <tlbaav$39ind$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <tl896k$2vbai$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:

>>>> Please note, throughout, I’m not interested in how great or stupid the
>>>> Timeless Child story is. It’s pretty stupid. I’m discussing only
>>>> whether it breaks or contradicts the existing canon.

>>> IT does hence the call for retconning.

>> It doesn’t, as I’ve repeatedly proved to you. Your call for retconning is
>> due to your misogynistic hatred of Jodie as the Doctor, not due to the
>> Timeless Child. You’ve been calling for a retcon since the 13th Doctor was
>> revealed and before you saw a single episode helmed by Chibnall.

> And now that Chibnall has nearly destroyerd the franchise...

Whether he has or hasn’t (he hasn’t) is irrelevant to the fact that your
call for retcon was originally due to your misogynistic hatred of Jodie as
the Doctor, and had nothing to do with Chibnall. And whether he has or
hasn’t (he hasn’t) has no bearing on whether the annoying Timeless Child
retcon breaks or contradicts the existing canon (it doesn’t).

>> No, it’s part of the Timeless Child narrative. It’s one of the complex ways
>> in which it was written in order to evade contradictions. You’re trying to
>> claim that “there is a contradiction because I don’t like the reason given
>> for there being no contradiction”. What is bogus, therefore, is your
>> argument.

> Timeless child narrative NOT the Doctor Who narrativE!

Yes, I was talking about the Timeless Child narrative, not the whole Doctor
Who narrative. What’s your point?

>>>> Perhaps this idea of being half human was planted so that the Doctor could
>>>> explain to themselves why they felt different from all other Gallifreyans?
>>>
>>> Doubtful.
>>
>> Would you rather the Doctor actually be half human?
>> Why is that better than being of an unknown species?

> So how the Gallifrey did artron energy come about?

Eh? What do you think artron energy has do do with whether the Doctor is
half Gallifreyan and half human, or the Doctor is the genetic ancestor of
all modern Gallifreyans?

Artron energy is a byproduct of time travel and has nothing to do with
Gallifrey or the Gallifreyan species, so why bring it up here?

[snip]

>> If you mean “Listen”, I already explained that according to the Timeless
>> Child narrative, after the Division wiped all the Doctor’s previous lives
>> from their memory, they forced a regeneration to early childhood.
>> Everything we have seen in the show can reflect that second childhood,
>> including adoptive or foster parents (who may even be agents for Division)
>> and the Doctor may not even have known.

> The Divioion is bogus!

That’s just a meaningless assertion, Dave. “La La La, I don’t like this so
it doesn’t exist” isn’t really a basis for debate.

>> So where have you seen it categorically stated that Susan lived out her
>> whole life on 22nd - 23rd century Earth? Why couldn’t other members of her
>> family or the Time Lords have located her and brought her home, perhaps
>> elevating her to full Time Lord status allowing her to regenerate?
>>
>> “Certainly” not Susan? It may not be the likeliest answer to “who was the
>> woman?” but it is “certainly” a possible answer.

> Susan was exiled by the Doctor.

You didn’t read what was written, did you, Dave? We all know what the
Doctor did. And she could still have been “the woman” in The End of Time
(but probably wasn’t). See the quoted paragraphs above for how.

>>> Major contradictions!
>>
>> No. Major gaps in understanding caused by the secrecy and manipulations of
>> the Division.

> The division contradicts Gallifrey!

Another meaningless assertion Dave, and in this case a fatuous one. Think
about it. In what way can a secret agency contradict a planet? They aren’t
the same class of entity. Does the FBI contradict granite?

[snip]

>> Evidence-based opinion with a solid body of tedious deranged fan fic, and
>> hundreds of posts by Aggie proving him a clueless hack. But yes, I concede
>> this is inflammatory as the Tool has no awareness of his actual quality of
>> work.
>>
>
> And the evidence sure looks like the Timeless Child contradict Doctor Who!

Three things here:

1) We were discussing the appalling quality of Aggie’s fan fiction, not the
Timeless Child, so your statement is in the wrong place

2) The Timeless Child legend is part of Doctor Who, so it can’t contradict
Doctor Who. You have to pick something specific that it contradicts.

3) What evidence? You never provide any. You need quotes from the show that
the Timeless Child narrative (including its rationalisations for why the
Doctor and most Time Lords don’t know about the Timeless Chid) contradicts.
And you’ve never found even one.

>>>> I’m not familiar with the DC character, but the new story doesn’t change
>>>> the character of the Doctor, it gives them an origin story that was
>>>> previously shrouded in mystery. I don’t think there was any need to remove
>>>> that mystery and replace it with this unpleasant and complex new mystery -
>>>> but it’s been done.
>>>
>>> A new mystery that could be a deranged lie.
>>
>> It could be - but it’s canon until someone changes it. Which is unlikely to
>> happen as it’s easier to ignore than to deal with.

> Easier to retconning out!

No, how is adding yet more complexity in order to retcon something stupid
easier than ignoring it?

>>> What logic are you following?
>>
>> The correct kind for discussing the canon of the TV show - relying only on
>> the evidence of what we have been shown and told on screen.

> Canon means you reject the Timeless Child.

That’s a meaningless comment as written, Dave. The Timeless Child is part
of the canon, so what you wrote there essentially says “canon means you
reject the canon”.

>>>> In any case, the Eye of Harmony isn’t physically on Gallifrey any more than
>>>> it’s physically in the Heart of a TARDIS. What we see are trans dimensional
>>>> gateways to where the Eye of Harmony really is - powering the Vortex.
>>>
>>>
>>> Moreso the Deadly Assassin.
>>
>> Moreso the Deadly Assassin what? We know what the Eye of Harmony is - some
>> form of energetic explosion engineered by manipulating a black hole in ways
>> well beyond our knowledge of physics. Logically such a thing cannot be kept
>> behind a doorway on a planet - so what we see must be a space-time extra
>> dimensional gateway to the Eye. That explanation allows us to accept the
>> Eye in the TARDIS in the TV movie and gives us a perception of how the
>> Vortex can be “in” the TARDIS in Series 1, and what “the Heart of the
>> TARDIS” might be.

> Note the TARDIS did need a refill from the Cardiff rift!

So Boom Town contradicts the canon. We know.

However, the whole exposition was done by Jack and Rose, who may have
misinterpreted what the Doctor told them. For example, suppose the TARDIS
has an engine something like a car, and rift energy is actually recharging
the battery for the starter motor to work, rather than supplying fuel for
motive power?

See? Some contradictions are easy to rationalise away.

>>> The Ravashers, The P'Ting , the tooth monster should all be retconned!
>>
>> The Ravagers are poor but why do they need to be retconned? The P’ting is a
>> perfectly acceptable monster poorly visualised, and no sillier or worse
>> than the Adipose. Tim Shaw (so boring that nobody can remember his real
>> name) is just a weak villain.
>>
>> Of those, only the Ravagers are linked to the Timeless Child and even then
>> only because they were apparently captured by the Jo Martin Doctor and
>> secretly incarcerated by the Division.
>>
>
> The whole era deserves retconning!

So you keep saying. I say the same about the McCoy era. But neither is
going to get retconned, so tough for both of us.

>
>>>> Wrong - all Time Lord regeneration stems from The Timeless Child. All
>>>> Gallifreyans are at least partly of the Doctor’s species, so there’s no
>>>> reason to question the regeneration.
>>>
>>> The Black hole is more plausible.
>>
>> Is it? Why? And, more to the point, where in the show is it ever stated
>> that regeneration has anything to do with black holes? Name at least a
>> story or episode so that I can check. Stupider things have happened in the
>> show.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>
> So you hate the Deadly assassin MM?


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tlcv91$3gd0b$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=13182&group=rec.arts.drwho#13182

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: danie...@nomail.afraid.org (Daniel65)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from
the Doctor Who lore
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 21:24:33 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <tlcv91$3gd0b$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca> <tkis75$i5na$1@dont-email.me>
<tkrfdh$1gu3q$2@dont-email.me> <tl896k$2vbai$1@dont-email.me>
<tl95dd$dda$1@gallifrey.nk.ca> <tlbaav$39ind$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 10:24:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="4330d2a9b5c169fc656fb399fbd08f7b";
logging-data="3683339"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/n1kkqOWwpPjs+Jaogd01db5RDPGdw/5I="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.53.14
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pNB9tso+C4ghZHZlz6zXQweUub0=
In-Reply-To: <tlbaav$39ind$1@dont-email.me>
 by: Daniel65 - Sun, 20 Nov 2022 10:24 UTC

The Last Doctor wrote on 20/11/22 6:21 am:
> The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:

<Snip>

>> The Ravashers, The P'Ting , the tooth monster should all be
>> retconned!
>
> The Ravagers are poor but why do they need to be retconned? The
> P’ting is a perfectly acceptable monster poorly visualised, and no
> sillier or worse than the Adipose. Tim Shaw (so boring that nobody
> can remember his real name) is just a weak villain.

No, Tim Shaw is not boring, he is quite effervescent!! ;-P

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Shaw_%28salesperson%29
--
Daniel

Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tlcve3$3gdcc$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=13183&group=rec.arts.drwho#13183

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mik...@xenocyte.com (The Last Doctor)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be
retconned from the Doctor Who lore
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 10:27:15 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <tlcve3$3gdcc$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tkis75$i5na$1@dont-email.me>
<tkrfdh$1gu3q$2@dont-email.me>
<tl896k$2vbai$1@dont-email.me>
<tl95dd$dda$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlbaav$39ind$1@dont-email.me>
<tlcv91$3gd0b$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 10:27:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="84174ee9c540cea2005323481143711e";
logging-data="3683724"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Ab7VXU1V7zMVPM0jz+so8"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vwBxnvsOEN+M3g7uFv44syxu1W8=
sha1:sqIA2LnfVtncnPNVOPQ+LtmbpXM=
 by: The Last Doctor - Sun, 20 Nov 2022 10:27 UTC

Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> The Last Doctor wrote on 20/11/22 6:21 am:
>> The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>
>>> The Ravashers, The P'Ting , the tooth monster should all be
>>> retconned!
>>
>> The Ravagers are poor but why do they need to be retconned? The
>> P’ting is a perfectly acceptable monster poorly visualised, and no
>> sillier or worse than the Adipose. Tim Shaw (so boring that nobody
>> can remember his real name) is just a weak villain.
>
> No, Tim Shaw is not boring, he is quite effervescent!! ;-P
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Shaw_%28salesperson%29

Not the one I was thinking of … mine was
https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Tzim-Sha

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tld2ih$3gh3q$7@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=13191&group=rec.arts.drwho#13191

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: danie...@nomail.afraid.org (Daniel65)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from
the Doctor Who lore
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 22:20:51 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <tld2ih$3gh3q$7@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca> <tkis75$i5na$1@dont-email.me>
<tkrfdh$1gu3q$2@dont-email.me> <tl896k$2vbai$1@dont-email.me>
<tl95dd$dda$1@gallifrey.nk.ca> <tlbaav$39ind$1@dont-email.me>
<tlcv91$3gd0b$1@dont-email.me> <tlcve3$3gdcc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 11:20:49 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="4330d2a9b5c169fc656fb399fbd08f7b";
logging-data="3687546"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19/oXpw9HQpkIgS/0tGYmh1KKQ7s1ex3Kw="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.53.14
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0K/N3iMZeMs6KEvNjT2IwjBiTBg=
In-Reply-To: <tlcve3$3gdcc$1@dont-email.me>
 by: Daniel65 - Sun, 20 Nov 2022 11:20 UTC

The Last Doctor wrote on 20/11/22 9:27 pm:
> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> The Last Doctor wrote on 20/11/22 6:21 am:
>>> The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>>> The Ravashers, The P'Ting , the tooth monster should all be
>>>> retconned!
>>>
>>> The Ravagers are poor but why do they need to be retconned? The
>>> P’ting is a perfectly acceptable monster poorly visualised, and no
>>> sillier or worse than the Adipose. Tim Shaw (so boring that nobody
>>> can remember his real name) is just a weak villain.
>>
>> No, Tim Shaw is not boring, he is quite effervescent!! ;-P
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Shaw_%28salesperson%29
>
> Not the one I was thinking of … mine was
> https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Tzim-Sha

Oh!! Really?? Surely you jest, Mike! ;-p
--
Daniel

Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tld4sg$3gq1b$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=13197&group=rec.arts.drwho#13197

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mik...@xenocyte.com (The Last Doctor)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be
retconned from the Doctor Who lore
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 12:00:16 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <tld4sg$3gq1b$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tkis75$i5na$1@dont-email.me>
<tkrfdh$1gu3q$2@dont-email.me>
<tl896k$2vbai$1@dont-email.me>
<tl95dd$dda$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlbaav$39ind$1@dont-email.me>
<tlcv91$3gd0b$1@dont-email.me>
<tlcve3$3gdcc$1@dont-email.me>
<tld2ih$3gh3q$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 12:00:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="93a7638f73015a25fb2e28c7e884aecb";
logging-data="3696683"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19mPilOdwOO6xpofN5qJbZj"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UnxY8P/ZeSceH/6ZQGuX31EmBfU=
sha1:1NIU6tHXHLzNrN4wjJhsShbP65Q=
 by: The Last Doctor - Sun, 20 Nov 2022 12:00 UTC

Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> The Last Doctor wrote on 20/11/22 9:27 pm:
>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>> The Last Doctor wrote on 20/11/22 6:21 am:
>>>> The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> <Snip>
>>>
>>>>> The Ravashers, The P'Ting , the tooth monster should all be
>>>>> retconned!
>>>>
>>>> The Ravagers are poor but why do they need to be retconned? The
>>>> P’ting is a perfectly acceptable monster poorly visualised, and no
>>>> sillier or worse than the Adipose. Tim Shaw (so boring that nobody
>>>> can remember his real name) is just a weak villain.
>>>
>>> No, Tim Shaw is not boring, he is quite effervescent!! ;-P
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Shaw_%28salesperson%29
>>
>> Not the one I was thinking of … mine was
>> https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Tzim-Sha
>
> Oh!! Really?? Surely you jest, Mike! ;-p

Oh I knew you were messing about Daniel - but there are a couple of people
here who take everything just a little bit literally…

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tld5jv$3gpdl$3@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=13202&group=rec.arts.drwho#13202

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: danie...@nomail.afraid.org (Daniel65)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from
the Doctor Who lore
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 23:12:49 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <tld5jv$3gpdl$3@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca> <tkis75$i5na$1@dont-email.me>
<tkrfdh$1gu3q$2@dont-email.me> <tl896k$2vbai$1@dont-email.me>
<tl95dd$dda$1@gallifrey.nk.ca> <tlbaav$39ind$1@dont-email.me>
<tlcv91$3gd0b$1@dont-email.me> <tlcve3$3gdcc$1@dont-email.me>
<tld2ih$3gh3q$7@dont-email.me> <tld4sg$3gq1b$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 12:12:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="4330d2a9b5c169fc656fb399fbd08f7b";
logging-data="3696053"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19byLPIt2lULbyUeWd+DjITKiW+wis/TKU="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.53.14
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jDwOa1tD003xeOEjW8izE54c7ZE=
In-Reply-To: <tld4sg$3gq1b$1@dont-email.me>
 by: Daniel65 - Sun, 20 Nov 2022 12:12 UTC

The Last Doctor wrote on 20/11/22 11:00 pm:
> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> The Last Doctor wrote on 20/11/22 9:27 pm:
>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>> The Last Doctor wrote on 20/11/22 6:21 am:
>>>>> The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <Snip>
>>>>
>>>>>> The Ravashers, The P'Ting , the tooth monster should all
>>>>>> be retconned!
>>>>>
>>>>> The Ravagers are poor but why do they need to be retconned?
>>>>> The P’ting is a perfectly acceptable monster poorly
>>>>> visualised, and no sillier or worse than the Adipose. Tim
>>>>> Shaw (so boring that nobody can remember his real name) is
>>>>> just a weak villain.
>>>>
>>>> No, Tim Shaw is not boring, he is quite effervescent!! ;-P
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Shaw_%28salesperson%29
>>>
>>> Not the one I was thinking of … mine was
>>> https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Tzim-Sha
>>
>> Oh!! Really?? Surely you jest, Mike! ;-p
>
> Oh I knew you were messing about Daniel - but there are a couple of
> people here who take everything just a little bit literally…
>
Ah!! Yes! Of course! I'd better pull my head in. ;-)
--
Daniel

Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tlffcu$3pa73$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=13225&group=rec.arts.drwho#13225

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mik...@xenocyte.com (The Last Doctor)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be
retconned from the Doctor Who lore
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 09:11:58 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 291
Message-ID: <tlffcu$3pa73$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlbaav$39ind$1@dont-email.me>
<tlc3ee$30se$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlcmle$3fm30$1@dont-email.me>
<tld9ks$2ln$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 09:11:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="bd2a01efa929afa8c56f4905c50e7e6b";
logging-data="3975395"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18MFIzS5Eam+wn7ByAHM8ih"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zYIPEnkUHlbCrTJOMc60fhTx+bc=
sha1:9UD+uIbVmimwZ8ALiKFD7sjYZtA=
 by: The Last Doctor - Mon, 21 Nov 2022 09:11 UTC

The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <tlcmle$3fm30$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <tlbaav$39ind$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <tl896k$2vbai$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:

>>> And now that Chibnall has nearly destroyerd the franchise...
>>
>> Whether he has or hasn’t (he hasn’t) is irrelevant to the fact that your
>> call for retcon was originally due to your misogynistic hatred of Jodie as
>> the Doctor, and had nothing to do with Chibnall. And whether he has or
>> hasn’t (he hasn’t) has no bearing on whether the annoying Timeless Child
>> retcon breaks or contradicts the existing canon (it doesn’t).
>
> Fact is he almost made Doctor Who into damaged goods!

Chibnall’s tenure hasn’t been great (though there are those online who
think it has, and that Jodie Whittaker was the Best! Doctor! Ever!). But he
delivered well enough to keep Doctor Who consistently in the top ten shows
of each week - and one of the top 2 or 3 scripted shows on the BBC. And
well enough that in a recent Radio Times poll it still came in at #2 of the
Greatest Shows of the last 25 years (below Call the Midwife but above Line
of Duty and Game of Thrones).

> Thankfully RTD to the rescue!

RTD wasn’t called in by a desperate BBC you know. Fact is that in lockdown
he did a bunch of Who related stuff, realised he’d fallen back in love with
the show and when Catherine Tate jokingly said after an online
watch-through “we should do this again you know” he thought about it, took
it seriously and asked the BBC if he could have his ball back, please. And
when he hired Ncuti Gatwa, he knew he would need to do something else to
deliver a 60th anniversary special and came up with the “Tennant reprised”
mini season (which, at three hours, isn’t far short of a full 7th Doctor
season).

>> Yes, I was talking about the Timeless Child narrative, not the whole Doctor
>> Who narrative. What’s your point?
>
> The Timeless Child is mutually exclusive to Doctor Who!

This is part of your problem Dave - an inability to accept reality. The
Timeless Child is now part of the history of Doctor Who, and not excluded
from it. But like most history, we’re all pretty much going to forget it.
Which is a win.

>> Artron energy is a byproduct of time travel and has nothing to do with
>> Gallifrey or the Gallifreyan species, so why bring it up here?
>
> Because you need artron energy for regeneration.

Again Dave, that is not stated anywhere in the show. You’re just making
that up. If you want to argue this point, rewatch the story where you think
this is said (or read a good transcript) and QUOTE the lines that support
your position.

Just naming a story (which, hen examined, will turn out not to support your
case) isn’t enough.

> More reason why the Timeless Child should be retconned!

Since your reason is a lie, that isn’t right.

>>> The Divioion is bogus!
>>
>> That’s just a meaningless assertion, Dave. “La La La, I don’t like this so
>> it doesn’t exist” isn’t really a basis for debate.
>
> Just as meaningless as the contradiction from Chibnall into the lore?!

That sentence doesn’t quite parse in English, but as I’ve demonstrated to
the point of exhaustion that there aren’t any such contradictions, yes it’s
100% meaningless. Like most of the things you say.

>> You didn’t read what was written, did you, Dave? We all know what the
>> Doctor did. And she could still have been “the woman” in The End of Time
>> (but probably wasn’t). See the quoted paragraphs above for how.
>>
>
> Doubtful that was Susan!

Yes, it’s highly doubtful that it was. But that’s not what you said before,
you said “Certainly not Susan”.

>>> The division contradicts Gallifrey!
>>
>> Another meaningless assertion Dave, and in this case a fatuous one. Think
>> about it. In what way can a secret agency contradict a planet? They aren’t
>> the same class of entity. Does the FBI contradict granite?
>
> You mean the CIA!

I didn’t, but does it matter? An organisation cannot be a contradiction of
a physical object. Honestly.

>> 2) The Timeless Child legend is part of Doctor Who, so it can’t contradict
>> Doctor Who. You have to pick something specific that it contradicts.
>
> The Timeless Child contradictis Doctor Who!

Read what I wrote and try again. B forms part of ABC therefore B can’t
contradict ABC.

>> 3) What evidence? You never provide any. You need quotes from the show that
>> the Timeless Child narrative (including its rationalisations for why the
>> Doctor and most Time Lords don’t know about the Timeless Child) contradicts.
>> And you’ve never found even one.
>>
>
> Or are you ignoring such quotes?

No. If you ever gave quotes I’d examine them and either agree with you or
point out where you went wrong. You keep failing the first criterion - you
never provide a relevant quote.

>>>> It could be - but it’s canon until someone changes it. Which is unlikely to
>>>> happen as it’s easier to ignore than to deal with.
>>
>>> Easier to retconning out!
>>
>> No, how is adding yet more complexity in order to retcon something stupid
>> easier than ignoring it?
>
> Easier once out it cannot be entertained again.

It could, but that’s beside the point. If we ignore it, we aren’t
entertaining it again. That’s part of what “ignoring it” means.

>>> Canon means you reject the Timeless Child.
>>
>> That’s a meaningless comment as written, Dave. The Timeless Child is part
>> of the canon, so what you wrote there essentially says “canon means you
>> reject the canon”.
>
> Sorry you are sounding like those woke Chibnallites.

I’m sorry you are sounding like a complete idiot. Am I “woke”? By Aggie’s
definition, certainly not. That’s him. By the real definition? This one?

woke /wəʊk/
adjective INFORMAL•US
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.

Probably not as much as I’d like to hope I am.

Am I a “Chibnallite”? Let me repeat: Chibnall’s tenure hasn’t been great.
And I’ve never said otherwise. So I don’t believe I am a “Chibnallite”,
which doesn’t seem to be a thing. Here’s what Google has to say not the
subject of “Chibnallite”:

It looks like there aren't many great matches for your search
Try using words that might appear on the page that you’re looking for. For
example, 'cake recipes' instead of 'how to make a cake'.

>>> Note the TARDIS did need a refill from the Cardiff rift!
>>
>> So Boom Town contradicts the canon. We know.
>>
>> However, the whole exposition was done by Jack and Rose, who may have
>> misinterpreted what the Doctor told them. For example, suppose the TARDIS
>> has an engine something like a car, and rift energy is actually recharging
>> the battery for the starter motor to work, rather than supplying fuel for
>> motive power?
>>
>> See? Some contradictions are easy to rationalise away.
>>
> NOpe! That was done away in Day fo the Doctor.

What was? The idea that some contradictions are easy to rationalise away?
Hint: if you don’t want to discuss the subject of the preceding sentence,
provide a subject. “That” or “it” in isolation, means the last thing that
was talked about.

>>> The whole era deserves retconning!
>>
>> So you keep saying. I say the same about the McCoy era. But neither is
>> going to get retconned, so tough for both of us.
>>
>
> The Mccoy Era is about Doctor Who! The Timeless Child is not!

Then stop discussing it and go and watch something else. Just because I
hate cheese doesn’t mean it’s not part of the burger I’m thinking about
eating, if it’s already melted onto the patty.

>>> So you hate the Deadly assassin MM?
>>
>> No, I quite like the Deadly Assassin. However, the extremely silly
>> technobabble about the Master’s plan is referring to a specific
>> circumstance - forcing a body to regenerate a thirteenth time when it’s
>> clapped out. It doesn’t say anything about how normal regeneration occurs
>> or that the Eye is related to it - everyone except the Doctor, who
>> magically knows the truth and conjures up the Master’s plan out of nowhere,
>> believes the Eye is a myth.
>>
>> Note that the Master’s motivation here is contradicted and made pointless
>> by The Five Doctors. After all that insistence that twelve regenerations is
>> a complete and total limit, and only blowing up the Eye of Harmony will
>> break that limit … it turns out that all the Master had to do was ask
>> nicely and he could have been granted a new cycle of regenerations.
>>
>
> Yet to is establish that you need the Eye of Harmony for Time TRavel!


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tlgblv$3repc$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=13244&group=rec.arts.drwho#13244

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mik...@xenocyte.com (The Last Doctor)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be
retconned from the Doctor Who lore
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 17:14:39 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 410
Message-ID: <tlgblv$3repc$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlcmle$3fm30$1@dont-email.me>
<tld9ks$2ln$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlffcu$3pa73$1@dont-email.me>
<tlfut5$2at3$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 17:14:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5e58fb311efdee7c8b279cfdeb14206a";
logging-data="4045612"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18NGXMY7koI1nEW1vyR9Kic"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:C0dZjrfBKA1aXHtjZCLb74I7F1c=
sha1:041rW2ZACh6qV/3uER+ShTOjKkg=
 by: The Last Doctor - Mon, 21 Nov 2022 17:14 UTC

The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <tlffcu$3pa73$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <tlcmle$3fm30$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:

>> Chibnall’s tenure hasn’t been great (though there are those online who
>> think it has, and that Jodie Whittaker was the Best! Doctor! Ever!). But he
>> delivered well enough to keep Doctor Who consistently in the top ten shows
>> of each week - and one of the top 2 or 3 scripted shows on the BBC. And
>> well enough that in a recent Radio Times poll it still came in at #2 of the
>> Greatest Shows of the last 25 years (below Call the Midwife but above Line
>> of Duty and Game of Thrones).
>
> Chibnall nearly cratered the show out of existence!
>

I post a paragraph indicating how immensely successful and popular Doctor
Who remains, in spite of the disappointing Chibnall era, and you post some
unsupported assertion about cratering. Way to ignore reality, Dave.

>> RTD wasn’t called in by a desperate BBC you know. Fact is that in lockdown
>> he did a bunch of Who related stuff, realised he’d fallen back in love with
>> the show and when Catherine Tate jokingly said after an online
>> watch-through “we should do this again you know” he thought about it, took
>> it seriously and asked the BBC if he could have his ball back, please.
>
> And given those who turned down to produce the next series ...

And who were they Dave? And why did they say no? Do share your surprising
level of detailed insider knowledge.

I wonder if you know even one name or even one reason, or if everything you
“know” is based on the one throwaway line about passing batons that
Chibnall made at a con.

>> This is part of your problem Dave - an inability to accept reality. The
>> Timeless Child is now part of the history of Doctor Who, and not excluded
>> from it. But like most history, we’re all pretty much going to forget it.
>> Which is a win.
>
> REality is , many are rejecting the Timeless Child as part of Doctor
> Who!

No, that’s not true, Dave. “Many” don’t like it - myself included. But
“rejecting it as part of Doctor Who” is something only a small handful of
sad losers are doing. Because it’s pointless and just a little bit insane
to do that.

>>> Because you need artron energy for regeneration.
>>
>> Again Dave, that is not stated anywhere in the show. You’re just making
>> that up. If you want to argue this point, rewatch the story where you think
>> this is said (or read a good transcript) and QUOTE the lines that support
>> your position.
>>
>> Just naming a story (which, hen examined, will turn out not to support your
>> case) isn’t enough.
>
> Scripts are available online!

So, you can’t name a story or quote from it. Because you’re wrong. What’s
so hard with admitting that?

>>> More reason why the Timeless Child should be retconned!
>>
>> Since your reason is a lie, that isn’t right.
>
> Lie pro-chibnall defender MM!

Calling me a “pro Chibnall defender” is indeed a lie Dave, as this thread
alone amply demonstrates. But you’ve written it awkwardly. In English, you
should have said “To call MM a pro Chibnall defender would be a lie”.

>>> Just as meaningless as the contradiction from Chibnall into the lore?!
>>
>> That sentence doesn’t quite parse in English, but as I’ve demonstrated to
>> the point of exhaustion that there aren’t any such contradictions, yes it’s
>> 100% meaningless. Like most of the things you say.
>
> Too bad you do not just want to see the truth?

I’d love to see the truth from you Dave. But I suspect I’m doomed to
eternal disappointment on that front.

> Are you a member of the Liverpool Labour club?

I’m happy to say I’ve got absolutely no idea what you think you’re talking
about here.

>>>> You didn’t read what was written, did you, Dave? We all know what the
>>>> Doctor did. And she could still have been “the woman” in The End of Time
>>>> (but probably wasn’t). See the quoted paragraphs above for how.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Doubtful that was Susan!
>>
>> Yes, it’s highly doubtful that it was. But that’s not what you said before,
>> you said “Certainly not Susan”.
>>
>
> MOst likely The Doctor's mother if RTD is to be believed!

Actually, Dave, while RTD said that he had the Doctor’s mother in mind
while drafting the story, in the end he decided that the character could be
interpreted as any trustworthy Time Lady like Susan Foreman, Susan's mother
(the Doctor's daughter or daughter-in-law), Romana, "or even the Rani".

>>>>> The division contradicts Gallifrey!
>>>>
>>>> Another meaningless assertion Dave, and in this case a fatuous one. Think
>>>> about it. In what way can a secret agency contradict a planet? They aren’t
>>>> the same class of entity. Does the FBI contradict granite?
>>>
>>> You mean the CIA!
>>
>> I didn’t, but does it matter? An organisation cannot be a contradiction of
>> a physical object. Honestly.
>
> CIA as in the Celestial Intervention Agency!

You keep misunderstanding the analogy. Your claim was “the division (an
organisation) contradicts Gallifrey (a planet)”. It’s the same as saying
“MI5 contradicts Earth”. It’s just nonsense.

>> Read what I wrote and try again. B forms part of ABC therefore B can’t
>> contradict ABC.
>
> The Timeless Child contradicts Doctor Who!

Try again. B forms part of {ABC} therefore B can’t contradict ABC.

> The Timeless Child is mutually exclusive to Doctor Who!

Try again. B forms part of {ABC} therefore B can’t
be excluded from {ABC}.

>>>> 3) What evidence? You never provide any. You need quotes from the show that
>>>> the Timeless Child narrative (including its rationalisations for why the
>>>> Doctor and most Time Lords don’t know about the Timeless Child)
>> contradicts.
>>>> And you’ve never found even one.
>>>
>>> Or are you ignoring such quotes?
>>
>> No. If you ever gave quotes I’d examine them and either agree with you or
>> point out where you went wrong. You keep failing the first criterion - you
>> never provide a relevant quote.
>
> Like the end of Time of the Doctor!

That’s not a quote - as I said, you keep failing the first criterion. I
can’t ignore quotes you don’t provide in the first place.

What part of the end of Time of the Doctor? PROVIDE QUOTES. What do you
think it is in conflict with? PROVIDE QUOTES.

>
>>>>>> It could be - but it’s canon until someone changes it. Which is
>> unlikely to
>>>>>> happen as it’s easier to ignore than to deal with.
>>>>
>>>>> Easier to retconning out!
>>>>
>>>> No, how is adding yet more complexity in order to retcon something stupid
>>>> easier than ignoring it?
>>>
>>> Easier once out it cannot be entertained again.
>>
>> It could, but that’s beside the point. If we ignore it, we aren’t
>> entertaining it again. That’s part of what “ignoring it” means.
>>
>
> Nope! Explain it away and carry on with Doctor Who!

Why bother wasting everyone’s time with yet more convoluted complexity?
Just ignore it and carry on with Doctor Who! The same as we did over the
half human silliness in the TV movie! The same as we do with the absurd
moon egg from Kill the Moon! The same as we do with every time the Master
returns after certain death! Just ignore it and carry on with Doctor Who!

>>> Sorry you are sounding like those woke Chibnallites.
>>
>> I’m sorry you are sounding like a complete idiot. Am I “woke”? By
>> Aggie’s
>> definition, certainly not. That’s him. By the real definition? This one?
>>
>> woke /wəʊk/
>> adjective INFORMAL•US
>> alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
>>
>> Probably not as much as I’d like to hope I am.
>>
>> Am I a “Chibnallite”? Let me repeat: Chibnall’s tenure hasn’t
>> been great.
>> And I’ve never said otherwise. So I don’t believe I am a “Chibnallite”,
>> which doesn’t seem to be a thing. Here’s what Google has to say not the
>> subject of “Chibnallite”:
>>
>> It looks like there aren't many great matches for your search
>> Try using words that might appear on the page that you’re looking for. For
>> example, 'cake recipes' instead of 'how to make a cake'.
>
> Baking cyanide MM?
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tlgcho$3rh35$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=13245&group=rec.arts.drwho#13245

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: solar.pe...@gmail.com (solar penguin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be
retconned from the Doctor Who lore
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 17:29:28 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <tlgcho$3rh35$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlcmle$3fm30$1@dont-email.me>
<tld9ks$2ln$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlffcu$3pa73$1@dont-email.me>
<tlfut5$2at3$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlgblv$3repc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 17:29:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="adbaeabe16c2dad586536daae94d8175";
logging-data="4047973"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/qekFg6S56URmLkhVo7/eCBGSLtwfw/Gc="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:szcDin8mlQWN4qNLCnUJsJd6Rkw=
sha1:LNlVaq7zmPJj20FkPPUf0d2wkWk=
 by: solar penguin - Mon, 21 Nov 2022 17:29 UTC

The Last Doctor let us know:

> The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>> In article <tlffcu$3pa73$1@dont-email.me>,
>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>> The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But how incomplete is the Mondasian process on
>>>> Mondasians?
>>>
>>> The process succeeds or fails on an individual basis.
>>> It’s not “all or nothing” by population.
>>
>> You call that a defence?
>
> Of what? I’m saying that the conversion process isn’t
> always successful or complete, and we’ve seen examples
> of that from 1986 onwards.

Just to be pedantic, we’ve seen examples of that since
1967 onwards. Remember Toberman?

--
solar penguin

Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tlge96$3rl50$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=13247&group=rec.arts.drwho#13247

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: solar.pe...@gmail.com (solar penguin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be
retconned from the Doctor Who lore
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 17:59:02 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <tlge96$3rl50$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlcmle$3fm30$1@dont-email.me>
<tld9ks$2ln$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlffcu$3pa73$1@dont-email.me>
<tlfut5$2at3$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 17:59:02 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a167d9093a84df245b5a003bb035e6a2";
logging-data="4052128"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+IYQxHbFZEJWcBIBcUia1mpn+yX5xXLYY="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8x+N8vqIelaSFuo5KYrjZ2Pwv+4=
sha1:YcT979mW0RO/DAZ4/vB8Wk8hO8c=
 by: solar penguin - Mon, 21 Nov 2022 17:59 UTC

The asswipe asserted:

> In article <tlffcu$3pa73$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <tlcmle$3fm30$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 3) What evidence? You never provide any. You need
>>>> quotes from the show that the Timeless Child narrative
>>>> (including its rationalisations for why the Doctor
>>>> and most Time Lords don’t know about the Timeless
>>>> Child) contradicts.
>>>> And you’ve never found even one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or are you ignoring such quotes?
>>
>> No. If you ever gave quotes I’d examine them and either
>> agree with you or point out where you went wrong.
>> You keep failing the first criterion - you never provide
>> a relevant quote.
>>
>
> Like the end of Time of the Doctor!
>

This is how ‘The Time of the Doctor’ ends:

DOCTOR: Kidneys! I've got new kidneys. I don't like the
colour.
CLARA: Of your kidneys?
(The Tardis starts lurching from side to side.)
CLARA: What's happening?
DOCTOR: We're probably crashing. Oh!
CLARA: Into what?
DOCTOR: Stay calm. Just one question. Do you happen
to know how to fly this thing?

How does that contradict the Timeless Child? How does
it contradict anything for that matter?

--
solar penguin

Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tlgqjl$3sndq$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=13251&group=rec.arts.drwho#13251

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mik...@xenocyte.com (The Last Doctor)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be
retconned from the Doctor Who lore
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 21:29:25 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <tlgqjl$3sndq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlcmle$3fm30$1@dont-email.me>
<tld9ks$2ln$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlffcu$3pa73$1@dont-email.me>
<tlfut5$2at3$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlgblv$3repc$1@dont-email.me>
<tlgcho$3rh35$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 21:29:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5e58fb311efdee7c8b279cfdeb14206a";
logging-data="4087226"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/E6YSLk2RA8pt+Cwst9JfP"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gsJwaZSA14RWfDnh/oOrpOJsCz0=
sha1:bfm68HOHPrdawXGn3NAtf035WMY=
 by: The Last Doctor - Mon, 21 Nov 2022 21:29 UTC

solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The Last Doctor let us know:
>
>> The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <tlffcu$3pa73$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> But how incomplete is the Mondasian process on
>>>>> Mondasians?
>>>>
>>>> The process succeeds or fails on an individual basis.
>>>> It’s not “all or nothing” by population.
>>>
>>> You call that a defence?
>>
>> Of what? I’m saying that the conversion process isn’t
>> always successful or complete, and we’ve seen examples
>> of that from 1986 onwards.
>
> Just to be pedantic, we’ve seen examples of that since
> 1967 onwards. Remember Toberman?
>

I do now. But yes, I’d completely forgotten him. One more data point
showing that the first incarnation of Ashad was not that remarkable.

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tlh0n7$3t7te$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=13252&group=rec.arts.drwho#13252

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mik...@xenocyte.com (The Last Doctor)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be
retconned from the Doctor Who lore
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 23:13:43 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <tlh0n7$3t7te$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlgblv$3repc$1@dont-email.me>
<tlgcho$3rh35$1@dont-email.me>
<tlgqjl$3sndq$1@dont-email.me>
<tlgvgv$31cd$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 23:13:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="bd5b7acab95f2425b54b206d7fe4713e";
logging-data="4104110"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/NAbGML3Wa+jUYGE+ngfQA"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EKuo/z98XbIgsCrAblpl2cT6Xs0=
sha1:6KyRqp0Ethm0e2fcGv98t2MT/x4=
 by: The Last Doctor - Mon, 21 Nov 2022 23:13 UTC

The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <tlgqjl$3sndq$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The Last Doctor let us know:
>>>
>>>> I’m saying that the conversion process isn’t
>>>> always successful or complete, and we’ve seen examples
>>>> of that from 1986 onwards.
>>>
>>> Just to be pedantic, we’ve seen examples of that since
>>> 1967 onwards. Remember Toberman?
>>>
>>
>> I do now. But yes, I’d completely forgotten him. One more data point
>> showing that the first incarnation of Ashad was not that remarkable.
>>
>
> Toberman has nothing to do with Ashad.

Let’s see : a humanoid is converted into a Cyberman but the conversion is
incomplete. Hmm, am I talking about Toberman or Ashad? Surely the same
statement can’t apply to both? Oh wait, yes it does.

Idiot.
--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tlh1ud$3taua$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=13253&group=rec.arts.drwho#13253

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: solar.pe...@gmail.com (solar penguin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be
retconned from the Doctor Who lore
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 23:34:37 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <tlh1ud$3taua$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlffcu$3pa73$1@dont-email.me>
<tlfut5$2at3$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlge96$3rl50$1@dont-email.me>
<tlgvfl$31cd$3@gallifrey.nk.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 23:34:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b50943dfd0f635b64968b364d74d63d1";
logging-data="4107210"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX196td0kbvkTO+M9OTvddJpPs3GJ0su80qw="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JtoiimOPj0JPHylfoarmloE6Bls=
sha1:D8DjiNwrcZHBVw48hxkI1v1B1uM=
 by: solar penguin - Mon, 21 Nov 2022 23:34 UTC

The asswipe asserted:

> In article <tlge96$3rl50$1@dont-email.me>,
> solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The asswipe asserted:
>>
>>> In article <tlffcu$3pa73$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You keep failing the first criterion - you never provide
>>>> a relevant quote.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Like the end of Time of the Doctor!
>>>
>>
>> This is how ‘The Time of the Doctor’ ends:
>>
>> DOCTOR: Kidneys! I've got new kidneys. I don't like the
>> colour.
>> CLARA: Of your kidneys?
>> (The Tardis starts lurching from side to side.)
>> CLARA: What's happening?
>> DOCTOR: We're probably crashing. Oh!
>> CLARA: Into what?
>> DOCTOR: Stay calm. Just one question. Do you happen
>> to know how to fly this thing?
>>
>> How does that contradict the Timeless Child? How does
>> it contradict anything for that matter?
>>
>
> Hey Idlehands-mouth Solar Penguin, you forgot Clara
> beggin the Time Lords as the Doctor was Dying!
>

Liar! That was several minutes before the end!

But even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend
that really was how the episode ended, how did it contradict
anything?

--
solar penguin

Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tlh5fa$3tj53$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=13255&group=rec.arts.drwho#13255

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mik...@xenocyte.com (The Last Doctor)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be
retconned from the Doctor Who lore
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 00:34:50 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 314
Message-ID: <tlh5fa$3tj53$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlffcu$3pa73$1@dont-email.me>
<tlfut5$2at3$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlgblv$3repc$1@dont-email.me>
<tlgvar$31cd$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 00:34:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="bd5b7acab95f2425b54b206d7fe4713e";
logging-data="4115619"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+6UPt/ArDyb0DqWd0EIR/J"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LXnDjh2BwZYFH2FK6dsmnuz6MJA=
sha1:t0yeP//WPmneSSiU8lzYEYtxZ3g=
 by: The Last Doctor - Tue, 22 Nov 2022 00:34 UTC

The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:

>> I post a paragraph indicating how immensely successful and popular Doctor
>> Who remains, in spite of the disappointing Chibnall era, and you post some
>> unsupported assertion about cratering. Way to ignore reality, Dave.
>
> REality is that you believe spin MM!

I accept facts. It’s you who are attempting to spin a disaster story out of
very little.

Idiot.

>>> And given those who turned down to produce the next series ...
>>
>> And who were they Dave? And why did they say no? Do share your surprising
>> level of detailed insider knowledge.
>>
>> I wonder if you know even one name or even one reason, or if everything you
>> “know” is based on the one throwaway line about passing batons that
>> Chibnall made at a con.
>>
>
> JMS and Neil Gaiman are 2 examples.

JMS offered. The BBC said “Don’t call us - we’ll call you.”

Chibnall might have approached Gaiman but Gaiman would have declined not
because of Doctor Who but because he’s already insanely busy - he had three
big TV projects on the go at the time (American Gods, Good Omens and
Sandman) two of which remain ongoing for 2023 and likely 2024, and
continues to pursue his main love which is writing.

Idiot.

>> No, that’s not true, Dave. “Many” don’t like it - myself included. But
>> “rejecting it as part of Doctor Who” is something only a small handful of
>> sad losers are doing. Because it’s pointless and just a little bit insane
>> to do that.
>>
>
> You must beleive I can sell you you a bridge.

Is that an attempt at Master style hypnosis? I don’t believe it would work
even for the Master through the medium of a newsgroup.

As for selling, you couldn’t sell a glass of water to a rich man lost in a
trackless desert.

Idiot.

>>>>> Because you need artron energy for regeneration.
>>>>
>>>> Again Dave, that is not stated anywhere in the show. You’re just making
>>>> that up. If you want to argue this point, rewatch the story where you think
>>>> this is said (or read a good transcript) and QUOTE the lines that support
>>>> your position.
>>>>
>>>> Just naming a story (which, hen examined, will turn out not to support your
>>>> case) isn’t enough.
>>>
>>> Scripts are available online!
>>
>> So, you can’t name a story or quote from it. Because you’re wrong. What’s
>> so hard with admitting that?
>>
>
> WE can get it from the same source.

Yes Dave. And I often do, which is why my arguments are based on actual
quotes from stories.

You, however, just name stories and then lie about them, and never provide
quotes that support your nonsense. Because it’s all lies and failures to
understand.

Idiot.

>> I’d love to see the truth from you Dave. But I suspect I’m doomed to
>> eternal disappointment on that front.
>>
>
> Are you are saying!

Gibberish.

Idiot.

>> You keep misunderstanding the analogy. Your claim was “the division (an
>> organisation) contradicts Gallifrey (a planet)”. It’s the same as saying
>> “MI5 contradicts Earth”. It’s just nonsense.
>>
>
> Still Gallifrey is the whole a Society of Time Lords
> and their subservants.

Is there supposed to be a point to that Gibberish?

Idiot.

>>>> Read what I wrote and try again. B forms part of ABC therefore B can’t
>>>> contradict ABC.
>>>
>>> The Timeless Child contradicts Doctor Who!
>>
>> Try again. B forms part of {ABC} therefore B can’t contradict ABC.
>>
>>> The Timeless Child is mutually exclusive to Doctor Who!
>>
>> Try again. B forms part of {ABC} therefore B can’t
>> be excluded from {ABC}.
>>
>
> Davrosian logic in action by MM!

There is no such thing as “Davrosian” logic. Just logic, and its
antithesis, the weird attempts at connecting unconnected things that seem
to pass for thinking in your head.

Idiot.

>>>>>> 3) What evidence? You never provide any. You need quotes from the show that
>>>>>> the Timeless Child narrative (including its rationalisations for why the
>>>>>> Doctor and most Time Lords don’t know about the Timeless Child)
>>>> contradicts.
>>>>>> And you’ve never found even one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or are you ignoring such quotes?
>>>>
>>>> No. If you ever gave quotes I’d examine them and either agree with you or
>>>> point out where you went wrong. You keep failing the first criterion - you
>>>> never provide a relevant quote.
>>>
>>> Like the end of Time of the Doctor!
>>
>> That’s not a quote - as I said, you keep failing the first criterion. I
>> can’t ignore quotes you don’t provide in the first place.
>>
>> What part of the end of Time of the Doctor? PROVIDE QUOTES. What do you
>> think it is in conflict with? PROVIDE QUOTES.
>>
>
> What about the Master driving Gallifrey back into the time lock?

That’s not even in Time of the Doctor. And it’s definitely not contradicted
by the Timeless Child legend, or even remotely connected.

Idiot.

>> That was what Google came up with when I searched for “Chibnallite”.
>> Nothing to do with me. Google does have this problem, you see. When
>> something doesn’t exist, there are no hits for it on the Internet.
>
> Google reliable? Spammers like Tim Bruening uses it as a platform.

It’s reliable enough that we can be pretty sure that the world doesn’t
believe that there is any such thing as a Chibnallite.

Idiot.

>>> Recall the end of
>>> Day of the doctor when The Doctors put Gallifrey in a pocket Universe?
>>
>> So was the need for the TARDIS to use rift energy mentioned then? Or the
>> Eye of Harmony? I must confess, I missed those bits! (Interrogates
>> transcript. “Rift” - 0/0. “Harmony” - 0/0.) Oh no! Dave, someone
>> has messed
>> with every copy of the episode and all the transcripts and has erased the
>> proof you provided!
>>
>> Of course, there are two other possibilities
>>
>> 1 you’re just making things up
>> 2 you meant to make a point but were incapable of using enough words to
>> form a coherent argument
>>
>
> Did you forget Utopia?

Another example of possibility 2 there, I think. Utopia and Day of the
Doctor are not related stories.

Idiot.

>>> The Timeless Child destroys Doctor Who!
>>
>> No, it didn’t. There will be 4 new extended episodes of the show next year,
>> surely that is proof enough that Doctor Who hasn’t been destroyed?
>
> The sooner the Timeless Child is retconned, the better ,
> including dropping Jo Martin all together and keeping
> her in Hobly City where she full belongs.

Gibberish.

Idiot.

>>>> The argument was over your false assertion that the Eye was needed for
>>>> regeneration.
>>>
>>> Oh? Explain that at the end of Dealy Assassin!
>>
>> We just did this. In fact, it’s all in the quoted text above. The Master,
>> out of regeneration and indeed skin, apparently needs an extraordinary
>> level of power (that would destroy Gallifrey) to circumvent the imposed 12
>> regeneration limit. According to the Doctor (who makes all this explanation
>> up with no foreshadowing or indication of how he’s worked this out) this
>> involves the Eye of Harmony. But that’s just an exceptional use for the
>> Master. No one suggests that the Eye, generally, is associated with the
>> normal process of regeneration.
>>
>
> But with Time travel.

You keep changing the subject every time I prove to you that neither the
Eye of Harmony nor artron energy are associated with regeneration. But
you’ll trot out the same stupid lie again soon. It’s quite frustrating.

Idiot.

>>> TTD much more intelligent than MM!
>>
>> We were referring to his fiction writing skills versus Chibnall’s, not his
>> intelligence versus mine.
>>
>> However, that’s a matter open to debate. Since I always win arguments
>> against him (though he’s too stupid to recognise it) I suspect I’m smarter.

>> One thing’s for sure though, Dave. You’re in no position to weigh my
>> intelligence against Aggie’s.
>
> You wil over TTD. You are highly delusional MM!


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tlh5n5$3tjk0$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=13256&group=rec.arts.drwho#13256

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mik...@xenocyte.com (The Last Doctor)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be
retconned from the Doctor Who lore
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 00:39:01 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <tlh5n5$3tjk0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlgqjl$3sndq$1@dont-email.me>
<tlgvgv$31cd$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlh0n7$3t7te$1@dont-email.me>
<tlh1ia$17g$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 00:39:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="bd5b7acab95f2425b54b206d7fe4713e";
logging-data="4116096"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18r2A8Nln+JXULUdxsk33RO"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:N0BUbDW2udG4ah5NxFW2ECo+nhw=
sha1:27mWD2ZWloXLDXtidZg4h3StMYc=
 by: The Last Doctor - Tue, 22 Nov 2022 00:39 UTC

The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <tlh0n7$3t7te$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:

>>> Toberman has nothing to do with Ashad.
>>
>> Let’s see : a humanoid is converted into a Cyberman but the conversion is
>> incomplete. Hmm, am I talking about Toberman or Ashad? Surely the same
>> statement can’t apply to both? Oh wait, yes it does.
>>
>> Idiot.
>
> Wrong. toberman is not Mondasian!

I said humanoid, not Mondasian. And there’s no reason to assume there’s
anything special or different about Mondasians.

Idiot.

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tli06r$24p7$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=13263&group=rec.arts.drwho#13263

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mik...@xenocyte.com (The Last Doctor)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be
retconned from the Doctor Who lore
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 08:11:07 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <tli06r$24p7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlh0n7$3t7te$1@dont-email.me>
<tlh1ia$17g$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlh5n5$3tjk0$1@dont-email.me>
<tlh8n1$74g$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 08:11:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="30520552770abbcfd9e198e0b9326ae9";
logging-data="70439"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18fIoV1CdXpqIYImn/IoGmo"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:H4plz7ehmODjy3V9yb6WWsNXC6E=
sha1:+aKnLHXcfXfkL54hl4b/TL/XPTQ=
 by: The Last Doctor - Tue, 22 Nov 2022 08:11 UTC

The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Toberman has nothing to do with Ashad.
>>>>
>>>> Let’s see : a humanoid is converted into a Cyberman but the conversion is
>>>> incomplete. Hmm, am I talking about Toberman or Ashad? Surely the same
>>>> statement can’t apply to both? Oh wait, yes it does.
>>>>
>>>> Idiot.
>>>
>>> Wrong. toberman is not Mondasian!
>>
>> I said humanoid, not Mondasian. And there’s no reason to assume there’s
>> anything special or different about Mondasians.
>>
>> Idiot.
>>
>
> And Teerans are not the same as Monadians.

Maybe not - I’m not familiar with either race in Doctor Who. But Terrans
and Mondasians are the same species. Mondas was a twin of Earth (see The
Tenth Planet). And yes, that’s just stupid. But it’s canon.

Idiot.

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tli0bg$2506$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=13264&group=rec.arts.drwho#13264

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mik...@xenocyte.com (The Last Doctor)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be
retconned from the Doctor Who lore
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 08:13:36 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <tli0bg$2506$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlgblv$3repc$1@dont-email.me>
<tlgvar$31cd$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlh5fa$3tj53$1@dont-email.me>
<tlh8m0$74g$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 08:13:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="30520552770abbcfd9e198e0b9326ae9";
logging-data="70662"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+wbAWVv0T9qu9ZA/D0PbtR"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HsiXFubETqKI+bRVZz76Eyqh98A=
sha1:buIZmBPp5j6unESY21bxF39VqSc=
 by: The Last Doctor - Tue, 22 Nov 2022 08:13 UTC

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <tlh5fa$3tj53$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> I accept facts. It’s you who are attempting to spin a disaster story out of
>> very little.
>>
>> Idiot.
>>
>
> Very little! The Timeless children made people want to hope the Chibnall
> resgnation was true!

Not sure what that is, but a few people did indeed want Chibnall to resign.
Still doesn’t mean that Doctor Who wasn’t still a success story for the
BBC.

>> JMS offered. The BBC said “Don’t call us - we’ll call you.”
>>
>> Chibnall might have approached Gaiman but Gaiman would have declined not
>> because of Doctor Who but because he’s already insanely busy - he had three
>> big TV projects on the go at the time (American Gods, Good Omens and
>> Sandman) two of which remain ongoing for 2023 and likely 2024, and
>> continues to pursue his main love which is writing.
>>
>> Idiot.
>
> And not one wanted the damaged goods except for 1 !

You do not know who was really offered the job. You do not know why they
turned it down, if indeed they did. Nor do I, but I’m not the one making
shit up and falsely claiming “damaged goods” were on offer.

[snip many unanswered points]

>> Then why did you accuse me of name calling, if you read what was written so
>> know that I did no such thing?
>>
>> Idiot.
>
> Because you did that on Facebook and got called out.

Liar! I never did any such thing and was never called out on it. That is a
total fabrication on your part. How sad and desperate, and you spit on the
commandments you profess to venerate, by deliberately and maliciously
bearing false witness.

Idiot UnChristian Liar!

>>> SO you recall everything from Speard from Space to Logopolis.
>>
>> More than that, I recall everything from An Unearthly Child to The Power of
>> the Doctor. Not perfectly, but if I need to refresh my memory to support a
>> discussion I re-read a transcript or re-watch an episode. That’s why I know
>> what is actually there, as opposed to your fumbling, errors, inventions and
>> outright lies.
>>
>> Idiot.
>
> You mean An Unearthly Child to Twice Upon a Time
> if you want to go that far.

No, I went beyond your stupid self-imposed limitations and included all the
episodes to date.

Idiot.

[snip unanswered points]

[snip tedious repetition of nonsensical crusade against non existent
people.]

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be retconned from the Doctor Who lore

<tli2j8$2aj1$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=13265&group=rec.arts.drwho#13265

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: solar.pe...@gmail.com (solar penguin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why the Timeless Child should be
retconned from the Doctor Who lore
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 08:51:52 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <tli2j8$2aj1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tkggv7$180c$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlh0n7$3t7te$1@dont-email.me>
<tlh1ia$17g$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>
<tlh5n5$3tjk0$1@dont-email.me>
<tlh8n1$74g$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 08:51:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8df1c3b903cc3603a3c9cddb5f80ad26";
logging-data="76385"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX188BX43Xil58JrEuwxtFuPm3O5MgkRzBck="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1://OcYA1GxhUP3Wbp5exDJ2oNw3Y=
sha1:pvbTelLPk40rj4zhFEWvEO8zFhY=
 by: solar penguin - Tue, 22 Nov 2022 08:51 UTC

The asswipe asserted:

> In article <tlh5n5$3tjk0$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <tlh0n7$3t7te$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Idiot <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Toberman has nothing to do with Ashad.
>>>>
>>>> Let’s see : a humanoid is converted into a Cyberman
>>>> but the conversion is incomplete. Hmm, am I talking
>>>> about Toberman or Ashad? Surely the same statement
>>>> can’t apply to both? Oh wait, yes it does.
>>>>
>>>> Idiot.
>>>
>>> Wrong. toberman is not Mondasian!
>>
>> I said humanoid, not Mondasian. And there’s no reason
>> to assume there’s anything special or different about
>> Mondasians.
>>
>> Idiot.
>>
>
> And Teerans are not the same as Monadians.
>

Aren’t they? What’s the difference?

--
solar penguin

Pages:123
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor