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).

Of the ten or so people on Earth who have had the misfortune to read
Aggie’s emissions and have seen works penned by Chibnall, all but two of
them would place Aggie far, far lower than Chibnall.

The two people out of 8 billion who have the minority opinion are you and
Aggie himself.

[snip]

>> Nope, that is only true of the Master trying to break the bounds of
>> regeneration. Nowhere is it stated that regular regeneration requires any
>> such energies.
>>
>
> The energy comes from the altron energy.

You mean “artron” energy. Artron energy accumulates on objects and people
who travel through time - it’s one way of detecting time machines and time
travellers. And while it has been used as technobabble many times, nowhere
in the show is it associated with regeneration. If you want to debate this
point, please name at least a story or episode in which you believe it has,
so that we can all check.

[snip]

>> “sceen”? Not sure what you’re getting at here but I’m 98%
>> positive we’ll
>> never see that fob watch again and no one will ever mention the Timeless
>> Child. We might occasionally see one-off earlier incarnations of the Doctor
>> we’ve never seen before - as we did with the War Doctor, but now pre-dating
>> current canon - but that’s all.
>>
>
> And theTime Lords were invented in the War Games!

Well done Dave, you’ve managed to state a fact. What does that have to do
with my opinion that the fob watch containing the Doctor’s pre-Hartnell
lives has been consigned to the dustbin of Doctor Who ideas?

--
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/.