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?

What did Chibnall change? Provide an example, don’t just claim it. Use
quotes from episodes. Otherwise Dave, you’re just another big liar like
your hero in blustering falsehoods, the Donald.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> Quite a lot!

Gallifreyans are all, genetically, descended from the Doctor. How much more
Gallifreyan does the Doctor need to be than that? Especially since they
have known and remember no other home world.

>
>> 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?
>>
>
> Thus proving you are pro-Timeless Child and anti-DoctorWho and pro-chibnall
> MM!

I’ve never claimed to be pro Timeless Child, so that’s a lie. I accept it,
but I don’t like it. I’m not pro Brexit just because I don’t deny the vote
was legitimate, either. It’s a thing. It’s happened. Let’s move on.

I’m certainly not anti Doctor Who - you should look at all the people
trying to tear it down and destroy it, or claim it’s a failure despite the
BBC clearly believing it’s a flagship show, or that it already ended years
ago and the current version is a fraud or fake. Those are the people who
are anti Doctor Who - you among them.

And I’m not exactly pro Chibnall - he’s definitely proven himself the
weakest of the three modern show runners to date and in fact looking back
on the execs of the classic show, he is better only than John Nathan-Turner
and even then only better than the second half of J N-T’s curation of the
show.

So that’s three patent lies in one sentence from you Dave. And not the
first time I’ve told you you’re a liar and proved it with the words I’ve
written in support of my position.

Stop just telling lies and making shit up, Dave. You claim to be a
Christian - bearing false witness is a sin. Go forth and sin a bit less
(baby steps!)

--
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/.