HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB)
Subject: Re: the valeyard's true goals
Organization: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:46:13 GMT

"dale clayton" <dale.clayton@canrem.com> writes
> bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB) wrote:

>> is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere
>> between your twelfth and final regeneration." {A friend's VCR and my
>> own Audio recording conferm the REGENERATION as does the 1989
>> American printing of both Ultimate Foe and the Doctor Who Programme
>> Guide (Page 165)}

> Let's look at basics for a minute with one point:

> The Doctor only has twelve regenerations. Insert "incanation" in place
>of "regeneration" and sense and continuity prevail.
WRONG on BOTH counts.  You left out my statement:
"We know from 'Twin Dilemma' that Time Lords DO have a THIRTEENTH regeneration, 
but it is normally fatal."
In fact this THIRTEENTH regeneration is VITAL to the conclusion of the story
and the defeating of the bad guy.  

What is BETWEEN incarnations? A regeneration.  So, we have a transitory
phase running around. {Like THIS makes better sence then the Doctor's
14th incarnation running around?} The Doctor's SIXTH incarnation
CONFERMS the regeneration statment of the books and the original 
broadcast in the Statement "The SAME MAN cannot be both Prosecuter and 
Defendent." If the Valeyard WAS a CONTRUCT as some people believe then the
6th Doctor would have said "I demand to have a REAL person as my Prosecuter."
The same is true if the Valeyard was a corrupted Watcher.  As I understand
it a Time Lord's Watcher is really a projection of his/her next incarnation
so the Valeyard is STILL the Doctor's 14th incarnation unless he is a 
construct.  Even if he is a construct WHY would he want to destroy almost
half himself (7th through 13th incarnations)?
The later sound track with incarnation instead of regeneration causes as many
problems as the original sound track did.
The Ultimate Foe has some real BAD writing defects and changing the sound
track didn't help.  Anybody got the orignial transcript of this? That might
help clear the mess with two versions out there.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
From: echristo@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Elena A Christofides)
Subject: Re: The Valeyard's TRUE goals
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:07:52 GMT

In article <JT92wB2w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (D
ave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB) writes:
>
>- When the Master said 'between your 12th and last regeneration' when describi
n
>                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>- the Valeyard it was NOT a mistake by the writers or by the Master.  We know
>- from 'Twin Dilemma" that Time Lords DO have a THIRTEENTH regeneration, but i
t
>- is normally fatal.  This 13th regeneration is also implied when the Master
>- steals the Keeper of Traken's body (Instead of being fatal the 13th
>- regeneration results in a new form.)  As the Valeyard is the Doctor's 14th
>- incarnation the Master knows that the Valeyard will fail in getting more
>- regenerations from his past self and, foolishly,  believes that the Valeyard
>- will not have the opotunity to hijack a body like the Master did.
>
> Point of order here!!
>
>  In Trial of a Timelord Part 13, The word is NOT regeneration, it is
>INCARNATION!  The Valeyard IS INDEED The Watcher for the 12th Doctor in other
>that the Doctor can regenerate to final incarnation!!
>
>Dave Shariff Yadallee

Dave, could you please explain yourself?

I'm sorry if I'm a little slow on the uptake - but, what *EXACTLY*
do you mean by *incarnation* as opposed to *regeneration*?

And about the watcher???????

Elena
From: jblum@hamlet.umd.edu (Hi ho -- Kermit the Frog here...)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: The Valeyard Explained
Date: 12 Jan 93 03:56:29 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

Bravo, Stephen, for coming up with one of the simplest possible theories
about the Valeyard -- one which doesn't involve sending the Doctor back
75 years and having him mate with his Romulan half-daughter.  :-)

Maybe you can take on one more explanation...

WHY ON GALLIFREY was the Valeyard wearing a MASK to disguise himself as
Mr. Popplewick?  The whole Matrix dreamscape was an illusion -- he could
just make himself look like Popplewick.  Or create Popplewick out of whole
cloth like Goth did for the various figures in "Deadly Assassin".

That unmasking scene and the escape from Robert Holmes' cliffhanger are the
two biggest bits of cheese which I refuse to forgive Pip & Jane Baker for
writing.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: answer
From: zeezee@codewks.nacjack.gen.nz (Leon Murray)
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 23:21:25 NZST
Organization: The Code Works Limited, PO Box 10 155, Auckland, New Zealand

victoria joined in the story "evil of the daleks"

--
zeezee@codewks.nacjack.gen.nz (Leon Murray)
The BBS Works -- +64 9 630 7739 NZL	New Zealand's Oldest BBS
From: rock@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Rockerboy)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: DRWHO:Computer Game
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 01:58:06 EST
Reply-To: rock@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Rockerboy)
Organization: Lakes Public Access

doctor@k9.UUCP (Paul Broe) writes:

> Short: a very good game based on Doctor Who characters.
> 
> The description from BIX:
> ------------------------------------------------
> drwho.lha      318464  Approx time: 0:41 at 2400 baud, 1:22 at 1200 baud
> Contributed by: amolina  Date: Tue May 19 20:51:26 1992
> Doctor--a monster-chase arcade game based on Dr. Who (British SciFi TV show)

I pulled that down, too, from wuarchive I think, or maybe phyzik.  It's 
pretty cute, and it's free.  I ripped out the digitized sounds (the music 
is a MED module, by the way.) and played with them some.  It's worth 
leaching down.
From: ivarf@dream.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca (Stephen Garstin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel, Doctor Who, The Prisoner
Date: 4 Jan 93 15:40:19 EST
Organization: The Dreaming City BBS * (519)896-0863


        Well, I only started catching the Prisoner about halfway through the run, it was on Sundays at midnight (or would that be Mondays?).
        Anyways, if you watch the opening credits, you get the impression that he is a retired spy, captured by someone (the enemy?  mi5/6?) and well, they've put him up in this "village" and try to come up with new and more devious methods of getting him to talk each episode.

--- Via UCI v1.16 (C-Net Amiga)
From: ph9991_manfr@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: Constants a Movie should observe
Date: 11 Jan 93 12:15:14 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin - River Falls

In article <1993Jan11.111452.23263@midway.uchicago.edu>, lidz@quads.uchicago.edu (adam lidz) writes:
>>What makes you say that?  
>>A Doctor Who story is typically nintey minutes long (four-parter, credits
>>and cliffhanger reprisals don't count), and the standard good movie today
>>is about two hours.  The movie would most likely be of the length of a 
>>five or six part Who TV story.
>>
>>Steven.K.Manfred
> 
> At least here in the US, most movies are only 90 mins.
> 

I do live in the US you know.  :)

And, no, I think you're wrong.  Most movies I see are about 2 hrs long.
Mind you, most movies I see are carefully chosen quality products.
The more cheaply-made fluff often is only 90 minutes, but I would hope a
Who movie would not be in that category.

Steven.K.Manfred
From: cwa@oasis.icl.co.uk (Chris Adams)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: Dr Who Movie
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:34:20 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

Ok, if you can't post the script for copyright reasons, could someone do a
synopsys(sp?) of it so we can get the idea. (and see what's so godawful about
it)

Thanks

     .-----------------------------.----------------------------------.
     |   .  .     ____    _   _    | WARNING: This Superman suit does |
     |  /| /| .-.    /   |_| |_>   | not enable the wearer to fly.    |
     | / |/ | |     /___ | | |     `----------------------------------|
     |      aka Chris Adams            cwa@getafix.oasis.icl.co.uk    |
     `----------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
From: bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB)
Subject: The Valeyard's TRUE goals
Organization: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:55:08 GMT

When the Master said 'between your 12th and last regeneration' when describing 
the Valeyard it was NOT a mistake by the writers or by the Master.  We know 
from 'Twin Dilemma" that Time Lords DO have a THIRTEENTH regeneration, but it 
is normally fatal.  This 13th regeneration is also implied when the Master 
steals the Keeper of Traken's body (Instead of being fatal the 13th 
regeneration results in a new form.)  As the Valeyard is the Doctor's 14th 
incarnation the Master knows that the Valeyard will fail in getting more 
regenerations from his past self and, foolishly,  believes that the Valeyard 
will not have the opotunity to hijack a body like the Master did.
Now to the Valeyard's REAL goals.  The Master and the Valeyard BOTH conferm 
that the Valeyard is the Doctor's last NORMAL incarnation (His 14th).  As the 
the Doctor's 14th incarnation the Valeyard already KNOWS how the trial and 
events around it will end.  Everything, the trial of his sixth incarnation, 
the request for the remaining regenerations, and the threat to the Time Lords 
in the trial are part of a huge smokescrean for his REAL goal: to duplicate 
the Master's non-fatal 13th regeneration trick.  But still being the Doctor he 
still, in his own way, wants to best the Master.  He not only wants the ONE  
extra incarnation that a body would give him, but also to obtain extra 
regenerations and for everyone, INCLUDING the Master, to believe that the 
Valeyard is dead.
His hijacking of the Keeper of the Matrix body serves all these goals. The 
Valeyard most likely had access of the number of regnerations each member of 
the trial had left and choose the Keeper of the Matrix as the best to 'grab' 
in the comfusion of escaping the courtroom.  As a result the Valeyard not only 
pulls off the non-fatal 13th regeneration trick but get some extra 
regenerations in the bargin.  As Keeper of the Matrix he can more easily edit 
the Matrix and plug any holes in his 'death' and the Master, believing the 
Valeyard dead, will bother the previous incarnations of the Valeyard/Doctor.

It is a nice theory and fits most of what has been shown and said on screen.
Comment welcome
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
From: "dale clayton" <dale.clayton@canrem.com>
Subject: the doctor's love interes
Reply-To: "dale clayton" <dale.clayton@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 4 Jan 93 02:46:16 EST

Steve Manfred wrote to Dale Clayton:

RE: Susan

-> she is his granddaughter and from Gallifrey.

 I go along with her being from Gallifrey, but I don't take it as being
litteral that she is really The Doctor's grand-child. I think of the
terms grand-daughter/father more as the `type' of relation they had. Did
she ever refer to any of the other incarnations of The Doctor's as
grand-father in "The Five Doctors"? And, just what were her and Sarah
Jane discussing about the 5th Doctor there in the background? <coo-coo>

Regards,
Dale Clayton
-----------------------
dale.clayton@canrem.com
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
From: borad@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (David J Richardson)
Subject: Susan's age
Organization: Monash University General Access Unix
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:26:24 GMT
From: exxtjg@gdr.bath.ac.uk (T J Garratt)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: UK-GOLD Agenda
Date: 7 Jan 93 09:53:26 GMT
Organization: Guest of Bath University Computing Services, UK

In the referenced article, G.Roberts@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Graham Roberts) writes:
>
>The big surprise for next week is that UK Gold will show The Genesis
>of the Daleks (according to both the Radio & TV Times). This will mean
>a jump to the Tom Baker era and the showing of a Dalek story.
>

... I dont think you mean UK Gold here, as BBC2 are showing
Genesis of the Daleks from this Friday evening for 6 weeks -
or are UK gold showing it as well as BBC2?


Tony
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
From: domalley@unix1.tcd.ie (Slartibartfast            (alias Daniel O'Malley))
Subject: Any good places for DW stuff in Liverpool?
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:06:01 GMT

Subject line says it all: I'll be visiting Liverpool shortly and would
like to know ahead of time what the best places to get sci/fi merchandise
(especially DW stuff) are... So could anyone familiar with the city e-mail
me some info?

Thanks in advance,
Daniel.
--
|       //              |------Daniel O'Malley--domalley@unix1.tcd.ie------|
|   ===//  ===    ===   |---"In the beginning, the universe was created.---|
| //  // //  // //  //  |-This has made a lot of people angry and has been-|
|  ==//   ==// //  //   |--widely regarded as a bad move.":Douglas Adams.--|
Xref: sparky rec.arts.drwho:9357 soc.culture.british:18470 alt.tv.prisoner:1962 rec.arts.tv.uk:7062
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,soc.culture.british,alt.tv.prisoner,rec.arts.tv.uk
Subject: I answer the challenge of Simon Patience
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 05:35:05 MST
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #2, Edmonton, AB, Canada


Please cross-post ot following groups:

rec.arts.drwho
rec.arts.blakes.7
rec.arts.tv.uk
soc.culture.british
soc.culture.canada
soc.culture.usa
uk.misc
alt.british.comedy or alt.comedy.british
alt.tv.prisoner
alt.fan.red-dwarf

Neil Postlethwaith(?) : The USA is taking over Britain
DSY Counterreply: UK tele is invading America
Fellow Liberal Simon Patience challenged: List all UK tele shows that makes it
                                          over

Till now, I have not met the challenge, so today, I list the shows, staring
with those that have individual newsgroups for themselves:

Doctor Who
Monty Python
Blake's 7
The Prisoner
Secret Agent
The Saint
Butterflies
Fawlty Towers
A Very British Coup
Traffik
BBC World Sercive TV News
Are You being served?
Black Adder
Mr. Bean
Rowan Atkinson Live
Star Cops
Waiting For God
Shakespeare (BBC & ITN)
Tiger on the Tiles
BBC series on Miss Marple
Sherlock Holmes (BBC & ITN)

There are others.  Fellow N.A. netters, please help me out and help the
Britons to determine the ratio of British shows sent overseas/ British shows
produced.

Dave Shariff Yadallee (B. Sc. (Econ/Math) (U of Alberta 1990) )
 (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
Birthdate: 29 Jan 1969, Redhill, Surrey, England, UK
From: ensalada@cats.ucsc.edu (Kevin Charles Rubio)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: Survival
Date: 7 Jan 1993 09:46:01 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Reply-To: keeper@deeptht.armory.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu
Keywords: animal teleport


In article <brad.726365823@hawk> brad@hawk.adied.oz.au (Bradley Edelman) writes:
>I was watching Survival last night.  Near the end the Master takes the Doctor
>back to the other planet to fight it out.  Then the Doctor is teleported back
>to Earth.  Does that mean the Doctor became an animal too and could "go home"
>(even though Earth isn't his home)?

Ah, well, that's quite a question.

In the original script, both he and the Master ended up back on Earth.
The Master then asked the Doctor how he could have done that, and began
wondering just who the Doctor really is.  "You're not a Time Lord!
Who are you?" he would ask.  The Doctor would reply, "Let's just say
I'm multi-talented."

Anthony Ainley told me that it was his idea to have these lines removed,
because he thought it was quite un-Masterlike behaviour.  He did not know
that it had been a sort of running theme to remystify the Doctor.  Of course,
I expect that the producers were more than happy to remove it, since the
Doctor had been remystificated enough during series 25 and 26 -- it wasn't
quite necessary to end series 26 with that big "Huh?" (assuming that
they knew that the story would be broadcast last -- it wasn't the last
one of series 26 that they made ... I expect they did know, and that the
reason `Ghost Light' was filmed last was that it was indoors, so would
pose no weather problems).

All in all, I think it would have been better to end the series with
the big "Huh?" since it turned out to be the end of the whole programme.

--
Email replies must be sent to keeper@deeptht.armory.com

Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
From: lizb@banyan.com
Subject: Re: Colin Baker: recommendations wanted
Organization: Banyan Systems, Inc.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 16:43:50 GMT

Hang on - I didn't mean to contribute to The Great Poll Debate. ;-)  In
truth, opinions from people I know (at least by reputation!) are much
more useful to me than formal polls; that way I know how much I've agreed
with other opinions they've had, and can make a better prediction of
what *I'd* really like.

So keep those cards and letters coming, Colin-wise...if you feel funny
posting, please feel free to just email them to me (no, I won't post a
summary ;-)).

And many thanks to those of you who've already contributed!

Liz, who has STILL never met a Doctor she doesn't like. ;-)

lizb@banyan.com
"I've regenerated.  The difference is purely perceptual."
	- The Doctor, "Dragonfire"
 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
From: hagel@stsci.edu
Subject: Re:  The Valeyard's TRUE goals
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:56:18 GMT

torresce@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Alex "Mystic" Soto) writes:

>I don't know why people keep saying this.  The Master did not have a 13th
>regeneration.  The Doctor states in Logopolis (when he finds out that the
>Master is still alive) to Adric I believe, the following:
>
>Doctor:  The Master is still alive?  He must of took over Tremas' body.
					 ^^^^^^^^^^^^	
>
>Adric:  Can he do that?
>
>Doctor:  Wel-l-l...with all the power of the Keeper floating around...



Ahem.  Wouldn't the Doctor have said "He must have taken.....",  instead of 
the (strictly American) syntactical solecism "He must of took..."?


Crystal
From: ensalada@cats.ucsc.edu (Kevin Charles Rubio)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: Dr Who Movie
Date: 5 Jan 1993 07:38:33 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Reply-To: keeper@deeptht.armory.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu




...and thirdly, it is quite clear that keeping up with the group for
two weeks straight wasn't enough, and it was a mistake to stop reading
it for a while in the first place, since apparently people are talking
about something else -- something I missed, unfortunately.

But anyway, last night on local television I saw a movie starring
Jon Pertwee.  However, the listing had only a "To Be Announced"
on it, so I don't know the name of the film.  Perhaps someone can
provide it.

The film in question was a very 70s (1975, in fact) rather
cheesy White-men-come-to-save-helpless-African-tribe deal.
It pretended to be a documentary adventure film, but was
scripted.  Pertwee was the main character -- the one doing
the narration.

--
Email replies must be sent to keeper@deeptht.armory.com
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: The Valeyard and The Keeper WAs: The Valeyard's true goal
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 05:36:33 MST
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #2, Edmonton, AB, Canada

Whoa!!

One moment!!

The Valeyard and the Keeper wre/are one ?  I have nothing to prove that.
Theory: The Valeyard did a Master.

Any disagreements?

Dave Shariff Yadallee (B. Sc. (Econ/Math) (U of Alberta 1990) )
 (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
Birthdate: 29 Jan 1969, Redhill, Surrey, England, UK
From: ensalada@cats.ucsc.edu (Kevin Charles Rubio)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: The Doctor's Love Interest
Date: 8 Jan 1993 07:32:06 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Reply-To: keeper@deeptht.armory.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <H2BywB10w165w@lakes.trenton.sc.us> rock@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Rockerboy) writes:
>It has been a while since I've seen the first episode, but I was almost 
>positive Susan spoke of having had some training on her home planet.  It 
>was something about when she was explaining what TARDIS meant.


I don't recall anything about training -- and I'd remember it if there was,
I'm sure.  What she does say, in both the pilot and `real' version, is
"I made up `TARDIS' from the initials: Time And Relative Dimension In Space."

That doesn't suggest anything about Susan's background, unfortunately,
since it doesn't say when she made up the acronym.

--
Email replies must be sent to keeper@deeptht.armory.com

Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
From: an5284@anon.penet.fi
Subject: Mail Digest
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: rec.arts.drwho
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:15:25 GMT

X-Anon-To: rec.arts.drwho

	Is there a message digest for this conference? Thanks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
From: jbyrne@cix.compulink.co.uk (Johnny Byrne)
Subject: Doctor Who Script...
Reply-To: jbyrne@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:58:00 +0000

All I can do is repeat that the company who commissioned the
particular version of the script - and the earlier and later versions 
- are responsible for its distribution.  Their rights must take
priority, given their substantial investment.

Reviewing a script that seems to have ground to halt in terms of
production is an odd concept.  Less so perhaps long after the project 
is dead, which is far from the case where a DW movie is concerned. 
That being said I have allowed my treatment - or parts of it - for
the unscripted companion tale to Keeper Of Traken to be "reviewed" or 
featured in an article.  I often send my scripts to those who write
requesting them, especially if the intention is to help aspiring
writers.  Now, of course, I limit them to those I have on disk,
which extends back only five years.

I personally have no objection to this particular script being
reviewed.  It would certainly make a change from the biased and
illiterate judgements tossed off on here, not one backed up by
anything resembling an arguement.  Without exception, they displayed
a critical ability that ranged from zero to zilch.  No one has to
like what I do with a particular script, but is it too much to expect 
that those intent on rubbishing a work at least give reasons why they 
do so?

As for the appearance of another one who doubts my identity; it seems
that a pattern is emerging with these perennial doubting Thomas's. 
It could be that the degree of doubt is directly proportionate to
their degree of credulity.  In other words, they fatally believe too
much - or too little, which makes them painful in the extreme to
endure.

Happy New Year.

Johnny Byrne