On 26/04/2024 14:12, The Last Doctor wrote:
The Idiot Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
In article <v0ehbd$37ds0$1@dont-email.me>,
The False Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 25/04/2024 13:49, The Last Doctor wrote:
The Idiot Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
In article <v0akoq$28crk$1@dont-email.me>,
The False Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 24/04/2024 07:26, The Last Doctor wrote:
The Idiot Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
In article <v09lch$1ublm$1@dont-email.me>,
The False Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 24/04/2024 00:10, The Last Doctor wrote:
>
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.
>
As Aggie knows full well, there is a significant difference between a
rigorous mathematical proof and a fool yelling “No it isn’t!”
over and over
again.
>
Squealer either doesn't know how proof by contradiction works or is
pretending he doesn't in order to perpetuate his lies and false narratives.
Quite apart from the infantile name calling from one who would fit the role
of “Squealer” in Animal Farm rather better than I would, it is Aggie who’s
dissembling, as I quite clearly differentiated between a mathematical proof
and the blind contradictions he offers up.
I'm not the one who has been caught trying to change the rules/canon written on the side of the barn after being caught falling off his ladder covered in the contents of a tin of white paint. That's you Squealer, and lying that it was Snowball instead of you isn't going to believed by anyone. Snowball is dead. Doctor Who is also dead!
If someone says “2+2=4” and the response is “no it isn’t! I
say 2+2=-7!”
there is no proof there, merely an asserted contradiction.
>
That's not proof by contradiction.
No. But it’s the kind of contradiction Aggie was offering, which is a very
different thing from the mathematical usage of the word “contradiction”.
No it wasn't.
Rather like the word “theory” means something very different in common
usage than it does in science.
Squealer is now trying to publish the 11th Edition of the Newspeak Dictionary ahead of schedule.
But I will just note the point where Aggie outright lies. Anyone who cares
to check - just review the eigthteenth minute of episode 4 of “The Brain of
Morbius”.
Where's Doctor Ruth among the faces of the Doctor? She's not there because there's no Doctor Ruth. The Doctor's regenerations begin at Hartnell. Where's Ruth's before his face? It's not there because all the faces after Hartnell are those of Morbius, and Hartnell is declared as the beginning of the Doctor, not Ruth.
The Doctor already went back to his beginning when we saw Hartnell's
face. That's when Morbius tells him that.
That is simply a lie to support Aggie’s argument.
That is not a lie. It is a concrete fact Squealer.
As the faces roll back from Baker to Hartnell, Morbius cries out “How far
back do you go?”
No further back than Hartnell, then Morbius starts winning the tug of war and his faces dominate the screen. There's no Doctor Ruth there at all. All the faces are white men.
Then, as the sequence of the Doctor’s earlier faces continues into unknown
incarnations, Morbius crows about his power.
Morbius crows about his power because they are his faces Squealer. You're lies and dissembling are not fooling anyone. The white paint covering your head and body proves it, and there's not Snowball in sight.
And as the last few pre-Hartnell faces that we see roll along … THEN the
“Back to your beginning” line occurs.
Those are the face's of Morbius which appear after he has sent the Doctor back to his beginning and it is clear that the Doctor can't summon up any other faces/previous minds to fight the tug of war any further.
The proof is right there on screen. Aggie is welcome to believe differently
Here is what actually happened on screen as described by the original writer in his own novelization.
It appears Terrance Dicks is claiming that the person losing is the face on the screen, but it makes no difference to what I said before, since the Doctor is actually described as winning the game in the end, therefore either interpretation demonstrates that the faces other than those of the Doctor from Tom Baker to William Hartnell are those of Morbius not those of the Doctor.
<<‘Now, now,’ said the Doctor reprovingly. ‘Mustn’t get the old brain overheated, must we? You want to take care—it’s not as strong as it was!’
‘My brain functions perfectly!’
‘I doubt it, Morbius. All that time in the tank, it’s bound to have gone a little soft. I say, would you care to put it to the test? How about a small game of mind-bending? We have all the apparatus here.’
At last Sarah saw the Doctor’s plan. ‘No, Doctor, you mustn’t,’ she called. The Doctor ignored her.
‘I challenge you, Morbius! Well, what do you say?’
The photo-electric cell that served Morbius for eyes surveyed the apparatus. ‘I am a Time Lord of the first rank, Doctor. What are you?’
‘Oh I’m nothing,’ said the Doctor hastily. ‘A mere nobody. But you see, Morbius, I don’t think you’re in the first rank any more.’
Morbius stepped forward and fixed the headset to his transparent brain-case. ‘Very well, Doctor if that is how you choose to die. I accept your challenge.’
‘Now there’s a sporting gentleman,’ said the Doctor cheerfully. But inside he was far from lighthearted. He knew he stood little chance of defeating Morbius. His only hope was that the tremendous stresses of the game would expose some of the hidden weaknesses left by Solon’s operation.
The Doctor put on his headset. ‘To the death, Morbius?’
‘To the death, Doctor. I, Morbius, do not play games.’
‘Nor I,’ said the Doctor grimly. ‘Are you ready? On guard!’
The Doctor and Morbius braced themselves, gripping the gleaming scaffolding. Sarah saw a swirl of images on the central screen. A familiar face appeared—the face they had seen depicted on Solon’s clay head. Morbius gave a cry of rage—clearly the appearance of ‘his’ face was a sign that he was losing.
Morbius rallied, and the face of the Doctor appeared on the screen.
Sarah saw that the real Doctor’s face was twisted with effort. Drops of perspiration covered his forehead. Another face appeared on the screen, the debonair white-haired features of the Doctor, as Sarah had first known him.
‘You are going, Doctor, going!’ roared Morbius triumphantly. ‘How far, Doctor? How long have you lived?’
Yet another Doctor appeared on the screen—a dark-haired little man with a whimsical expression. Then another face... a proud-looking old man. Exultantly Morbius shouted, ‘Your puny mind is powerless against the brain of Morbius. Back, Doctor, back to your beginnings. To your birth—and to your death!’ Sarah had a confused impression of even more faces on the screen.>>
So we see the Doctor's first face last, that of Hartnell, and then the other faces are those of Morbius, since the Doctor is winning if Dicks assertion that the faces on screen are those of the person losing. Since...
<<The Doctor was groaning, clutching the scaffolding for support...
Morbius gave a sudden terrible scream. There was a blue flash, and the transparent brain-case filled with smoke. The Doctor pulled himself upright and smiled weakly. Static electricity had fused the circuits in the brain-case, and Morbius was reduced once more to a mindless Monster. The last thing the Doctor saw was the Monster lurching out of the open door. Then blackness swallowed him up.>>
Morbius has lost the game to the Doctor. Therefore according to Terrance Dicks the faces on the screen when he lost must be those of Morbius.
<<Sarah ran to the Doctor as he fell from the scaffolding.
She tried to lift him to his feet, but he collapsed on the floor.
Sarah felt for his pulse, but she could feel nothing.
Sobbing she remembered the Doctor’s words, ‘The winner can think his opponent to death.’ Had Morbius triumphed, even in defeat?>>
Confirmation of Morbius's defeat in the narration. Therefore the confused faces were his not the Doctor's. And still no Jo Martin.
- after all, he is continually lying about the current state of existence
of the show in n his deluded arrogance - but he really should stop making
statements that can be easily refuted by actually watching the footage.
The character of the main protagonist is no longer the character of the Doctor, therefore the show no longer exists. Doctor Who ended in 2017.
[SNIP Aggie bringing Dicks’ attempt to retcon Holmes’ work in the
novelisation AGAIN.]
See above. Hadn't read the novel again since I was around 8.
fails. If they're the faces of the Doctor going back to his beginning
why isn't even one of them female, let alone black. Where is Jo Martin's
face. Where is the face of the Timeless Child Monster?
Out of Universe, even Aggie can’t really expect the TV producers of 1976 to
be able to show pictures of a woman who wouldn’t be cast in the role for
another 44 years to be placed in the montage. The actress playing the
Fugitive Doctor wasn’t even born then. That’s a truly idiotic argument.
Stop dissembling Squealer. If the producers intended that The Brain of Morbius showed the Doctor's faces before Hartnell then they should have made Hartnell's immediate predecessor have the face of a white male instead instead of that of a black woman. Squealer is exposed as a liar once again, because this is something not dependent of the producers from 1975/6 but on those from 2018-2024. Chibnall erased all claim to The Brain of Morbius when he made Jo Martin William Hartnell's immediate predecessor. He simply wanted to destroy Doctor Who at all costs.
In Universe, the contest was cut short when Morbius’ brain case blew a
fuse.
It was cut short because the Doctor tricked him into played and the Doctor defeated him. See Terrance Dicks above.
>
Luckily for the Doctor, who it is implied would have died if he’d
lost any further - as it is, he was knocked unconscious. So Morbius never
No he isn't. He is declared the winner. Morbius is the one who lost.
made it all the way back to the beginning - the Fugitive Doctor and other
earlier incarnations leading to the original Timeless Child … or earlier! -
are never reached.
The Timeless Child monster and Doctor Ruth are never reached because those are not the faces of either Morbius or the Doctor.
Morbius was defeated by the Doctor according to Dicks and therefore according to Dicks his faces flashed by until the equipment blew up.
>
There, that's proof of my assertion by contradiction. Chibnall destroyed
any and all claim to using The Brain of Morbius to back up his childish
fan fiction the moment he declared that Ruth was Hartnell's immediate
predecessor.
Aggie is lying again, in order to construct his fallacious “proof”. At no
point is it asserted explicitly that the Fugitive Doctor immediately
precedes Hartnell. The Doctor who is erased and becomes Hartnell is shown
It's asserted by Chibnall and by Big Finish.
only via the “Brendan” analogy. The Fugitive could have carried on as a
rogue through many incarnations before being finally “reset”.
Not according to Chibnall. Ruth is the fugitive Doctor and the one caught by the Timelords and turned into Hartnell. It's straight out of Chibnall's own mouth.
The logic of what is seen on screen, and the accompanying dialogue, are
obvious. People can argue otherwise, or argue from Terrance Dicks’s retcon
>
They are so obvious that they entirely destroy your argument Squealer.
You fell off the ladder and were seen covered in paint because you tried
to alter the rules, alter continuity.
Aggie proves once again who is lying and altering not only the rules, but
the facts, to try to prop up his house of cards.
I've not altered anything Squealer. I'm not the one covered in a pot of white paint with a fallen down ladder pinning him to the ground.
Terrance Dicks’s wasn't a retcon, because all existing continuity
established Hartnell as the first Doctor. Does The Three Doctor's give
you a hint?
The appallingly powerful “retcon” of the Timeless Child allows for those
apparent contradictions.
The Timeless Child is pure bullshit instilling no suspension of disbelief whatsoever and requiring belief in an all encompassing conspiracy theory which rewrites the entire history of Doctor Who. No one in their right mind can possibly believe such a ridiculous conspiracy. Even War of the Daleks has more credibility and that was universally slammed in this group by everyone except John Peel who wrote it.
in the novelisation of the script he hated so much he refused to be
associated with it … but they’re arguing from emotion and a desire for
later restrictions to be consistent and not contradictory to this scene.
Not from logic. And I hate to say it but squaring that circle without
denying the truth of one or more televised stories, requires a convoluted
twist in the history like the Timeless Child.
>
>
The Timeless Child is not and can never be the Doctor. Doctor Who ended
in 2017.
Proof that Aggie is lying and delusional isn’t really needed, is it? He
provides the proof himself with his every post.
The facts clearly demonstrate that Doctor Who ended in 2017. Nothing after that can possibly be accepted as having any part in Doctor Who at all.
One Doctor being pulled out of another like in a Loony Tunes cartoon and the TARDIS doubling after being whacked with a circus mallet? Do you think that anyone in their right mind can possibly believe any of that? And billions or trillions or quintillions of Doctors roaming the universe each with their own copy of the TARDIS. This is deranged fan fiction, not Doctor Who.
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.
>
Aggie wrote: “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.”
>
So he wrote that he thinks the faces are Morbius, in the past, and in
>
Everything we are shown on screen shows the viewer that those are the
faces of Morbius. There is not suggestion whatsoever that the Doctor had
lives before Hartnell.
>
disguise: because it’s not Tom Baker. Logically, therefore, if Morbius
hadn’t been in disguise, Aggie thinks he WOULD have been Tom Baker. It’s
right there in what Aggie wrote, all in one unedited sentence. “Nothing of
the kind”, indeed. That’s EXACTLY what he wrote. And since he is such a
self-proclaimed master of good writing, what he wrote must be what he
meant.
>
I said nothing of you kind Squealer. Your dissembling isn't fooling
anyone. The person winning the tug-of-war is the person whose faces are
displayed on the screen, like in any game show or sporting event when
the gymnast with the highest score has their face repeatedly shown on
screen unless they are taken over by someone else, and their their face
replaces them.
>
Where is the face of Jo Martin? Where is even one female face at all?
Where is even one black face? They're all white males, because they're
the faces, or disguises used by Morbius who we have already been told is
a fugitive from Gallifrey.
>
>
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.
>
>
Hear! Hear!! AGA!
>
Correct Dave - it is a description of Aggie.
>
>
It is a description of yourself.
>
>
Thank you.
Dave, Aggie has you kill-filed because he thinks you are an idiot. And
thanking him for his lunacy kind of supports that.
I removed him from my killfile before Tim disappeared, and hopefully for good.
As I have him kill-filed because he’s insane.
You are the one who is insane Squealer.
-- 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
From the Archives .....
Re: From the Archives .....