• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Doctor Who
Theory about the little girl (SPOILER)
<<
<
2 of 2
>>
>
The Wren
09-05-2011
Although I think the IMDb information is a red herring its an interesting proposition.
The little girl was regenerating in 1969.If she then aged normally and had no cause to regenerate again the chronology would suggest that she might be Lucy Saxon's mother rather than her daughter. ie Lady Cole. Making Lucy half Time Lord, which would be how she survived the fire that supposedly burnt her up.
Dazz78
09-05-2011
Originally Posted by The Wren:
“Although I think the IMDb information is a red herring its an interesting proposition.
The little girl was regenerating in 1969.If she then aged normally and had no cause to regenerate again the chronology would suggest that she might be Lucy Saxon's mother rather than her daughter. ie Lady Cole. Making Lucy half Time Lord, which would be how she survived the fire that supposedly burnt her up.”

I kinda like the idea of it being the Doctor's daughter as that mean she ultimately killed him assuming she was in the space suit.
M@nterik
09-05-2011
Originally Posted by Jepson:
“It's a science fiction forum.

Why would any intelligent person want incorrect science to stand uncorrected?

I suppose you start whining if someone posted that e=mc^3 and it was pointed out that was wrong.

It really is quite sad the efforts that some people will go to maintain ignorance.”

No, the only sad thing is someone on a Doctor Who forum trying to score points by correcting others over something totally and utterly irrelevant to the point they were making - which was the point I was making to you.

You are simply thrashing around with a pointless strawman attack implying I lack knowledge on the elements with no evidence.

That is not the case. I am just sick of the sort of tedious nitpicking that you put forward. Petty internet point scoring which I am sure makes you feel good about your life but just drags the forum down.

Whether or not you can have an atom of salt.

So what.

The person you wanted to bitch at was absolutely right about taking with, perhaps if they had said pinch of salt you would have been happier, a degree of scepticism what appears on IMDB.

It is a Doctor Who (and Torchwood) forum. I think you are getting confused. It is not a Sci-Fi forum.

You knew exactly what the person who made the comment about the atom of salt meant.

You then wanted to appear as a wisecracker.

I also happen to agree with Mark Kermode about science fiction. I do not adhere to the Christopher H Bidmead view that in sci-fi the science must be right as it is simply a means to convey the story. That is why I can forgive the scene in the lamentable Four To Doomsday (you probably have not heard of it, google it) where the Doc throws the cricket ball against the spaceship wall.
necroziel
09-05-2011
Originally Posted by M@nterik:
“No, the only sad thing is someone on a Doctor Who forum trying to score points by correcting others over something totally and utterly irrelevant to the point they were making - which was the point I was making to you.

You are simply thrashing around with a pointless strawman attack implying I lack knowledge on the elements with no evidence.

That is not the case. I am just sick of the sort of tedious nitpicking that you put forward. Petty internet point scoring which I am sure makes you feel good about your life but just drags the forum down.

Whether or not you can have an atom of salt.

So what.

The person you wanted to bitch at was absolutely right about taking with, perhaps if they had said pinch of salt you would have been happier, a degree of scepticism what appears on IMDB.

It is a Doctor Who (and Torchwood) forum. I think you are getting confused. It is not a Sci-Fi forum.

You knew exactly what the person who made the comment about the atom of salt meant.

You then wanted to appear as a wisecracker.

I also happen to agree with Mark Kermode about science fiction. I do not adhere to the Christopher H Bidmead view that in sci-fi the science must be right as it is simply a means to convey the story. That is why I can forgive the scene in the lamentable Four To Doomsday (you probably have not heard of it, google it) where the Doc throws the cricket ball against the spaceship wall.”

winning
Jepson
09-05-2011
Originally Posted by M@nterik:
“No, the only sad thing is someone on a Doctor Who forum trying to score points by correcting others over something totally and utterly irrelevant to the point they were making - which was the point I was making to you.

You are simply thrashing around with a pointless strawman attack implying I lack knowledge on the elements with no evidence.

That is not the case. I am just sick of the sort of tedious nitpicking that you put forward. Petty internet point scoring which I am sure makes you feel good about your life but just drags the forum down.

Whether or not you can have an atom of salt.

So what.

The person you wanted to bitch at was absolutely right about taking with, perhaps if they had said pinch of salt you would have been happier, a degree of scepticism what appears on IMDB.

It is a Doctor Who (and Torchwood) forum. I think you are getting confused. It is not a Sci-Fi forum.

You knew exactly what the person who made the comment about the atom of salt meant.

You then wanted to appear as a wisecracker.

I also happen to agree with Mark Kermode about science fiction. I do not adhere to the Christopher H Bidmead view that in sci-fi the science must be right as it is simply a means to convey the story. That is why I can forgive the scene in the lamentable Four To Doomsday (you probably have not heard of it, google it) where the Doc throws the cricket ball against the spaceship wall.”

Good grief!

The amount if effort you put into your whining attempt to suppress information is awesome!

I notice that the person who made the very minor error was mature enough not to to whine and mewl as you are doing.
<<
<
2 of 2
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map