On 24/10/2022 16:20, solar penguin wrote:
>
> On Monday, 24 October 2022 at 12:27:05 UTC+1, an angry Aggy
> again attempted to argue:
>
>> On 24/10/2022 11:38, solar idiot wrote:
>>>
>>> The True Doctor wrote:
>
> Liar! That's not what I wrote!
>

I never said it was. Your infantile muttering was replaced.

>>>
>>>> This also serves as cover for the Master to force the Doctor to
>>>> regenerate into the Master and the Master into the Doctor? WHAT?
>>>> If he had transferred his mind into the
>>>> body of the Doctor and still looked like Whittaker then it might
>>>> have made some sense.
>>>
>>> This seems to be following on from Missy's desire to corrupt the Doctor
>>> in the 'Death In Heaven' two-parter, only taken to even greater extremes.
>>> It's no longer enough for the Doctor to become like him. She literally has
>>> to become him. (True, it doesn't make much sense but nothing the Master
>>> has done from Ainley onwards has made sense.)
>>
>> Complete and utter nonsense. The Master has been reduced from a
>> competent methodical intellectual villain into a randomly deranged,
>> illogical, nihilistic psychopath.
>
> Yes, but that already happened long before Chibnall took over.
>

It became worse than ever under Chibnall.

>> If he can impersonate Rasputin then he
>> doesn't need the Doctor's body in order to impersonate them.
>
> The Master doesn't _need_ to do anything. He doesn't need to take
> over the world or destroy the universe. He does things because he
> wants to. Not because he needs to.

Nonsense. The nihilistic psychopathic portrayal of villains in modern
films and TV shows is totally degenerate and indicative of writers who
are mentally retarded and taught to write like autistic children.

The real Master like all good villains thinks he can rule the world
better than anyone else because he thinks his system of values based on
the rule of the strongest and the destruction of the week is superior,
or he wants to make a huge fortune for himself to finance his ambitions
at other people's expense, usually through crime.

Any writer who does not understand that is a clueless mentally retarded
hack.

The character of the Master himself and his relationship with the Doctor
was based on Blackie DuQuesne from E E Smith's Skylark series.

>
> He doesn't want to merely impersonate the Doctor. He wants to corrupt
> her so thoroughly that she literally becomes him. He can't do that by just
> impersonating her.

The Master is not Hannibal fucking Lector. He doesn't need the Doctor
for anything and doesn't give a damn what the Doctor does just as long
as their paths do not cross.

The childish caricature created by Chibnall is not the Master in any way
shape or form.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tegan and Ace turn up out of nowhere and meet, because? For reasons
>>>> unexplained they meet Kate Stewart
>>>
>>> It was explained. You obviously weren't paying attention.
>>>
>> No it wasn't. How did Tegan meet and join forces Ace? Not explained. How
>> did they end up knowing Kate Stewart when Tegan didn't even know of UNIT
>> and Ace only met the Brigadier once? Not explained.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Kate explained that when she re-created UNIT she wanted people with

How did she re-created UNIT? When were we shown this?

> experience fighting aliens, so she contacted Tegan and Ace, not the other
> way round.

When were we shown her finding out about Tegan and Ace and recruiting them?

Like I said Chibnall never explained anything. You're supposed to show
not tell.

>
> (See what you miss if you don't pay attention.)
>

There was nothing there to miss.

>>>>
>>>> David Bradley, Peter Davison, Colin Baker, Sylvester McCoy, Paul McGann
>>>> all destroyed together. That's what the devices were for.
>>>
>>> Bradley, Colin and McGann's appearances had nothing to do with the
>>> devices. You obviously weren't paying attention.
>>>
>> Wrong! You obviously didn't watch the episode.
>>
>> Bradley, Colin and McGann's appearances to Ace, Tegan, and Kate were all
>> hallucinations or holograms generated by the devices
>
> Wrong.
>
> No holograms appeared to Kate. Davison's hologram appeared to Tegan,
> and McCoy's to Ace. But Bradley, Colin and McGann appeared (along with
> the others) as visions to the Whittakers subconcious self in her subconcious
> dream landscape.

Whatever.

>
> (See what you miss if you don't pay attention.)
>

There was nothing there to miss.

Where was it shown how Whittaker prepared the holograms to do this and
how they would be triggered? How and when did she deduce she would need
them now?

>>>>
>>>> Vinder turns up out of nowhere for no explained reason.
>>>
>>> It was explained in one ofthe clumsiest, most badly-written pieces of
>>> exposition in the episode. You obviously weren't paying attention.
>>
>> Nothing was explained. Why did Vinder decide he needed to chase after
>> the missing alien? Why was it important and to whom?
>
> He seemed to be working for whoever had been transporting the
> alien-child-thing on the space train in the first place, to recover their
> stolen property for them.

Seemed!!!!

Where was it shown? It's for the writer to make the audience aware of
all the important events that took place and how they began, not to let
the audience make up their own stories, otherwise if they can do that,
he's out of a job.

>
> (True, it was never explained who was transporting the alien-child-thing
> on the space train in the first place, and that would've been a valid
> complaint if you'd made it. But you chose to invent your own nonsense
> complaint instead.)

I haven't invented any nonsense. All the nonsense comes from you and
Chibnall?

How does a space train actually work? This is supposed to be a science
fiction show isn't it? Does it have a locomotive engine linked to
carriages? Does it run on rails, if not then it's technically a caravan.

Why is none of this explained?

>
>>>
>>>> Bradley Walsh also turns up out of nowhere for no explained reason
>>>> either.
>>>
>>> Following on from how he left at the end of 'Revolution of the Daleks.'
>>> You obviously weren't paying attention then either.
>>>
>> What does this episode have to do with Revolution of the Daleks?
>> Nothing. What was Bradley Walsh doing looking after missing paintings,
>> archaeologists, or whatever? NOT EXPLAINED!
>
> Wrong.
>
> When we last saw them, Graham and Ryan were planning to
> investigate mysterious happenings around the world. Why wouldn't
> that include "missing paintings, archaeologists, or whatever?"
>

Where was it shown them deciding to investigate missing paintings? Where
did the archaeologists come from? I thought they were supposed to be
seismologists, who have sod all to do with the triggering of dormant
volcanos.

>>>>
>>>> Jo Martin returns out of nowhere too, with no foreshadowing whatsoever,
>>>
>>> It was foreshadowed. You obviously weren't paying attention.
>>>
>> No it wasn't. She returns out of nowhere for no reason other than
>> Chibnall needs to insert her in the scene as a MacGuffin.
>
> Wrong.
>
> That wasn't really Jo Martin's Doctor. It was the hologram. And (as

A hologram projected by her.

> you pointed out above) it was already established that the hologram
> could take on the forms of previous Doctors.

Only ones the Doctor can remember, not ones that have been erased from
her memory for good. If she can remember Jo Martin then why didn't Clara
see her in The Name of the Doctor?

>
> (See what you miss if you don't pay attention.)
>

There was nothing there to miss.

When did Jo Marting find out Whittaker was in trouble and decided to
send a hologram?

> And now I'm wondering if Whittaker's Doctor is still asleep in the TARDIS
> and we actually saw the hologram regenerate into Tennant?
>

With any luck it will be Capaldi that's been asleep since Last
Christmas, and everting else has all been a bad dream.

>>>>
>>>> Why was the Master kidnapping seismologists?
>>>
>>> He wasn't kidnapping them. You obviously weren't paying attention.
>>
>> They seismologists go missing and they've not been abducted? So they
>> went off by themselves to visit some volcanos?
>
> Wrong.
>
> The Master murdered them all with his tissue compression eliminator

Why?

> then arranged the tiny bodies on the chairs in the lecture theatre in
> Naples.

What does that have to do with the question I asked? What did the Master
need them for? So he could lecture at dolls? What do seismologists,
experts on earthquakes, have to do with the study of what triggers
volcanos to erupt? Their only job is to measure the results after a
volcano has already erupted, predict earthquakes, and possibly predict
volcanic eruptions based on seismological activity, not trigger the
eruptions themselves which is what the Master and the Daleks were trying
to do. And why would either of then need human experts anyway when they
have far superior science?

>
> (See what you miss if you don't pay attention.)

This is nothing to do with not paying attention. It's all to do with bad
writing and bad directing.

>
>> What do they have to do
>> with volcanos anyway? They're seismologists, experts on earthquakes, not
>> volcanologists, experts on volcanic eruptions.
>
> That's a good point, for a change. Maybe the Daleks would've caused
> earthquakes when they installed all that massive equipment in the
> volcanoes, and the Master killed the seismologists to stop them
> noticing?

Stop them noticing? There's entire government agencies all over the
world which measure earthquakes. Abducting a dozen random seismologists
isn't going to stop people noticing an earthquake occurring, and why
does the Master not want them to notice anyway?

>
(Although the still doesn't explain why he didn't simply use
> Salamander's volcano making equipment left over from just a few
> years ago!)

How would he know about?

>
>>>>
>>>> Why was the Master stealing or vandalizing famous paintings? What was
>>>> the point of putting his face on them? Is he supposed to be the Master
>>>> or the fucking Joker?
>>>
>>> Why are you expecting the Master's plans to make sense? You obviously
>>> weren't paying attention since 1980 or earlier.
>>>
>> You obviously were not. Chibnall's bad writing is inexcusable.
>>
>> What the fuck did the Master have to gain from putting his face on
>> famous paintings?
>
> What the fuck did he have to gain from cosplaying as an offensive
> racial stereotype while trapped in Jurassic era England?
>
> Satisfaction. That's what he gained. He did it because he wanted to.

So as well as being an nihilistic psychopath with autism, he's also got
Turrets and sever OCD. This is no justification for anything let alone
characterisation or character development.

>
> Or if that isn't good enough for you...
>
> This could've been his plan B. If the Doctor hadn't gone to the
> rendezvous with the rogue Dalek, she would've followed the trail
> of the paintings and ended up in his trap that way.
>
> There. Happy now?

Why would the paintings have led to the Master's location? What was
encoded in them to achieve that?

>
> (But personally I still prefer the idea that he just did it because
> he wanted to.
>

Because Chibnall can't write a coherent story or plot.

>>>>
>>>> What the fucking hell is he doing impersonating Rasputin, besides making
>>>> him an Asian and making everyone who accepts this racist impersonation
>>>> without realising the race swap look totally stupid and unbelievable.
>>>
>>> It was established back in Spyfall that this Master uses a perception filter to
>>> hide his race. You obviously weren't paying attention then either.
>>>
>> It was established that perception filters only work on complete
>> imbeciles. Was every Russian that met him a complete imbecile?
>
> Wrong.
>
> DOCTOR: I don't like what you're wearing. Or the company you keep.
> How have you managed that? You're not exactly their Aryan archetype.
>
> MASTER: Tiny Teutonic psychic perception filter. Learned it at school.
> Lets people see what they want to see.
>
> No mention of it only working on "complete imbeciles".

The Doctor has previously explained that perceptions filters only work
for people who are totally stupid.

>
> In fact the phrase "complete imbeciles" doesn't appear anywhere in
> any episode of Doctor Who, ever:
> https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.chakoteya.net%2FDoctorWho+%22complete+imbecile%22
>
>>>> None of this garbage made any sense.
>>>
>>> It made slightly more sense if you paid attention to it. You obviously didn't.
>>>
>> It made no sense at all.
>
> Maybe if you weren't trying to watch it and 'The Lord of the Rings' at
> the same time, you wouldn't get so confused between the two of them?
>

It wasn't The Lord of the Rings. It was The Rings of Power, and it ended
two weeks ago. It was House of the Dragon, you know, the one with Matt
Smith in it, not Game of Thrones, that ended on Sunday.

>>>> It was nothing but random scenes and random events put together for
>>>> show, linked together by nothing that had any coherence or which evolved
>>>> from character development and iteration to tell a story.
>>>
>>> You say that like it's a bad thing.
>>>
>> Of course it's a bad thing. Are you autistic?
>
> That's four times in four posts that you've randomly thrown in
> the word 'autistic'. Projecting again?
>

The word was not thrown in at random. Chibnall's writing and the writing
of the hacks responsible for the Rings of Power meets the medical
definition and displays all of the main symptoms of autism.

Here is what Google says:

<<What are the 3 main symptoms of autism?
Main signs of autism

finding it hard to understand what others are thinking or feeling.
getting very anxious about social situations. finding it hard to make
friends or preferring to be on your own.

Signs of autism in adults - NHShttps://www.nhs.uk › ... › Autism › Signs
of autism
Search for: What are the 3 main symptoms of autism?
What are the 5 symptoms of autism?
Restricted or Repetitive Behaviors or Interests
Lines up toys or other objects and gets upset when order is changed.
Repeats words or phrases over and over (called echolalia)
Plays with toys the same way every time.
Is focused on parts of objects (for example, wheels)
Gets upset by minor changes.
Has obsessive interests.>>

It looks like Chibnall's Master fits all of the first 3 symptoms.

It also appears that the scene of the Master lecturing at the dolls
satisfies all of the next 5 as well.

Chris Chibnall is fucking autistic.

>>>
>>> At last he's finally writing to his strengths, giving us an episode that's
>>> packed full of great character monents, and didn't even bother trying
>>> too much about the plot. That's why it was his best episode by far.
>>>
>> There's no character moments whatsoever. It's just member-berries.
>
>
? You're just posting words at random now.
>

From Google again:

<<In "Member Berries", they were introduced by J.J. Abrams when the U.S.
Representatives implore him to reboot the national anthem by saying, "We
need your memberberries!" Their main function is to remember pop culture
icons, bringing about nostalgic feelings for the supposed good times of
the past.>>

>>> more than just one screening of just one trailer. You obviously weren't
>>> paying attention for those either.
>>
>> The BBC were obviously not targeting them at the right audience, if
>> there were any more than two of them.
>
> They probably weren't targetting you, but your low opinion of the
> show means you're probably not their target audience anyway.

They're targeting autistic woke morons who are incapable of
understanding logic, reason, interpersonal interactions, poetry,
literature, or human morality.

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

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