There were no
incarnations of the Doctor before William Hartnell. At best you could
assume that there might have been unseen and invisible
inter-regenerational projections between Hartnell and Troughton,
Troughton and Pertwee, and Pertwee and Tom Baker.
Verily, in article <[email protected]>, did >[email protected] deliver unto us this message:
There were no
incarnations of the Doctor before William Hartnell. At best you could
assume that there might have been unseen and invisible
inter-regenerational projections between Hartnell and Troughton,
Troughton and Pertwee, and Pertwee and Tom Baker.
Agree. I still am not sure why Chibnall decided to screw with cannon
so
much. I thought that was one of the first rules of time travel...
don't do
anything to screw up the past.
In fairness, DW has never observed that rule. The Doctor makes massive >timeline changes all the time.
--
Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time
This week: Doctor Who & the Silurians [Third Doctor] >https://discord.gg/k8s4V2th?event=1399108589234294914
There were no
incarnations of the Doctor before William Hartnell. At best you could
assume that there might have been unseen and invisible
inter-regenerational projections between Hartnell and Troughton,
Troughton and Pertwee, and Pertwee and Tom Baker.
Agree. I still am not sure why Chibnall decided to screw with cannon
so
much. I thought that was one of the first rules of time travel...
don't do
anything to screw up the past.
* SLMR 2.1a * Direct from the Ministry of Silly Walks
On 30/07/2025 12:40, Daniel70 wrote:
On 30/07/2025 12:26 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Bad writers is who have the power. If an AI came up with suchPerhaps what 'they' should have said, way back when, was that if you
inconstant nonsense it would be shouted down for it.
All points in time should either be fixed points or none of them are.
A fixed point means you can't change it ever, so why was Rose able to
save her father? Everything should have conspire so that she never could. >>
alter something NOW it COULD have SERIOUS implications for the future.
Saving some girl back in Viking times wouldn't have serious implications
for the future ..... as long as she keeps her head down.
Everyone living in Europe today is mathematically descended from
EVERYONE living at the time of Charlemagne. Therefore if you allow a
Viking girl to die who would have gone on to have children you've
changed the ENTIRE future of EVERYONE in Europe today to the extent that
NONE of them including either you or me would even have been born.
"she go back"?? WHO? Do you, Aggy, mean The Doctor, i.e. JodieDoctor??
Why couldn't she go back and save Dr Martin Luther King Jr. if Rosa
Parks getting onto a bus and refusing to give up her seat to a white
passenger isn't?
She meaning Rose. Jodie Whittaker is not and was never the Doctor.
Doctor Who ended in 2017.
--
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
On 30/07/2025 14:43, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <106bvsn$2vmn8$[email protected]>, did
[email protected]_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Well, that's one way to handle it, but the dire consequences also works.
On 30/07/2025 02:54, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <106bkv8$2tqdb$[email protected]>, did
[email protected]_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
This entire load of stupid nonsense was first introduced in Father's >>>>> Day. Have you not seen it?
I've seen it, but not in a long time. I'd forgotten it until you
mentioned it, but I looked it up and it's coming back.
Why? Mother's Day?
I recall liking that one at the time. The fixed points were quite aThey are fixed by bad writing.
thing to toss so casually into canon, and I didn't love the implications >>>> of Rose reaching into the Doctor's pocket, but overall I enjoyed it. The >>>> Doctor's "I'm the oldest thing in this church" speech was good.
One wonders how those points are fixed, and why. Is this natural law, or >>>
were they fixed by someone--perhaps the Guardians? They might have such >>>> power.
Bad writers is who have the power. If an AI came up with such inconstant >>> nonsense it would be shouted down for it.
All points in time should either be fixed points or none of them are.
A fixed point means you can't change it ever, so why was Rose able to
save her father? Everything should have conspire so that she never could. >>
There's only one possible dire consequence (see below) unless you assume >there are an infinite number of possible timelines which would allow you
to change anything in the past that you desire and you can choose which >timeline to follow afterwards, either returning directly to your
original timeline as if nothing had happened or following the new
timeline in which case there would be two Roses, the grown up baby Rose
and the Rose from the original timeline living together in the new
timeline and trying to avoid meeting each other otherwise it would cause
a huge explosion.
Why couldn't she go back and save Dr Martin Luther King Jr. if Rosa
Parks getting onto a bus and refusing to give up her seat to a white
passenger isn't?
Star Trek probably handled it better. Kirk *could* have saved Edith, but
chose the greater good/the timeline over her happiness and his own.
Forget about Kirk. Star Trek got it wrong because after McCoy jumped
back in time and saved Edit Keeler he should have immediately gone out
of existence and therefore would not have been there in the future to
jump back in time in order to save her and alter the timeline to begin with.
The same thing should have happened in Father's Day. If events did not >conspire to prevent Rose from saving her father she would never have met
the Doctor for him to take her back to save him and therefore he would
not have been saved and she would have met the Doctor and everyone would
end up in an infinite time-loop with everything repeating itself between
Rose and Father's Day. The time-loop would probably span a distance of
19 light years, Roses age, and no one outside of that range would be
able to travel anywhere this 19 light year event horizon without being
frozen due to infinite time dilation. Rose would have effectively
created a black hole with a 19 light year radius.
--
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
chibnall is pure evil!
As far as the Dr. Who universe goes, that is certainly
my impression of him.
Personally I think "evil" is a bit harsh. Egotistical? Probably.
Misguided in some aspects of his writing? Most definitely. I'm
sure he's not a bad guy though. I mean, he didn't think much of
"Trial of a Time Lord" or Melanie Bush back in 1986 did he?
(Like most of us at the time!) So he can't be all bad can he?
Now, I could change that opinion once I've seen his adaptation
of the "The Seven Dials Mystery" on Netflix later this year...
but in the meantime, I like to try and stay positive. ;-)
Evil may be a bit harsh. ;) You will have to let us know how his
Christie
adaptation turns out. If you are here later this year calling him
evil,
I guess we will know it didn't go well. :D
I actually have not seen any Dr. Who since Chibnall's final episode.
It now
airs in the US on a service I do not have. I am hoping it eventually
re-runs
on cable.
* SLMR 2.1a * On a clear disk you can seek forever
As far as the Dr. Who universe goes, that is certainly my impressionof
him.
Every review of the Tiemless Children wants to see the execution of
both
Chibnall and Whittaker.
My impression is that she didn't do a bad job with the often horrible >writting she was presented with. There were many, many episodes where
they
spent too much time on a sub-plot only to rush the ending, leaving it
with a
tacked-on feeling. I felt like they also made her Dr. seem less
confident,
and sometimes even less competent, than previous incarnations.
One could argue that it was her acting that gave the latter impression,
but
the former would likely not be the actor's fault.
* SLMR 2.1a * All wiyht. Rho sritched mg kegtops awound?
Daniel70 wrote:
On 30/07/2025 12:26 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
All points in time should either be fixed points or none of
them are.
A fixed point means you can't change it ever, so why was
Rose able to save her father? Everything should have
conspire so that she never could.
Perhaps what 'they' should have said, way back when, was that
if you alter something NOW it COULD have SERIOUS implications
for the future.
That was the implication in "Fathers Day"... Rose, if you go
back and save your Father it will create a temporal paradox,
reality will become unstable and these big creatures called Time
Reapers will appear and kill all of us...
Rose of course, didn't listen!
Saving some girl back in Viking times wouldn't have serious
implications for the future ..... as long as she keeps her
head down.
She'd have to keep her legs closed too... as she could have a
child that goes on to change the world.
On 30/07/2025 10:07 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:Hmm! Of course. Descendants ..... who would probably have known about
On 30/07/2025 12:26 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
All points in time should either be fixed points or none of
them are.
A fixed point means you can't change it ever, so why was
Rose able to save her father? Everything should have
conspire so that she never could.
Perhaps what 'they' should have said, way back when, was that
if you alter something NOW it COULD have SERIOUS implications
for the future.
That was the implication in "Fathers Day"... Rose, if you go
back and save your Father it will create a temporal paradox,
reality will become unstable and these big creatures called Time
Reapers will appear and kill all of us...
Rose of course, didn't listen!
Saving some girl back in Viking times wouldn't have serious
implications for the future ..... as long as she keeps her
head down.
She'd have to keep her legs closed too... as she could have a
child that goes on to change the world.
'The Doctor' and 'The TARDIS'!!
--
Daniel70
The Doctor's origin story should have been treated as a "fixed
point" though. The Time Lords, Gallifrey, and his reasons for
running away are foundational to who he is. If those change too
drastically, as AGA said, it does stop him being the same
character.
Since the show returned though the trendy showrunners
have thought it a great idea to play around with those
foundations... just because they could. It either shows a lack
of original creative thinking on their part, or they have such a
big ego and want to stamp their name all over the show's history
by fucking it up.
The Doctor's origin story should have been treated as a
"fixed point" though. The Time Lords, Gallifrey, and his
reasons for running away are foundational to who he is. If
those change too drastically, as AGA said, it does stop him
being the same character.
This.
Since the show returned though the trendy showrunners
have thought it a great idea to play around with those
foundations... just because they could. It either shows a
lack of original creative thinking on their part, or they
have such a big ego and want to stamp their name all over
the show's history by fucking it up.
In the case of Chibnall and some statements he made before the
13th Doctor's debut, I suspect it is a case of both "just
because he could" scenarios.
The Doctor's origin story should have been treated as a "fixed
point" though. The Time Lords, Gallifrey, and his reasons for
running away are foundational to who he is. If those change too
drastically, as AGA said, it does stop him being the same
character.
This.
Since the show returned though the trendy showrunners
have thought it a great idea to play around with those
foundations... just because they could. It either shows a lack
of original creative thinking on their part, or they have such a
big ego and want to stamp their name all over the show's history
by fucking it up.
In the case of Chibnall and some statements he made before the 13th
Doctor's debut, I suspect it is a case of both "just because he could" >scenarios.
* SLMR 2.1a * Mason-Dixon Line n. Separates y'all from youse guys
BTW welcome aboard!
Thank you!
* SLMR 2.1a * 53.7% of all statistics are totally incorrect
Dumas Walker wrote:
The Doctor's origin story should have been treated as a
"fixed point" though. The Time Lords, Gallifrey, and his
reasons for running away are foundational to who he is. If
those change too drastically, as AGA said, it does stop him
being the same character.
This.
Since the show returned though the trendy showrunners
have thought it a great idea to play around with those
foundations... just because they could. It either shows a
lack of original creative thinking on their part, or they
have such a big ego and want to stamp their name all over
the show's history by fucking it up.
In the case of Chibnall and some statements he made before the
13th Doctor's debut, I suspect it is a case of both "just
because he could" scenarios.
Power corrupts.
When Chris Chibnall was just a moaning Doctor Who fan like the
rest of us, he had a lot to say about poorly written Doctor Who
stories... but then when he grew up he went and done way worse
with his writing than Pip & Jane ever did!!!
I wonder what the young Chris Chibnall of 1986 would have
thought of the Timeless Child storyline had JNT came up with
the idea!
On 1/08/2025 4:04 am, Blueshirt wrote:
When Chris Chibnall was just a moaning Doctor Who fan like
the rest of us, he had a lot to say about poorly written
Doctor Who stories... but then when he grew up he went and
done way worse with his writing than Pip & Jane ever did!!!
Hmm! "Pip & Jane"?? Weren't they two of Enid Blyton's "Famous
Five" or "Secret Seven" characters??
I wonder what the young Chris Chibnall of 1986 would have
thought of the Timeless Child storyline had JNT came up
with the idea!
Probably whinged and bitched like the rest of us!!
BTW welcome aboard!
Thank you!
* SLMR 2.1a * 53.7% of all statistics are totally incorrect
On 1/08/2025 4:04 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Dumas Walker wrote:
The Doctor's origin story should have been treated as a
"fixed point" though. The Time Lords, Gallifrey, and his
reasons for running away are foundational to who he is. If
those change too drastically, as AGA said, it does stop him
being the same character.
This.
Since the show returned though the trendy showrunners
have thought it a great idea to play around with those
foundations... just because they could. It either shows a
lack of original creative thinking on their part, or they
have such a big ego and want to stamp their name all over
the show's history by fucking it up.
In the case of Chibnall and some statements he made before the
13th Doctor's debut, I suspect it is a case of both "just
because he could" scenarios.
Power corrupts.
When Chris Chibnall was just a moaning Doctor Who fan like the
rest of us, he had a lot to say about poorly written Doctor Who
stories... but then when he grew up he went and done way worse
with his writing than Pip & Jane ever did!!!
Hmm! "Pip & Jane"?? Weren't they two of Enid Blyton's "Famous Five" or >"Secret Seven" characters??
I wonder what the young Chris Chibnall of 1986 would haveProbably whinged and bitched like the rest of us!!
thought of the Timeless Child storyline had JNT came up with
the idea!
--
Daniel70
Daniel70 wrote:
On 1/08/2025 4:04 am, Blueshirt wrote:
When Chris Chibnall was just a moaning Doctor Who fan like
the rest of us, he had a lot to say about poorly written
Doctor Who stories... but then when he grew up he went and
done way worse with his writing than Pip & Jane ever did!!!
Hmm! "Pip & Jane"?? Weren't they two of Enid Blyton's "Famous
Five" or "Secret Seven" characters??
No Pip or Jane were part of the Famous Five or Secret Seven.
(There was a Janet though... which is close.)
Try again...
Hint: Doctor Who writers.
I wonder what the young Chris Chibnall of 1986 would haveProbably whinged and bitched like the rest of us!!
thought of the Timeless Child storyline had JNT came up
with the idea!
Well, he was quite good at it when he was younger... ;-)
On 31/07/2025 10:41 am, Dumas Walker wrote:
Hey, Dumas, have you been travelling in time or something??BTW welcome aboard!
Thank you!
* SLMR 2.1a * 53.7% of all statistics are totally incorrect
Your News Agent User Agent line shows you are using "VSoup v1.2.9.47
Beta" from back in Win95/NT times!!
--
Daniel70
Daniel70 wrote:
On 1/08/2025 4:04 am, Blueshirt wrote:
When Chris Chibnall was just a moaning Doctor Who fan like
the rest of us, he had a lot to say about poorly written
Doctor Who stories... but then when he grew up he went and
done way worse with his writing than Pip & Jane ever did!!!
Hmm! "Pip & Jane"?? Weren't they two of Enid Blyton's "Famous
Five" or "Secret Seven" characters??
No Pip or Jane were part of the Famous Five or Secret Seven.
(There was a Janet though... which is close.)
Try again...
Hint: Doctor Who writers.
I wonder what the young Chris Chibnall of 1986 would haveProbably whinged and bitched like the rest of us!!
thought of the Timeless Child storyline had JNT came up
with the idea!
Well, he was quite good at it when he was younger... ;-)
On 1/08/2025 9:25 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 1/08/2025 4:04 am, Blueshirt wrote:
When Chris Chibnall was just a moaning Doctor Who fan like
the rest of us, he had a lot to say about poorly written
Doctor Who stories... but then when he grew up he went and
done way worse with his writing than Pip & Jane ever did!!!
Hmm! "Pip & Jane"?? Weren't they two of Enid Blyton's "Famous
Five" or "Secret Seven" characters??
No Pip or Jane were part of the Famous Five or Secret Seven.
(There was a Janet though... which is close.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Seven
"The Secret Seven consists of Peter (the society's head), Janet (Peter's >sister), Pam, Barbara, Jack, Colin and George"
None of those names rings a particular Bell!!
Try again...
Hint: Doctor Who writers.
Yes, I knew that .... just trying (and FAILING) to make other connections.
--I wonder what the young Chris Chibnall of 1986 would haveProbably whinged and bitched like the rest of us!!
thought of the Timeless Child storyline had JNT came up
with the idea!
Well, he was quite good at it when he was younger... ;-)
Daniel70
Hey, Dumas, have you been travelling in time or something??
Your News Agent User Agent line shows you are using "VSoup v1.2.9.47
Beta" from back in Win95/NT times!!
Hey, Dumas, have you been travelling in time or something??
Your News Agent User Agent line shows you are using "VSoup v1.2.9.47
Beta" from back in Win95/NT times!!
The server I am pulling the newsgroup from might very well be using
Win95/NT!
* SLMR 2.1a * Are you a Klingon, or is that a turtle on your head?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 17:44:59 |
| Calls: | 12,103 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,078 |