Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Daniel70 Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho Subject: Re: From the Archives ..... Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 19:58:56 +1000 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 54 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 06 May 2024 11:58:59 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0e369fff10421f929db5ee7f05c2b43b"; logging-data="2633511"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/JPNiyH3X6PO5vZjsjfVC4LRfdP1qWT0k=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:sAfpWlYgq7sUYy82JvoWsxPYwkI= In-Reply-To: Bytes: 3477 The Last Doctor wrote on 6/5/24 1:44 am: > Daniel70 wrote: >> The Doctor wrote on 5/5/24 9:37 pm: >>> In article , Daniel70 >>> wrote: >>>> The Doctor wrote on 5/5/24 8:02 am: >>>>> In article , Daniel70 >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> The Doctor wrote on 4/5/24 11:29 pm: >>>>>>> In article , Daniel70 >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Todays posting from the Archives comes from a thread >>>>>>>> called "Seasons 5 & 6: Comments" from back in July 1991 >>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Quote At that point in the series, regeneration (it >>>>>>>> hadn't even been called that) was only done by the >>>>>>>> Doctor; it was something he built into the TARDIS >>>>>>>> (since at that point, the TARDIS was something he >>>>>>>> made). End Quote >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> O.K. so for a long time it seemed that The Doctor could >>>>>>>> only regenerate whilst with-in The TARDIS, but, >>>>>>>> originally, was it actually suggested that Regeneration >>>>>>>> was *ONLY* possible because of what The Doctor had >>>>>>>> Built into HIS TARDIS Type 40?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Power of the Daleks. >>>>>>> >>>>>> What about it, a%e?? >>>>> >>>>> It would hold the explanation red-beard! >>>> >>>> .... which is, a%e, ..............?? >>> >>> How many regenerations are available. >>> >>> Did you not read MM's explanation? >> >> .... and where is Mike's explanation, IN THIS THREAD, asswipe?? > > Right near the beginning. The one to which you replied “OK, ta, > Mike”. Why Dave is on about it I’ve no idea - particularly as he’s > now brought in “number of regenerations” which had NOTHING to do with > the quote and which I certainly didn’t comment on in this thread. > Ah!! Well there you go!! As I'm posting about a different post "From the Archives .....", I'm not quoting any of the previous "From the Archives ....." posts as a prelude to this 'twig', so I didn't see any reference to my '“OK, ta, Mike”' post .... hence my confusion!! ;-( -- Daniel