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.

>
> 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

It's explicitly stated in The Underworld. Also explicitly stated in the
televised stories is that long space journeys by the Time Lords were
impossible without out it. Thus Tecteun's solo flight where she
discovers and builds everything all by herself (totally lunatic autistic
writing) is completely impossible within existing lore before mechanical
regeneration is invented by the Time Lords themselves.

> something that was never stated. Strike 9.
>

against you.

>> 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

It contradicts The Arc of Infinity where both the Doctor and Omega know
that the Doctors DNA is 100% Gallifreyan otherwise it would be
incompatible with Omega's.

> provide their powers of regeneration, it is true that the Doctor was not
> the same species as the original Shobogans of Gallifrey. But, the

Shobogans were not a people of Gallifrey, the word is a corruption of
the word Saboteurs, and that is how Terrance Dicks who wrote the Deadly
Assassin refers to them in both the TV story and the Target Novelisation
where the words is replaced with "saboteurs".

> 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.
>

BULLSHIT!

> 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

The Timeless Child monster does not arise from the canon of the show. It
totally contradicts canon and totally and utterly destroyed the
character of the Doctor as shown above.

> 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?
>

The best thing RTD can do is in the opening sceen of the first
anniversary special Tennant goes into the TARDIS, opens the fob watch,
thinking that everything including his clothes regenerating is all an
illusion, and nothing happens, just as he expected, then he gets a
message from Gallifrey sending him a warning about the Celestial Toymaker.

--
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