Discussion:
Doctor Who - Flux Part 3 Once , Upon Time - Review with Heavy spoilers
Add Reply
The Doctor
2021-11-14 19:52:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Doctor Who - Once , Upon Time

After the Sontarans looking substandard
we get this drivel.

Start the plot. If you feel dizzy , that might be normal.


Introducing Bel.

Daleks are back. Where is Bel?
Now there are 'other things'? Survivors of the Flux?

What disruption is Chibnall up to now?

Back to Faux Doctor and the deformed ones.

Doctor activates Sonic device and are all caught up in broken time
and disruptive time with the villains.

All right Vinder, Dan and Jaz is ready to ataack what?

Siege of Atropos? What in memory us going on?

Faux doctor goes for Attack.

Suddenly, Dan and Claire back in Liverpool.

The other things are around Liverpool. What in Time is happening?

Dan and Claire in the night?

Dan see Swarm suddenly. The Doctor in flux!

Yaz and Faux Doctor Police in Sheffield?
Who just replaced the Doctor?

Doctor is back and suddenly the partner.

Vinder and Yaz, now?

Faux Doctor again. What the flux?

Jaz now becomes who?

Atropos! Back to the siege! Time for action.

Back in fractured time storm. Can the priests save?

Doctor in time stream again. 2 Faux Doctors again!

The 3 are back, Vinder, Dan and Yaz.

2 Faux are trying to figure out the whats and hows.

Dan now in 1820 Liverpool or future Liverpool? Mason street in Anfield?
Others things around Dan. Dan back in 2021.
The Doctor still unstable in a Time Storm.

And now in nowhere. Bel is still around running into cybermen.
Atropos is breaking down and Time is falling apart?

Vinder back with Yaz. The Doctor as a source of danger? Yet again.

Yaz in her flat. First her sister and now the Doctor.
The Doctor still fighting. Yaz is in the wrong Time zone.
Weeping Angels attacking Yaz. Yaz breaks game. Yaz's sister is back.

Doctor on Atropos in a time storm. Swarm and Doctor were involved
in the division? Atropos was a time event for Faux Doctor.
I beg for a Timeless Child retcon!

Time vs Space? Oh sick! The siege of Atropos replayed!

The Mauri are back and the Swarm are contained.

The Doctor begs the Mauri for a fix.

Back to Bel.

Fluxed time. Not good. Cybermen take on Bel. Bel 6 Cybermen 0.
Time in flux! Warring factions in Space and Time.
Who will win the War of Cybermen, Daleks and Sontarans in fluxed time?

Back to Vinder and Yaz

Vinder is back to being a soldier. He is recalling an event
that happened to him. Vinder volunteers to submit a report.
Vinder is in a patrol ship for doing the right thing.

Doctor sees the Dog in Dan.

Doctor trying to negotiate about its past
and the priests are not giving in.

Doctor is seen on a time stream. Who is this creature
who knows the Doctor? Who is this old lady?

Doctor is back. Swarm is fluxing around.
Claire is hostage of Swarm.

Swarm wants to reign in Hell. And disappears.

TARDIS still in sideways mode. Vinder, Yaz, Dan and the Doctor
go into the TARDIS.

Bel is out there surviving. Bel is Vinder's friend.

Vinder's home planet is destroyed.

Vinder goes looking for Bel.

Weeping Angels invade the TARDIS.

End of Plot.

Who is watching the Doctor?

Why did Swarm want to spring this trap?

WE Know Claire is a hosting from part 1.

Why did The Doctor not address the Weeping Angel issue?

(-10/10) .
Please RTD retcon the Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Merry Christmas 2021 and Happy New Year 2022 Beware https://mindspring.com
Blueshirt
2021-11-14 19:58:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Doctor Who - Once , Upon Time
After the Sontarans looking substandard
we get this drivel.
I take it you didn't like it so?
solar penguin
2021-11-14 20:54:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Well, I enjoyed that episode, but it seems like I’m in the
minority. But then as I get older, I tend to prefer quiet, gentle
short stories more than big, long epics, so it’s not surprising
I welcomed a breather episode as a nice change from all
the action.

And, as I’ve said before, Chibnall’s small-scale character
sketches are much better than his attempts at plots.

It was good to learn more about Vinder’s background
at
long last. My only complaint is that he wasn’t atoning for
a serious crime, which would’ve given him some interesting
moral complexity. Instead he really is a genuinely good
guy who did nothing wrong and has a devoted, loving woman
looking for him. (It was also kind of obvious that he would
turn out to be who she was looking for. Why else introduce
her in the episode that gives his backstory?)

It was also great to see the past connection between Swarm
and the Doctor. I didn’t care for the look of old Swarm
though. His appearance has definitely improved with age!

Talking of changed appearances, it was a pity we couldn’t
see more of Jo Martin’s pre-Hartnell Doctor, but I loved
the brief glimpses we got. (Could COVID restrictions be
they couldn’t actually show her with any other people?)

Maybe those restrictions are also why this episode had
so few guest actors, with the regulars doubling up in multiple
roles. Whatever the reason it added a wonderful surreal
atmosphere to the episode, like no other. Of the few guests
there were, it was interesting to see Dot from Line Of Duty
playing an equally corrupt character. He’s probably typecast
for life! (I’m a bit confused though about why Vinder was
so shocked to learn that someone literally called the Great
Serpent wasn’t entirely trustworthy!)

For me, the weakest parts of the episode were those that
were only there to tie into the wider epic. Why is a Weeping
Angel stalking Yaz? Is the mysterious old woman the White
Guardian or a future Doctor? Who started the Flux? And
what else does Karvanista know that he isn’t telling?



(Crossposts deliberately left in just to piss off self-appointed
busy-bodies who want to dictate where people should
or shouldn’t post. Fuck you! Usenet is all about anarchy!
If you don’t like it, go to another forum instead!)
--
solar penguin
solar penguin
2021-11-14 21:44:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by solar penguin
Well, I enjoyed that episode, but it seems like I’m in the
minority. But then as I get older, I tend to prefer quiet, gentle
short stories more than big, long epics, so it’s not surprising
I welcomed a breather episode as a nice change from all
the action.
And, as I’ve said before, Chibnall’s small-scale character
sketches are much better than his attempts at plots.
It was good to learn more about Vinder’s background
at
long last. My only complaint is that he wasn’t atoning for
a serious crime, which would’ve given him some interesting
moral complexity. Instead he really is a genuinely good
guy who did nothing wrong and has a devoted, loving woman
looking for him. (It was also kind of obvious that he would
turn out to be who she was looking for. Why else introduce
her in the episode that gives his backstory?)
It was also great to see the past connection between Swarm
and the Doctor. I didn’t care for the look of old Swarm
though. His appearance has definitely improved with age!
Talking of changed appearances, it was a pity we couldn’t
see more of Jo Martin’s pre-Hartnell Doctor, but I loved
the brief glimpses we got. (Could COVID restrictions be
they couldn’t actually show her with any other people?)
Maybe those restrictions are also why this episode had
so few guest actors, with the regulars doubling up in multiple
roles. Whatever the reason it added a wonderful surreal
atmosphere to the episode, like no other. Of the few guests
there were, it was interesting to see Dot from Line Of Duty
playing an equally corrupt character. He’s probably typecast
for life! (I’m a bit confused though about why Vinder was
so shocked to learn that someone literally called the Great
Serpent wasn’t entirely trustworthy!)
For me, the weakest parts of the episode were those that
were only there to tie into the wider epic. Why is a Weeping
Angel stalking Yaz? Is the mysterious old woman the White
Guardian or a future Doctor? Who started the Flux? And
what else does Karvanista know that he isn’t telling?
Forgot to add: I’m not quite sure what happened with the
Mouri going backwards in time to replace themselves or
whatever it was they did to fix things, but that’s always
the problem with the resolution to timely-wimey episodes
anyway. The set-up is always better than the solution.
Post by solar penguin
(Crossposts deliberately left in just to piss off self-appointed
busy-bodies who want to dictate where people should
or shouldn’t post. Fuck you! Usenet is all about anarchy!
If you don’t like it, go to another forum instead!)
--
solar penguin
The Doctor
2021-11-15 00:00:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Well, I enjoyed that episode, but it seems like I’m in the
minority. But then as I get older, I tend to prefer quiet, gentle
short stories more than big, long epics, so it’s not surprising
I welcomed a breather episode as a nice change from all
the action.
And, as I’ve said before, Chibnall’s small-scale character
sketches are much better than his attempts at plots.
It was good to learn more about Vinder’s background
at
long last. My only complaint is that he wasn’t atoning for
a serious crime, which would’ve given him some interesting
moral complexity. Instead he really is a genuinely good
guy who did nothing wrong and has a devoted, loving woman
looking for him. (It was also kind of obvious that he would
turn out to be who she was looking for. Why else introduce
her in the episode that gives his backstory?)
It was also great to see the past connection between Swarm
and the Doctor. I didn’t care for the look of old Swarm
though. His appearance has definitely improved with age!
Talking of changed appearances, it was a pity we couldn’t
see more of Jo Martin’s pre-Hartnell Doctor, but I loved
the brief glimpses we got. (Could COVID restrictions be
they couldn’t actually show her with any other people?)
Maybe those restrictions are also why this episode had
so few guest actors, with the regulars doubling up in multiple
roles. Whatever the reason it added a wonderful surreal
atmosphere to the episode, like no other. Of the few guests
there were, it was interesting to see Dot from Line Of Duty
playing an equally corrupt character. He’s probably typecast
for life! (I’m a bit confused though about why Vinder was
so shocked to learn that someone literally called the Great
Serpent wasn’t entirely trustworthy!)
For me, the weakest parts of the episode were those that
were only there to tie into the wider epic. Why is a Weeping
Angel stalking Yaz? Is the mysterious old woman the White
Guardian or a future Doctor? Who started the Flux? And
what else does Karvanista know that he isn’t telling?
Let's hope this nightmare gets retconned.

Hopefully the 12th Doctor is regenerating!

The whole Flux is weak! It is weaker than Orphan 55!
(Crossposts deliberately left in just to piss off self-appointed
busy-bodies who want to dictate where people should
or shouldn’t post. F*K you! Usenet is all about anarchy!
If you don’t like it, go to another forum instead!)
Go SP!
--
solar penguin
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Merry Christmas 2021 and Happy New Year 2022 Beware https://mindspring.com
The True Doctor
2021-11-14 22:23:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
(-10/10) .
Please RTD retcon the Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n))/10, where n
is an integer from n=0 -> n=positive infinity.

The Jodieites will not understand any of the above at all.
--
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
solar penguin
2021-11-14 22:36:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The Doctor
(-10/10) .
Please RTD retcon the Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n))/10, where n
is an integer from n=0 -> n=positive infinity.
As n tends to infinity, the Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n)
also becomes infinity.

So, you gave the episode (1+infinity)/10.

That’s a very generous score!
Post by The True Doctor
The Jodieites will not understand any of the above at all.
I don’t understand how you’re misunderstanding the maths.
Does that count?
--
solar penguin
The Doctor
2021-11-15 00:04:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by solar penguin
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The Doctor
(-10/10) .
Please RTD retcon the Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n))/10, where n
is an integer from n=0 -> n=positive infinity.
As n tends to infinity, the Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n)
also becomes infinity.
So, you gave the episode (1+infinity)/10.
That’s a very generous score!
Post by The True Doctor
The Jodieites will not understand any of the above at all.
I don’t understand how you’re misunderstanding the maths.
Does that count?
--
solar penguin
IIRC Sum 0 to n of 2^n = 2^(n+1) -1

What?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Merry Christmas 2021 and Happy New Year 2022 Beware https://mindspring.com
The True Doctor
2021-11-15 10:17:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by solar penguin
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The Doctor
(-10/10) .
Please RTD retcon the Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n))/10, where n
is an integer from n=0 -> n=positive infinity.
As n tends to infinity, the Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n)
also becomes infinity.
What is infinity?
Post by solar penguin
So, you gave the episode (1+infinity)/10.
Nope. As n tends to infinity the entire series behaves as if it were
equivalent to -1, satisfying all the processes of addition and
multiplication. This is exactly the way negative numbers are represented
in binary using a modified version of the 2-adic numbers.

If you add ...11111111 and ...00000001 you will get ...00000000.

I gave you a clue with 10, which is 2 in binary.

Using the Euler summation you have y^0 + y^1 + y^2 + y^3 + y^4 + ... =
1/1-y, which for 2 is -1.

if s = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ...
= 2 + 2(1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ...)
= 1 + 2s

therefore 0 = 1 + s, so s = -1.
Post by solar penguin
That’s a very generous score!
Post by The True Doctor
The Jodieites will not understand any of the above at all.
...and I was right.
Post by solar penguin
I don’t understand how you’re misunderstanding the maths.
Does that count?
You are the one misunderstanding the maths.
--
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
solar penguin
2021-11-15 10:50:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The True Moron tried mathematics
Post by The True Doctor
Post by solar penguin
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The Doctor
(-10/10) .
Please RTD retcon the Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n))/10, where n
is an integer from n=0 -> n=positive infinity.
As n tends to infinity, the Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n)
also becomes infinity.
What is infinity?
Post by solar penguin
So, you gave the episode (1+infinity)/10.
Nope. As n tends to infinity the entire series behaves as if it were
equivalent to -1, satisfying all the processes of addition and
multiplication.
You’re adding increasingly large positive numbers. Nothing
negative to bring it down, just more and more positive
numbers to drive it further and further up.

How does that give you -1?
Post by The True Doctor
This is exactly the way negative numbers are represented
in binary using a modified version of the 2-adic numbers.
If you add ...11111111 and ...00000001 you will get ...00000000.
Suddenly you start using two’s compliment binary, even
though the initial formula was written in base 10 and the
infinite upper limit to n doesn’t work in Ring systems like
two’s complement.

Goalposts. Shifting. Again.
Post by The True Doctor
I gave you a clue with 10, which is 2 in binary.
Using the Euler summation you have y^0 + y^1 + y^2 + y^3 + y^4 + ... =
1/1-y, which for 2 is -1.
That doesn’t work if y>1. And since 2>1, you’re just adding
increasingly large positive numbers to drive the total further
and further up.
Post by The True Doctor
if s = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ...
= 2 + 2(1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ...) is
= 1 + 2s
therefore 0 = 1 + s, so s = -1.
For a encore, try to prove black is white, and get run over
on a zebra crossing.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by solar penguin
That’s a very generous score!
Post by The True Doctor
The Jodieites will not understand any of the above at all.
...and I was right.
Post by solar penguin
I don’t understand how you’re misunderstanding the maths.
Does that count?
You are the one misunderstanding the maths.
At least I now understand your misunderstanding.

You seem to be confusing two’s complement (which is a
binary method of denoting an algebraic Ring system) with
regular binary notation of the integer Field, and also treating
2 as if it’s less than one. It’s no wonder you got the wrong answer.
--
solar penguin
The True Doctor
2021-11-15 21:39:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by solar penguin
The True Moron tried mathematics
Post by The True Doctor
Post by solar penguin
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The Doctor
(-10/10) .
Please RTD retcon the Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n))/10, where n
is an integer from n=0 -> n=positive infinity.
As n tends to infinity, the Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n)
also becomes infinity.
What is infinity?
You didn't answer.
Post by solar penguin
Post by The True Doctor
Post by solar penguin
So, you gave the episode (1+infinity)/10.
Nope. As n tends to infinity the entire series behaves as if it were
equivalent to -1, satisfying all the processes of addition and
multiplication.
You’re adding increasingly large positive numbers. Nothing
negative to bring it down, just more and more positive
numbers to drive it further and further up.
It makes no difference. The only thing that matters is how you define
the distance between the numbers.
Post by solar penguin
How does that give you -1?
The sum of the sequences is zero distance away from -1 if you break
everything up into an infinite number of subdivisions.
Post by solar penguin
Post by The True Doctor
This is exactly the way negative numbers are represented
in binary using a modified version of the 2-adic numbers.
If you add ...11111111 and ...00000001 you will get ...00000000.
Suddenly you start using two’s compliment binary, even
though the initial formula was written in base 10 and the
infinite upper limit to n doesn’t work in Ring systems like
two’s complement.
Goalposts. Shifting. Again.
It's not shifting the goal posts. It's called changing the metric, and
I'm perfectly allowed to do that. The rules of mathematics and physics
are exactly the same in both metrics and so is the answer. Mathematica's
and physicists use this strategy all the time to solve prolbems. Some
problems are easier to solve that way.

How do you think Einstein got General Relativity to work inside black holes?

How do you think Fermat's Last Theorem was solved?
Post by solar penguin
Post by The True Doctor
I gave you a clue with 10, which is 2 in binary.
Using the Euler summation you have y^0 + y^1 + y^2 + y^3 + y^4 + ... =
1/1-y, which for 2 is -1.
That doesn’t work if y>1. And since 2>1, you’re just adding
increasingly large positive numbers to drive the total further
and further up.
It works perfectly well since it was designed to sum up divergent series.
Post by solar penguin
Post by The True Doctor
if s = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ...
= 2 + 2(1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ...) is
= 1 + 2s
I should have typed = 1 + 2(1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ...) is
= 1 + 2s

No wonder you got confused. My fault for the typo.
Post by solar penguin
Post by The True Doctor
therefore 0 = 1 + s, so s = -1.
For a encore, try to prove black is white, and get run over
on a zebra crossing.
Black and white are exactly the same colour. Everyone should know that.
Through technically they are not colours. Black is just an absence of light.
Post by solar penguin
Post by The True Doctor
Post by solar penguin
That’s a very generous score!
Post by The True Doctor
The Jodieites will not understand any of the above at all.
...and I was right.
Post by solar penguin
I don’t understand how you’re misunderstanding the maths.
Does that count?
You are the one misunderstanding the maths.
At least I now understand your misunderstanding.
I've not misunderstood anything.
Post by solar penguin
You seem to be confusing two’s complement (which is a
binary method of denoting an algebraic Ring system) with
regular binary notation of the integer Field, and also treating
2 as if it’s less than one. It’s no wonder you got the wrong answer.
Nope. How do you think two's complement works and what do you think the
mathematical proof is?

What you're actually doing is using a modified system of 2-adic numbers
where the sum of all of the powers of 2 to infinity adds up to -1, which
is why -1 is represented in binary in that manner, and obeys the rules
of addition and multiplication. The limitation is each binary word has
to assume an extension to infinity, and the limited word size limits the
magnitude of the positive and negative numbers you can represent and
manipulate.
--
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
Daniel65
2021-11-24 05:26:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The True Doctor wrote on 16/11/21 8:39 am:

<Snip>
Post by The True Doctor
Black and white are exactly the same colour. Everyone should know that.
Through technically they are not colours. Black is just an absence of light.
White is the presence of all the Visible Colours in an appropriate mixture.
Black is the absence of any reflected light!
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2021-11-24 14:04:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daniel65
<Snip>
Post by The True Doctor
Black and white are exactly the same colour. Everyone should know that.
Through technically they are not colours. Black is just an absence of light.
White is the presence of all the Visible Colours in an appropriate mixture.
Black is the absence of any reflected light!
--
Daniel
Correction noted.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Merry Christmas 2021 and Happy New Year 2022 Beware https://mindspring.com
The True Doctor
2021-11-15 16:59:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Post by solar penguin
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The Doctor
(-10/10) .
Please RTD retcon the Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n))/10, where n
is an integer from n=0 -> n=positive infinity.
As n tends to infinity, the Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n)
also becomes infinity.
What is infinity?
Post by solar penguin
So, you gave the episode (1+infinity)/10.
Nope. As n tends to infinity the entire series behaves as if it were
equivalent to -1, satisfying all the processes of addition and
multiplication. This is exactly the way negative numbers are represented
in binary using a modified version of the 2-adic numbers.
If you add ...11111111 and ...00000001 you will get ...00000000.
I gave you a clue with 10, which is 2 in binary.
Using the Euler summation you have y^0 + y^1 + y^2 + y^3 + y^4 + ... =
1/1-y, which for 2 is -1.
if s = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ...
     = 2 + 2(1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ...)
made a typo

last line should read = 1 + 2(1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ...)
Post by The True Doctor
     = 1 + 2s
therefore 0 = 1 + s, so s = -1.
Post by solar penguin
That’s a very generous score!
Post by The True Doctor
The Jodieites will not understand any of the above at all.
...and I was right.
Post by solar penguin
I don’t understand how you’re misunderstanding the maths.
Does that count?
You are the one misunderstanding the maths.
--
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
The Doctor
2021-11-15 23:46:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Post by solar penguin
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The Doctor
(-10/10) .
Please RTD retcon the Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n))/10, where n
is an integer from n=0 -> n=positive infinity.
As n tends to infinity, the Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n)
also becomes infinity.
What is infinity?
Post by solar penguin
So, you gave the episode (1+infinity)/10.
Nope. As n tends to infinity the entire series behaves as if it were
equivalent to -1, satisfying all the processes of addition and
multiplication. This is exactly the way negative numbers are represented
in binary using a modified version of the 2-adic numbers.
If you add ...11111111 and ...00000001 you will get ...00000000.
I gave you a clue with 10, which is 2 in binary.
Using the Euler summation you have y^0 + y^1 + y^2 + y^3 + y^4 + ... =
1/1-y, which for 2 is -1.
if s = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ...
     = 2 + 2(1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ...)
made a typo
last line should read = 1 + 2(1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ...)
Post by The True Doctor
     = 1 + 2s
therefore 0 = 1 + s, so s = -1.
Post by solar penguin
That’s a very generous score!
Post by The True Doctor
The Jodieites will not understand any of the above at all.
...and I was right.
Post by solar penguin
I don’t understand how you’re misunderstanding the maths.
Does that count?
You are the one misunderstanding the maths.
--
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
Old maths joke.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Merry Christmas 2021 and Happy New Year 2022 Beware https://mindspring.com
Daniel65
2021-11-24 05:30:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
--
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
Old maths joke.
WHAT?? 'They' used to joke about being 'woke' in Maths Class!!

Maybe, if they'd paid more attention .......!
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2021-11-24 14:04:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daniel65
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
--
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
Old maths joke.
WHAT?? 'They' used to joke about being 'woke' in Maths Class!!
Maybe, if they'd paid more attention .......!
--
Daniel
And that was before 'woke' was popular.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Merry Christmas 2021 and Happy New Year 2022 Beware https://mindspring.com
Daniel65
2021-11-22 12:08:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by solar penguin
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The Doctor
(-10/10) .
Please RTD retcon the Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n))/10, where n
is an integer from n=0 -> n=positive infinity.
As n tends to infinity, the Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n)
also becomes infinity.
As (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + .... 2^(n-1)) also approaches infinity ......
so wouldn't (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n) actually approach twice
infinity?? ;-P
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2021-11-22 15:05:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daniel65
Post by solar penguin
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The Doctor
(-10/10) .
Please RTD retcon the Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n))/10, where n
is an integer from n=0 -> n=positive infinity.
As n tends to infinity, the Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n)
also becomes infinity.
As (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + .... 2^(n-1)) also approaches infinity ......
so wouldn't (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n) actually approach twice
infinity?? ;-P
--
Daniel
IIRC the sum of (2^n) from 0 to N is (2^(N-1)-1)
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Merry Christmas 2021 and Happy New Year 2022 Beware https://mindspring.com
Daniel65
2021-11-23 06:56:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel65
Post by solar penguin
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The Doctor
(-10/10) .
Please RTD retcon the Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n))/10, where n
is an integer from n=0 -> n=positive infinity.
As n tends to infinity, the Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n)
also becomes infinity.
As (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + .... 2^(n-1)) also approaches infinity ......
so wouldn't (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n) actually approach twice
infinity?? ;-P
IIRC the sum of (2^n) from 0 to N is (2^(N-1)-1)
Yes, ... so as 'n' or 'N' approaches infinity the SUMMATION is 2N!!
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2021-11-23 06:58:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daniel65
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel65
Post by solar penguin
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The Doctor
(-10/10) .
Please RTD retcon the Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n))/10, where n
is an integer from n=0 -> n=positive infinity.
As n tends to infinity, the Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n)
also becomes infinity.
As (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + .... 2^(n-1)) also approaches infinity ......
so wouldn't (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n) actually approach twice
infinity?? ;-P
IIRC the sum of (2^n) from 0 to N is (2^(N-1)-1)
Yes, ... so as 'n' or 'N' approaches infinity the SUMMATION is 2N!!
--
Daniel
2^N or 2^(N-1) ?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Merry Christmas 2021 and Happy New Year 2022 Beware https://mindspring.com
Daniel65
2021-11-23 08:51:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel65
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel65
Post by solar penguin
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The Doctor
(-10/10) .
Please RTD retcon the Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n))/10, where n
is an integer from n=0 -> n=positive infinity.
As n tends to infinity, the Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n)
also becomes infinity.
As (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + .... 2^(n-1)) also approaches infinity ......
so wouldn't (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n) actually approach twice
infinity?? ;-P
IIRC the sum of (2^n) from 0 to N is (2^(N-1)-1)
Yes, ... so as 'n' or 'N' approaches infinity the SUMMATION is 2N!!
--
Daniel
2^N or 2^(N-1) ?
No difference .... for all intense!!
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2021-11-23 15:13:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daniel65
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel65
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel65
Post by solar penguin
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The Doctor
(-10/10) .
Please RTD retcon the Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n))/10, where n
is an integer from n=0 -> n=positive infinity.
As n tends to infinity, the Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n)
also becomes infinity.
As (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + .... 2^(n-1)) also approaches infinity ......
so wouldn't (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n) actually approach twice
infinity?? ;-P
IIRC the sum of (2^n) from 0 to N is (2^(N-1)-1)
Yes, ... so as 'n' or 'N' approaches infinity the SUMMATION is 2N!!
--
Daniel
2^N or 2^(N-1) ?
No difference .... for all intense!!
--
Daniel
You said 2N whihc is 2*N or 2xN.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Merry Christmas 2021 and Happy New Year 2022 Beware https://mindspring.com
Daniel65
2021-11-24 05:34:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel65
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel65
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel65
Post by solar penguin
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The Doctor
(-10/10) .
Please RTD retcon the Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n))/10, where n
is an integer from n=0 -> n=positive infinity.
As n tends to infinity, the Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n)
also becomes infinity.
As (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + .... 2^(n-1)) also approaches infinity ......
so wouldn't (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n) actually approach twice
infinity?? ;-P
IIRC the sum of (2^n) from 0 to N is (2^(N-1)-1)
Yes, ... so as 'n' or 'N' approaches infinity the SUMMATION is 2N!!
--
Daniel
2^N or 2^(N-1) ?
No difference .... for all intense!!
You said 2N whihc is 2*N or 2xN.
Sorry!! Do YOU, Clown, want to have another go at explaining yourself,
Clown??
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2021-11-24 14:05:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daniel65
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel65
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel65
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel65
Post by solar penguin
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The Doctor
(-10/10) .
Please RTD retcon the Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n))/10, where n
is an integer from n=0 -> n=positive infinity.
As n tends to infinity, the Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n)
also becomes infinity.
As (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + .... 2^(n-1)) also approaches infinity ......
so wouldn't (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n) actually approach twice
infinity?? ;-P
IIRC the sum of (2^n) from 0 to N is (2^(N-1)-1)
Yes, ... so as 'n' or 'N' approaches infinity the SUMMATION is 2N!!
--
Daniel
2^N or 2^(N-1) ?
No difference .... for all intense!!
You said 2N whihc is 2*N or 2xN.
Sorry!! Do YOU, Clown, want to have another go at explaining yourself,
Clown??
--
Daniel
Dan's definition of clown comes from
http://www.chakoteya.net/DoctorWho/10-1.htm

JO: Look.
(The scanner shows William inside a pyramid shape. He was too ill to act, bless
him.)
DOCTOR 1: [on scanner] Ah, there you are. I seem to be stuck up here. Hmm? Hmm?
Oh, so you're my replacements. Huh. A dandy and a clown. Have you done anything?
DOCTOR 2: Well, we've, er, assessed the situation.
DOCTOR 1 [on scanner]: Just as I thought. Nothing.
DOCTOR: Well it's not easy, you know.

Get out of chronic hysteresis mode Dannyboy!

Dannyboy just wants his post count to increase.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Merry Christmas 2021 and Happy New Year 2022 Beware https://mindspring.com
Daniel65
2021-11-25 07:32:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daniel65
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel65
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel65
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel65
Post by solar penguin
Post by The True Doctor
(-10/10) . Please RTD retcon the
Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ...
+ 2^n))/10, where n is an integer from n=0 ->
n=positive infinity.
As n tends to infinity, the Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 +
16 + ... + 2^n) also becomes infinity.
As (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + .... 2^(n-1)) also approaches
infinity ...... so wouldn't (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... +
2^n) actually approach twice infinity?? ;-P
IIRC the sum of (2^n) from 0 to N is (2^(N-1)-1)
Yes, ... so as 'n' or 'N' approaches infinity the SUMMATION
is 2N!! -- Daniel
2^N or 2^(N-1) ?
No difference .... for all intense!!
You said 2N whihc is 2*N or 2xN.
Sorry!! Do YOU, Clown, want to have another go at explaining
yourself, Clown??
Ah!! So not even YOU, Clown, can explain yourself, as usual, Clown!
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2021-11-25 15:26:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daniel65
Post by Daniel65
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel65
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel65
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel65
Post by solar penguin
Post by The True Doctor
(-10/10) . Please RTD retcon the
Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ...
+ 2^n))/10, where n is an integer from n=0 ->
n=positive infinity.
As n tends to infinity, the Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 +
16 + ... + 2^n) also becomes infinity.
As (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + .... 2^(n-1)) also approaches
infinity ...... so wouldn't (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... +
2^n) actually approach twice infinity?? ;-P
IIRC the sum of (2^n) from 0 to N is (2^(N-1)-1)
Yes, ... so as 'n' or 'N' approaches infinity the SUMMATION
is 2N!! -- Daniel
2^N or 2^(N-1) ?
No difference .... for all intense!!
You said 2N whihc is 2*N or 2xN.
Sorry!! Do YOU, Clown, want to have another go at explaining
yourself, Clown??
Ah!! So not even YOU, Clown, can explain yourself, as usual, Clown!
--
Daniel
Dan's definition of clown comes from
http://www.chakoteya.net/DoctorWho/10-1.htm

JO: Look.
(The scanner shows William inside a pyramid shape. He was too ill to act, bless
him.)
DOCTOR 1: [on scanner] Ah, there you are. I seem to be stuck up here. Hmm? Hmm?
Oh, so you're my replacements. Huh. A dandy and a clown. Have you done anything?
DOCTOR 2: Well, we've, er, assessed the situation.
DOCTOR 1 [on scanner]: Just as I thought. Nothing.
DOCTOR: Well it's not easy, you know.

Get out of chronic hysteresis mode Dannyboy!

Dannyboy just wants his post count to increase.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Merry Christmas 2021 and Happy New Year 2022 Beware https://mindspring.com
The Doctor
2021-11-15 00:02:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The Doctor
(-10/10) .
Please RTD retcon the Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n))/10, where n
is an integer from n=0 -> n=positive infinity.
The Jodieites will not understand any of the above at all.
What a joke of an episode!
Post by The True Doctor
--
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
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Merry Christmas 2021 and Happy New Year 2022 Beware https://mindspring.com
Andy Leighton
2021-11-14 23:41:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 19:52:46 -0000 (UTC),
Post by The Doctor
Doctor Who - Once , Upon Time
After the Sontarans looking substandard
we get this drivel.
Start the plot. If you feel dizzy , that might be normal.
Well only simpletons might have trouble with the plot. Looking
at what you have regurgitated then you had problems with the
plot and missed loads of stuff. Half the stuff you write aren't
even intelligible sentences.
Post by The Doctor
Bel is out there surviving. Bel is Vinder's friend.
Hmm a bit more than that. You did catch that she was pregnant
didn't you?
Post by The Doctor
Why did Swarm want to spring this trap?
What - do you mean ths trap in particular? Because it is obvious
why he wants to destroy the Doctor. The Doctor (in Jo Martin form
with Jodie Whittaker along as some sort of quantum leap presence
albeit a bit glitchy) bested him and Azure in the far past and
caused his imprisonment (which we saw in part 1).
Post by The Doctor
WE Know Claire is a hosting from part 1.
There was no character called Claire in this episode. Claire
was the woman attacked by the Weeping Angels in part 1.
Post by The Doctor
Why did The Doctor not address the Weeping Angel issue?
Because it is a 6 part story and if everything was addressed in
1 part then it would be very rushed and there would be 5 parts
with nothing to do.


So onto my thoughts.

Structurally this is clear it is an epsiode that isn't a straight-
forward episode in terms of introduce threat or monster and deal
with it. It simultaneously introduces Bel and expands Vinder's
backstory so we know what has gone on that resulted in the shit
posting he had in episode 1. Through Bel's story we see Daleks and
Cybermen taking advantage of the Flux - so that is three time capable
races all trying to carve out their individual sectors. This was very
deftly done without requiring a Dalek and a Cyberman episode. We
also got to see how Swarm was defeated way back (although we don't
know who two of the Doctor's companions were at that point, although
we know one is a Lupari). We get hints of Weeping Angels for the
cliff-hanger and we know that they will return for their episode.
One interesting thing is that the Angels seem to be able to travel
from electronic device to reality - I don't think we have seen that
before.

Finally we are also introduced to Awsok (the shady old lady played
by Barbara Flynn) who may well be ultimately pulling the strings.
She didn't seem to be a very sympathetic figure.

If you haven't realised by now I liked this episode a lot and it
is some of the best story-telling we have seen for a long time.
Unfortunately I think the effects are uneven - some are really good
but at other times the CGI and matte work looks a little obvious.
--
Andy Leighton => ***@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams
solar penguin
2021-11-14 23:48:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Leighton
One interesting thing is that the Angels seem to be able to travel
from electronic device to reality - I don't think we have seen that
before.
We saw it in the Moffat era, an Angel emerging from a
TV screen to scare Amy. Then the ability was quickly forgotten
about and never seen again until now.
--
solar penguin
The Doctor
2021-11-15 00:06:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by solar penguin
Post by Andy Leighton
One interesting thing is that the Angels seem to be able to travel
from electronic device to reality - I don't think we have seen that
before.
We saw it in the Moffat era, an Angel emerging from a
TV screen to scare Amy. Then the ability was quickly forgotten
about and never seen again until now.
Chibnall is doing a hatchet job no matter which way you view it!
Post by solar penguin
--
solar penguin
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Merry Christmas 2021 and Happy New Year 2022 Beware https://mindspring.com
Daniel65
2021-11-24 11:16:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 19:52:46 -0000 (UTC), The Doctor
Post by The Doctor
Doctor Who - Once , Upon Time
After the Sontarans looking substandard we get this drivel.
Start the plot. If you feel dizzy , that might be normal.
Well only simpletons might have trouble with the plot. Looking at
what you have regurgitated then you had problems with the plot and
missed loads of stuff. Half the stuff you write aren't even
intelligible sentences.
Post by The Doctor
Bel is out there surviving. Bel is Vinder's friend.
Hmm a bit more than that. You did catch that she was pregnant
didn't you?
Post by The Doctor
Why did Swarm want to spring this trap?
What - do you mean ths trap in particular? Because it is obvious
why he wants to destroy the Doctor. The Doctor (in Jo Martin form
with Jodie Whittaker along as some sort of quantum leap presence
albeit a bit glitchy) bested him and Azure in the far past and
caused his imprisonment (which we saw in part 1).
Post by The Doctor
WE Know Claire is a hosting from part 1.
There was no character called Claire in this episode. Claire was
the woman attacked by the Weeping Angels in part 1.
Post by The Doctor
Why did The Doctor not address the Weeping Angel issue?
Because it is a 6 part story and if everything was addressed in 1
part then it would be very rushed and there would be 5 parts with
nothing to do.
So onto my thoughts.
Structurally this is clear it is an epsiode that isn't a straight-
forward episode in terms of introduce threat or monster and deal
with it. It simultaneously introduces Bel and expands Vinder's
backstory so we know what has gone on that resulted in the shit
posting he had in episode 1. Through Bel's story we see Daleks and
Cybermen taking advantage of the Flux - so that is three time
capable races all trying to carve out their individual sectors.
This was very deftly done without requiring a Dalek and a Cyberman
episode. We also got to see how Swarm was defeated way back
(although we don't know who two of the Doctor's companions were at
that point, although we know one is a Lupari). We get hints of
Weeping Angels for the cliff-hanger and we know that they will
return for their episode. One interesting thing is that the Angels
seem to be able to travel from electronic device to reality - I
don't think we have seen that before.
Finally we are also introduced to Awsok (the shady old lady played
by Barbara Flynn) who may well be ultimately pulling the strings.
She didn't seem to be a very sympathetic figure.
If you haven't realised by now I liked this episode a lot and it is
some of the best story-telling we have seen for a long time.
Unfortunately I think the effects are uneven - some are really
good but at other times the CGI and matte work looks a little
obvious.
The attempt to make The Timeless Child Doctor Who is the major factor
why traditional DW fans are truned off of Chibnall.
"truned"??

I think a lot of "traditional DW fans are' having fun making sense of
all the new bits to the know 'Doctor Who' timeline!
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2021-11-24 14:06:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daniel65
On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 19:52:46 -0000 (UTC), The Doctor
Post by The Doctor
Doctor Who - Once , Upon Time
After the Sontarans looking substandard we get this drivel.
Start the plot. If you feel dizzy , that might be normal.
Well only simpletons might have trouble with the plot. Looking at
what you have regurgitated then you had problems with the plot and
missed loads of stuff. Half the stuff you write aren't even
intelligible sentences.
Post by The Doctor
Bel is out there surviving. Bel is Vinder's friend.
Hmm a bit more than that. You did catch that she was pregnant
didn't you?
Post by The Doctor
Why did Swarm want to spring this trap?
What - do you mean ths trap in particular? Because it is obvious
why he wants to destroy the Doctor. The Doctor (in Jo Martin form
with Jodie Whittaker along as some sort of quantum leap presence
albeit a bit glitchy) bested him and Azure in the far past and
caused his imprisonment (which we saw in part 1).
Post by The Doctor
WE Know Claire is a hosting from part 1.
There was no character called Claire in this episode. Claire was
the woman attacked by the Weeping Angels in part 1.
Post by The Doctor
Why did The Doctor not address the Weeping Angel issue?
Because it is a 6 part story and if everything was addressed in 1
part then it would be very rushed and there would be 5 parts with
nothing to do.
So onto my thoughts.
Structurally this is clear it is an epsiode that isn't a straight-
forward episode in terms of introduce threat or monster and deal
with it. It simultaneously introduces Bel and expands Vinder's
backstory so we know what has gone on that resulted in the shit
posting he had in episode 1. Through Bel's story we see Daleks and
Cybermen taking advantage of the Flux - so that is three time
capable races all trying to carve out their individual sectors.
This was very deftly done without requiring a Dalek and a Cyberman
episode. We also got to see how Swarm was defeated way back
(although we don't know who two of the Doctor's companions were at
that point, although we know one is a Lupari). We get hints of
Weeping Angels for the cliff-hanger and we know that they will
return for their episode. One interesting thing is that the Angels
seem to be able to travel from electronic device to reality - I
don't think we have seen that before.
Finally we are also introduced to Awsok (the shady old lady played
by Barbara Flynn) who may well be ultimately pulling the strings.
She didn't seem to be a very sympathetic figure.
If you haven't realised by now I liked this episode a lot and it is
some of the best story-telling we have seen for a long time.
Unfortunately I think the effects are uneven - some are really
good but at other times the CGI and matte work looks a little
obvious.
The attempt to make The Timeless Child Doctor Who is the major factor
why traditional DW fans are truned off of Chibnall.
"truned"??
I think a lot of "traditional DW fans are' having fun making sense of
all the new bits to the know 'Doctor Who' timeline!
--
Daniel
Yes, turned off. This is nihilistic styled revisionism Chibnall
is going!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Merry Christmas 2021 and Happy New Year 2022 Beware https://mindspring.com
Blueshirt
2021-11-24 22:29:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
This is nihilistic styled revisionism Chibnall is going!
The only revisionism going on is from the [delusional] people who claim
that "Flux" it's not Doctor Who!

Not liking something is fine, pretending that it's not what it actually
is because it doesn't fit in with *your* expectations is egocentric.
Loading...