Re: From the Archives .....

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.

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”.

Rather like the word “theory” means something very different in common
usage than it does in science.

I’m going to skip over most of the very forced interpretation Aggie tries
to apply by begging the question, assuming his result instead of observing
the evidence. Or we’ll be into back-and-forth contradiction again.

[SNIP]

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”.

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.

As the faces roll back from Baker to Hartnell, Morbius cries out “How far
back do you go?”

Then, as the sequence of the Doctor’s earlier faces continues into unknown
incarnations, Morbius crows about his power.

And as the last few pre-Hartnell faces that we see roll along … THEN the
“Back to your beginning” line occurs.

The proof is right there on screen. Aggie is welcome to believe differently
- 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.


[SNIP Aggie bringing Dicks’ attempt to retcon Holmes’ work in the
novelisation AGAIN.]

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.

In Universe, the contest was cut short when Morbius’ brain case blew a
fuse. 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
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.

 
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
only via the “Brendan” analogy. The Fugitive could have carried on as a
rogue through many incarnations before being finally “reset”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

As I have him kill-filed because he’s insane.

--
“The timelines and … canon … are rupturing” - the Doctor