Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: From the Archives .....
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 10:52:25 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 139
Message-ID: <v0akoq$28crk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uvtn5t$30593$1@dont-email.me> <xn0okx4frgdf6pz002@post.eweka.nl>
 <v09f4a$1t3tk$1@dont-email.me> <v09lch$1ublm$1@dont-email.me>
 <v09tqp$2006$3@gallifrey.nk.ca> <v0a8mg$261sh$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 11:52:26 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="367663296a484b64c7eacc9161fea15d";
	logging-data="2372468"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/x9EZejQu3BefOwU773VFxJ81S1ISrAtM="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Px0WcZfEJcylTiBNa9ErPDwwGZI=
In-Reply-To: <v0a8mg$261sh$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 7606

On 24/04/2024 07:26, The Last Doctor wrote:
> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>> In article <v09lch$1ublm$1@dont-email.me>,
>> The True Doctor  <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>> On 24/04/2024 00:10, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 21/04/2024 19:59, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doctor Who 'fresh' back then in the 1970's, with no
>>>>>>> repeat viewings, videos or internet.
>>>>>>> A ten year old child in front of the televison in
>>>>>>> 1976 isn't going to know or care about established
>>>>>>> "facts" that you maintain existed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A 6 year old child in front of the TV is going to figure out
>>>>>> from the start that the person whose face is on the screen is
>>>>>> the one who is winning. The Doctor lost and died. All the
>>>>>> faces after Tom Baker may as well have been those of Morbius
>>>>>> to the uninitiated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Says you, because you know the story. I'm not sure a six year
>>>>> old would actually care about whose faces they were, I was
>>>>> around ten at the time and I didn't!
>>>>
>>>> I was fourteen and it was completely obvious on-screen and from the in-show
>>>> dialogue that the eleven faces shown going back in time were meant to be
>>>> earlier faces of the Doctor in order. And it still is when the scene is
>>>> rewatched.
>>>
>>> No it isn't. Everything shown on screen is deliberately designed to
>>> indicate that the person who is winning the game is the one whose face
>>> is shown on screen and that is made to obvious even to a 6 year old.
> 
> Contradiction is not an argument.
> 

Yes it is. It's used all the time in mathematical proofs.

>>> It's fully explained in that exact manner the original script writer
>>> himself in his own novelization of his own script.
> 
> Aggie needs to make up his mind.
> 
> Does he want to include all off screen material by the writers directly
> relating to the show? If not, then no elaboration or additional fan fic
> added in novelisations counts. If it was in the scripts but cut or changed
> on screen then it is also no longer relevant. And on screen it’s clear
> those are pre-Hartnell Doctors and it’s so no matter how many times Aggie
> screams “IS NOT!”
> 
> But if so, then the material excised from the original writer’s scripts
> counts, and Whitaker’s take on renewal for the Power of the Daleks counts.
> And as that is earlier than Morbius then it takes precedence according to
> Aggie, and there are pre-Hartnell Doctors.
> 

Absolute rubbish.

Terrance Dicks wrote the original script and wrote the novelization. The 
faces on screen are of the person who is winning and any 6 year old 
child and work that out. Those the viewer does not recognize as those of 
the Doctor are those of Morbius showing that he is beating the Doctor. 
If the faces were intended those of the one losing then they would have 
been shown in torment.

>>> To anyone watching the episode who has never watched Doctor Who before,
>>> and doesn't recognize Pertwee let along Hartnell it's made obvious from
>>> the start that when Tom Baker's face is not on the screen then he's
>>> losing to Morbius
>>> and the intention of the director
> 
> Unless, you know, you believe the director. And the producer. And the

The director makes it clear that the faces shown are those of the person 
winning. This is basic logic and reason. If the faces were intended 
those of the one losing then they would have been shown in torment.

> actual scriptwriter, Robert Holmes (Terrance Dicks’ original script was a
> true subversion of Frankenstein where the Monster is creating a Man, and
> disliked the total rewrite so much that he refused to be credited and the
> story is credited to “Robin Bland”).
> 
>>> and original script
>>> writer is that all the faces the viewer does not recognize are those
>>> generated by Morbius of himself as he appeared in the past and in
>>> disguise, since it's clearly not Tom Baker.
> 
> Aggie thinks Morbius was Tom Baker and the faces are meant to be Tom Baker
> in disguise? Is that in Terrance Dicks novelisation too (or attempted total
> rewrite of the story, as it would seem)?

I said nothing of the kind. The only face the viewer is expected to 
recognise is that of Tom Baker, and the appearance of the face implies 
he was winning at the time. All faces after that are those of the person 
winning. Since the Doctor dies at the end it is clear that the unknown 
faces are those of Morbius, the victor.

It's time to put and end to your lies, dissembling, and deception 
Squealer. No one with any intelligence is falling for it.

> 
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or care that the producers of a TV show can change things to
>>>>>>> suit themselves if they want to, like our friend Mr Chibnall
>>>>>>> chose to do with Doctor Ruth!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stop insulting the intelligence of the audience. Even a 6 year
>>>>>> old child knows more about story writing and can write better
>>>>>> Doctor Who episodes than Chris Chibnall.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm... I'm not sure that's actually correct.
>>>>
>>>> I’m sure it’s not. Chris Chibnall was never the best writer for Who but
>>>> he’s far from the worst, and ridiculous hyperbole about 6 year old children
>>>> really doesn’t help the debate.
>>>
>>> You think Chibnall can write better than a 6 year old child? Don't make
>>> me laugh. Chibnall writes like a child with autism which has never read
>>> a book before in its entire life. He doesn't understand characters, he
>>> doesn't understand interpersonal relationships, he doesn't understand
>>> social interaction, and he doesn't understand romance. Oh, and he
>>> doesn't understand science in any way, shape, or form, whatsoever.
> 
> Sounds like Aggie thinks he and Chris Chibnall are soulmates! He certainly
> seems to be describing himself (well, to be fair, Aggie does know a bit of
> science. But as he’s rejected logic and rationality, it doesn’t do him any
> good).

Sounds like a depiction of your own self.


-- 
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