In article <5oqsdo$...@camel4.mindspring.com>,

No, the Master says "That's the retinal structure of the human eye."
That's like him looking at one of those gene-transplanted tobacco plants
-- which we already have in 1997 -- and saying "That's the luminescent
compound of a firefly."

The Master never mentions DNA.

So what would you call someone who is the product of two strands of DNA --
one from a human, one from a Gallifreyan -- which have both been tweaked
somewhat out of their normal sequences, so that they no longer fit the
precise form for "human" or "Gallifreyan" (while still containing much of
the same information), so that they can combine successfully?

Me, I'd call it half-human half-Gallifreyan, but then I'm not a
geneticist.

But then again, neither is the Master.

[snip]

Yet while I've seen you post time and again about how the idea of someone
being half-human is scientific garbage, I have yet to see you post once
about the equally garbage science behind the Krynoid, or regeneration, or
the Androgum inheritance, or any of the other times Doctor Who waves its
hands vaguely in the direction of genetics.

That, in a nutshell, is the double standard.

Regards,
Jon Blum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"All this time you two thought you were playing some twisted game of
chess...  when it was just me playing solitaire!"
             D O C T O R   W H O :   T I M E   R I F T

All right, just one more time:  As a general rule, canon=what I like, not
canon=what I don't like.
In the case of the "Is the Doctor really half human" question, my
intuitive answer is no-I don't like the idea any more than (some of) you
do-yet at the same time I can see how it could be made to fit established
Who history, for example it makes a dandy explaination for why
regeneration always seems a riskier proposition for the Doctor than for
the other (no pun intended) presumably "full" Time Lords/Ladies (Borusa,
Romana).
This thread seems to me to be an example of how you can pull up facts
(from Who or reality) to support any argument you wish.  There are
probably arguments that could be made to support scientifically the idea
that he could be half human, but if you're not looking to support that,
you're not going to find them.
Anyway-enough of my 2 bits worth.

--Saulchurch
"Okay, (The TARDIS Lock)'s a 21-tumbler system which melts if you find the wrong hole.  It's attuned to the metabolisms of it's crew and will open for nobody else.  Or it takes a simple key which fits every other TARDIS on Gallifrey."-DWM

Pardon me, I stand corrected.  "Double standard" seems to be a moral
judgement to me, but I take your point.  It doesn't have to be. All
the same, as I've explained, I cringe on both the reversed polarity of
neutron flows and half humans  (also, though not previously mentioned,
whatever that thing was that was made out of teacups, spoons, and used
tea leaves to detect the Master's TARDIS, also "living metal," also a
few other things that I can't recall at the moment.)

The thing with the neutron flow is a god out of the box device.  It
frustrates me storywise because I'm set for a scientific explanation
and then there is none.  But it's an episode by episode thing. It does
NOT show up in lots of episodes. The half human thing grates on my
nerves because it's a hackneyed and sentimental device (as well as
impossible) that didn't even keep the story stitched together.  And it
keeps hanging on.  At least the series "outgrew" reversing the
polarity of the neutron flow.

There are inconsistencies and impossibilities in the premise of the
show as it was set up that the viewer had to accept just to get going
(like time travel), But these were interesting concepts in and of
themselves (time travel).  And there were inconsistencies necessary
just to keep the series going (like regeneration to replace Hartnell
with Troughton).  These contribute to my distaste of stuff that's
nonsense that is *not* necessary to keep the series going, especially
stuff that's been used before and is not interesting.  *And* is
impossible.

I'm sure that even now as we speak, Kate, you are organizing a couple
ideas on how technology could create/engineer a half human creature.
I look forward to seeing it, because I don't think it's possible, and
it has nothing to do with technology.  And my researcher at Glaxo
Wellcome is telling me I'm right.

--Jeri

Visit Jeri's Dr. Who Fiction Page!
http://www.pipeline.com/~jeriwho/index.html
Stories and images from the Third Doctor era!
Essays on tae kwon do, the Christian and literature,
and the Valkyries novel

Brad!  He did it in AUTONS (well, that was just "reverse the polarity"
and he did it in TIME MONSTER, and he did it in FRONTIER IN SPACE (in
the sonic screwdriver to magnetize it).

--Jeri.

Visit Jeri's Dr. Who Fiction Page!
http://www.pipeline.com/~jeriwho/index.html
Stories and images from the Third Doctor era!
Essays on tae kwon do, the Christian and literature,
and the Valkyries novel

1. I believe that someone has already mentioned spin, so yes neutrons
can have polarity.

2. It would seem possible that as DNA encodes information that
information could be encoded in a different chemistry, just as the code
can be written in letters instead of DNA.  An alien biochemistry could
therefore be mapped into DNA code, and vice versa.  Alien hybrids could
therefore be produced, but only by a system which interpreted the
meaning of the genes, rather than relying on chemistry to do the job for
you.  I believe John M Ford came up with something like this in a Star
Trek spin-off novel to try to give a convincing explanation to paper
over the Star Trek script writers ignorance of genetics.  Doesn't stop
the half-human stuff being a bad idea, but sufficiently energetic hand-
waving can work wonders.

3. Parallel worlds are a scientifically respectable idea.

4. It is possible to come up with a technobabble explanation as to why a
sculpture made out of a wine bottle, corks, forks, and tea-cups would
interfere with the workings of a time machine.  It involves the
statistical distribution of parallel worlds in the multiverse.

5. I once had responsibility for some equipment which had a setting
labelled "polarity".  I never had to reverse it though, which was most
disappointing.
--
Ken Mann
Still taking the tablets.

But the tobbaco plants are still tobacco plants.  They are not half
firefly.

So I'd gather, but the person could not be a product of two strands of
DNA, one human and one timelord.  That's the impossibility.  The two
strands are not compatible.  A timelord has two hearts, a different
respiration system, and a different circulatory system.  That DNA is
not going to combine with DNA for a creature with such vast
differences in metabolism and structure, not any more than the mating
of a human with chimpanzee would produce offspring. And the physical
differences between humans and timelords are much wider than the
physical differences between humans and chimpanzees.

Jon, what I choose to post about is only what I choose to post about.
What I think about these ideas as I run across them is in my mind, and
you can't know it.  I'm sorry--you are not the posting sheriff of the
newsgroup, assigned to note and report on people who post more heavily
on certain things than on others.  Well, maybe you are, but it doesn't
affect me.

If it pleases you or assauges your feelings to note I have a double
standard, you can certainly do it.  It does not at all detract from my
point that the half human thing is tripe, which it is.  It's still
tripe, no matter what standards I employ.  But I hated the androgum
story so much that I never noticed anything in there about genetics.
It was so wretchedly boring and repetitive I started house cleaning,
as I recall, and only stopped to watch the scenes with Patrick
Troughton.  There is such a thing as giving up on a story before you
even find all its absurdities, you know.

But finding and being repulsed by the half human thing does not create
any obligation in me to find every other scientific blooper in DW.
It's enough to know that that one stinks.  I haven't even *seen* all
the stories in Dr. Who--just all the Pertwees.  If the one with the
Krynoid is the one I think it is--with Tom Baker and the big house and
the mulchig machine that nearly everybody got thrown in to, that was
sort of like the androgum story.  I was stupefied before I got to any
explanations.

--Jeri

Visit Jeri's Dr. Who Fiction Page!
http://www.pipeline.com/~jeriwho/index.html
Stories and images from the Third Doctor era!
Essays on tae kwon do, the Christian and literature,
and the Valkyries novel

In article <5orv3a$...@camel2.mindspring.com>,

Nevertheless, they are genetically part-firefly.  Would your objections to
those scenes in the movie have gone away if the Master had said "The
Doctor is genetically part-human" rather than "The Doctor is half human"?
Or if the Doctor had said "I'm genetically part-human on my mother's
side"?

Somehow I doubt it -- because, as I've said, it's the *idea* of the Doctor
having human ancestry which you loathe, and you're just seizing on a
"scientific" reason to bash it.

Read my question again, this time paying special attention to the bit that
says "which have both been tweaked somewhat out of their normal
sequences... so that they can combine successfully," and then try
answering it again.

Yes, such tweaking (the creation of a new carrier to allow you to combine
incompatible genetic material on such a scale) is beyond the realm of
current human technology.  But it's not theoretically impossible -- and
I'll be glad to point you to folks from the Hughes Institute who'll back
that up.

[snip]

Actually, it does detract from it -- since it's now been shown that the
standard you're citing to prove it's "tripe", scientific impossibility,
would also cause much more accepted ideas (like regeneration) to fall into
the "tripe" category.  So if you don't think these other things are tripe,
then it suggests there's something wrong with judging just on that
standard.

Again, if you'd just say you don't like the Doctor being half-human,
there's nothing wrong with that.  Pointing out that it's not necessary?
That's a fair cop.  That it could potentially be used in really cliched
ways, a la Spock?  Yep.  But focusing on scientific impossibility is a
seriously flawed argument -- and bringing the matter up over and over
again without adding anything new gets really boring too.

[snip]

Regards,
Jon Blum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"All this time you two thought you were playing some twisted game of
chess...  when it was just me playing solitaire!"
             D O C T O R   W H O :   T I M E   R I F T

In article <5oqsmb$...@camel4.mindspring.com>, jeri...@pipeline.com
says...

If you read above you will see that you stated that electron flow is
voltage.  I have a MS in electrical engineering CS and I tell you this is
not true.  Voltage is the potential difference between the positive and
negative charges that result in electron flow.  You are correct that
electron flow cannot occur with out voltage but electron flow is current
not voltage.  Any electrician will tell you that "Voltage can't kill you
- it's the current that does the job."

Correct even though neutrons can flow.  Anyway, I always felt the Doctor
was talking metaphorically.

Cheers -

Brig

[This followup was posted to rec.arts.drwho and a copy was sent to the
cited author.]

In article <slrn45r1bj2.1im.akn...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au>,
akn...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au says...

True. But if the mutation affects the retina system making it less
efficient it would be very hard for the species to survive long enough to
adapt. There are plenty of competitor species out there waiting for a
chance to nudge another aside and into extinction. However, I agree that
it is not impossible - just highly improbable.

I also never said that evolution would produce the perfect life form.  
This would be quite foolish since neither I, nor anyone else, knows what
the perfect life form might be - if there is such a thing.  What I did
say was that successful species survive by being efficient at finding
food and not becoming food for someone else (well, maybe not in those
words).  The name of the game is survival and any mutation that hinders
survival spells extinction.

Well - based on the theory that the human race was fostered by the TLs to
begin with.  And that TLs and humans are both humanoid while a chimp is a
primate.

Cheers -

Brig

In article <5oqri6$...@camel4.mindspring.com>, jeri...@pipeline.com
says...

I don't understand where you came up with the "one generation" theory.  I
had believed that the Doctor if half human had always been so.
And I do not recall anyone (Master or Doctor) ever saying the Doctor was
the result of a sexual liaison between a TL and a human.  "On my mother's
side" could mean anything - a human female's DNA spliced with a male
TL's.

Well I agree that he'd be a TL but that doesn't mean he would have some
human characteristics.  So little is really known - genetics at this
level is a very new science.  2000 years ago the idea of DNA would have
seemed preposterous.

Cheers -

Brig

In article <5opjjc$...@camel1.mindspring.com>,

[Lots snipped. Back up to the last article for my full tirade. :-)]

In fact, we know nearly *nothing* about what it means for the Doctor to be
half-human. Wisely, the TVM steered clear of the details - when "The
X-Files" is vague about genetics, it gets it right, but when it goes into
detail, it messes up. :-)

We certainly weren't told enough for you to conclude that it's a genetic
impossibility. Sure, the Master says, "See that? That's the retinal
structure of the human eye". But if I looked at a mule, and said, "See
that? That's the ear structure of a donkey", would you still argue it was
a genetic impossibility?

Have you read "The Also People"? There's a fascinating sequence in which
we see a powerful alien biology at work, translating and editing human
DNA, selecting the best genes and throwing out unwanted characteristics.
In principle, that's no different to what a genetic engineer can do in the
lab - but imagine if that lab was on a fabulously advanced computer, or
was even the body of an organism with powerful genetic engineering
capabilities of its own!

Because we don't know exactly what it mean for the Doctor to be
half-human, we can't claim it's impossible. For instance, what if his
mother was human, but his Time Lord genes dominate - so his human
heritage only shows up in subtle ways, as in the retina? What if humans
and Time Lords are actually closely related, so you'd only notice human
characteristics on close examination?

As you can see, with a little imagination, it's no more impossible than
anything done in a genetics lab today. And that's because, sensibly, they
didn't botch it up by trying to give a wonky scientific explanation. It's
a mystery.

What if it *was* the result of his parents having sex? What if his
father's sperm carry genetic tools to help incorporate the human DNA, or
his mother took a special drug, or some nanites, to help the process?
This is SF - we can imagine all kinds of technological advances and
possibilities.

It's those "Why?"s which provide future story opportunities. As I said,
it was probably being set up to be explored in a (hypothetical) series -
they didn't want to give away too much at the beginning.

It never had a chance to *be* hackneyed and sentimental. It could
certainly be used that way - endless quests for the Doctor's parents, blah
blah blah. But it wasn't used that way in the TVM - it was barely touched
on.

An interesting fact from "The Nth Doctor" is that Spock *was* the
inspiration for the Doctor's half-humanity - but not in the way you'd
expect. Instead of having him long for Earth or feel torn between two
planets (feeling like a mule? :-), the writers had in mind Spock's
strained relationship with his father. Interesting story material, that.

As I said, whether the half-human thing really is a contrivance or a
cliche would depend on how it was eventually used. As it was, we never
got a series to explore it - and we won't be touching on it in the BBC
Books. As an idea, it's sadly dead in the water.

Did you mention to those researchers that you were talking about an
unimaginably advanced species? See above for a few ideas which, given the
technology, might make a half-human Doctor plausible.

btw, *I* have a respiratory bypass system. It's called myoglobin. It's
nowhere near as efficient as the Doctor's, but it does stop my muscles
running out of oxygen when I'm out of breath. And until we know how
regeneration works, there's not much point in debating whether it's a
scientific impossibility. :-)

And that's true for the half-human thing - we have to drop our
assumptions, because we don't *know* what the genetics are. And that means
we *can't* insist it's impossible - we simply don't know. That leaves us
free to imagine.

--
Kate Orman - "A broad too deep for the small screen"
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au | http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~korman

In article <5oqri6$...@camel4.mindspring.com>,

[snip]

It's surprising how a small genetic difference can produce such different
creatures, which is think is the reason to mention the chimp. After all,
Jon and I are virtually genetically identical - but I've got entire
*organs* that he doesn't. :-) (And that's likely to be the result of a
single gene difference!)

Let's play with the idea that humans and Time Lords are related. It would
not only explain the half-human thing, but also why the Doctor looks so
similar to us - there are important differences, but he can easily pass
for human. (Could a chimp?) That ability to hide amongst humans would make
Earth an attractive refuge for a renegade... as for the second heart,
could it be a result of the first regeneration? A result of a few extra
genes, as in human sexual dimorphism? Or something like Larry Niven's Pak,
who start human and grow a second heart when they mature into "aliens"?
What's the relationship between Time Lords and humans - are we their
descendants? Their ancestors? Some kind of off-shoot, or experiment?

As you can see, all sorts of possibilities open up when you start to mess
around with the half-human thing. With a bit of imagination, it need not
be limited to the obvious cliches.

This is circular, in a way - the *definition* of a species is a group
which can produce fertile, healthy offspring under natural conditions.

You'll notice the definition doesn't say anything about *un*natural
conditions, like the involvement of mind-bogglingly advanced technology.
:-)

--
Kate Orman - "A broad too deep for the small screen"
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au | http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~korman

In article <5oqr7v$...@camel4.mindspring.com>,

[snip]

Point of order. When Jon says you use a double standard, he's attacking
your argument, not your person. That's why he uses examples from your
argument - not from your personal life, or something - to back up his
claim, as I did.

"Morality" has nothing to do with it; the logic, precision, and accuracy
of your arguments does.

[snip]

--
Kate Orman - "A broad too deep for the small screen"
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au | http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~korman

In article <5oqrsr$...@camel4.mindspring.com>,

Well, no. The chemical nature of DNA, and developmental embryology, are
two very different things. "What DNA is" has nothing whatsoever to do with
the argument, unless you're trying to say that a half-human Doctor would
have to have hybridised strands of human and Gallifreyan DNA, which is
nonsense.

And is the "pattern" "entirely different"? That dead embryo is clearly
human - not "entirely different". But something went wrong - and it
might not have been something genetic.

Think of DNA as the magnetic medium on your hard drive. When you run a
program, you don't think in terms of tiny bits of magnetised metal, but
in terms of programs - the instructions which tell your computer what to do.

Now, a lot can go wrong. Your hard drive could be physically corrupted -
the equivalent of damage to the DNA. The instructions could be scrambled
by a bug or a virus - missing parts of genes, whole missing genes, genes
which code for the wrong proteins. Or there could be a completely extrnal
problem, like a power surge - just as radiation and drugs can mess up an
embryo's development.

Now, let's say that extra heart is the equivalent of a whole extra part of
your program. But in a human embryo, it's a mistake - caused by a bit of
damaged DNA, a scrambled instruction, or something outside the embryo
itself. The embryo can't cope with this extra organ, and it dies.

But what if you changed the program? What if you altered the embryo's
genes so that it *could* handle the extra organ - built in those extra
systems? Even with today's genetics, that's *theoretically* possible, even
if it's a long way off.

So the mistake which kills the embryo could become a deliberate change -
given sufficiently advanced technology. The dead two-hearted embryo is no
proof that you couldn't *create* a two-hearted, half-human Doctor.

It's also no proof that humans and Time Lords couldn't share some kind of
common ancestry. People are being born today who lack some of the useless
toe joints we still have. Maybe, in some distant past, we lost our extra
heart - or the at least the genes which made it possible. Maybe the
Doctor's mother still had those genes, quietly dormant, and they were
simply reactivated in her son, thank to Daddy's DNA.

Of course, all of this is speculation. But it's all based on science. And
that's what SF is all about.

--
Kate Orman - "A broad too deep for the small screen"
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au | http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~korman

In article <5oqsdo$...@camel4.mindspring.com>,

I'm sorry to keep hammering this point, but the Master - and the TVM -
never refer to genes or DNA. All the Master says is, "That's the retinal
structure of the human eye. The Doctor is half-human."

Grace looks at the Doctor's blood and says, "It's not blood." We dont'
know exactly what she was seeing, but if his blood isn't recognisably
human, why should his DNA be?

The problem here is the assumption that the Doctor is (a) totally
unrelated to humans, and therefore genetically incompatible with them, and
(b) that he's the result of a simple cross, no high technology involved at
any stage.

Cling to those assumptions, and a half-human Doctor is impossible.
Recognise that they *are* assumptions, and that they could be wrong, and a
world of possibilities - and possible stories - opens up.

Then a mule is either a horse, or a donkey.

[snip]

--
Kate Orman - "A broad too deep for the small screen"
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au | http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~korman

In article <5opaqm$...@camel3.mindspring.com>,

I find this line of argument hard to understand.

When you say "changed from what it is", when you say "properties", what
do you mean? The TVM and the show don't mention DNA or genes. And the TVM
doesn't say that the Doctor is human, or that he has human DNA.

Is the horse DNA in a mule's cells no longer horse DNA? If so, which
"properties" have changed?

--
Kate Orman - "A broad too deep for the small screen"
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au | http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~korman

In article <5orube$...@camel2.mindspring.com>,  Jeri Massi
<jeri...@pipeline.com> said

For pity's sake, that's arguing by authority; a technique most usualy
employed by religious fundementalists.

"A scientist has said......" Take you pick. Somewhere somewhen a
scientist has said any thing you can think of.

What are this researchers arguments to back up your case?

Alex
--------------------------
What are you assuming now?
It's been a hard week. It's 2:45 in the morning. I'm still writing reports for
the external modorater (Actually I'm skiveing 10 minutes off) and tomorrow will
be hell so I feel bitchy.

The Doctor's so-called "half human" attribute is not the result of
many generations of development of characteristics but the result of a
single mating--whether sexually or artificially.  He did not evolve
into a half human or partially human creature.  I'm saying that as far
as I can see it is apples and oranges reasoning.  Cross breeding
between disparate species does not have a lot to do with evolution.
Two different arguments.

So are you saying that because we don't know it's okay to assume it
could work?  But we do know--we know that it wouldn't work.  Timelords
and humans obviously have common characteristics (two hands, two feet)
but also many widely disparate characteristics--too disparate for the
DNA to be similar enough to combine.  The entire circulatory system of
a TL must be diferent from that of humans, and respiration is
different too.  So there would be differences even down to cellular
levels in the methods by which oxygen would be transferred, waste
transported, etc.

--Jeri

Visit Jeri's Dr. Who Fiction Page!
http://www.pipeline.com/~jeriwho/index.html
Stories and images from the Third Doctor era!
Essays on tae kwon do, the Christian and literature,
and the Valkyries novel

They're listed above (well, and below, too).  I'm waiting for the
counter argument.  But somewhere in the thread it was indicated that
since I'm not a geneticist, I cannot make the claim, so I am keeping
up with a geneticist on it.  But my own point is simple.  Human DNA is
human DNA--or it is not.  There is no such thing as a creature that
could be parented by the characeristics of a TL combined with the
characteristics of a human and be "half human."

--Jeri

Visit Jeri's Dr. Who Fiction Page!
http://www.pipeline.com/~jeriwho/index.html
Stories and images from the Third Doctor era!
Essays on tae kwon do, the Christian and literature,
and the Valkyries novel

Oh, there you go, playing mind reader again.  I think that any pointer
to human ancestry raises the question that it's contradictory to the
previous storyline, but also that there's no reason for it.  Why would
a better adapted race try to graft in human genes?  The illogic of it
does bother me.

But again, the tobacco plants are not reckoned as having firefly
parents.  They are tobacco plants, and a gene has been engineered into
them.  They are not half firefly, and nobody talks about a firefly
parent of the tobacco plants, but rather a single firefly
characeristic.  

A tweak would not do it.  The two systems are entirely different.  A
cardio-vascular system cannot be half human and half TL.  It has to be
all one or all the other. And if the cardio-vascular system goes one
way, then the respiratory system would have to go that way to, and
things like cell wall strength would also have to go that way.
Tweaking will not do it.  Maybe somebody could take all available
characeristics and completely structure something else, but that would
be an entirely new design.

No it's not Jon, because it still remains true--regardless of my
standard, which is off the point anyway.  He could not be a
combination of two such different species.  

And as far as I can see, I've acknowledged and offered a pretty long
defense of the chief scientific nonsense of the era that I keep up
with--the polarity of the neutron flow.  Efforts to make me
responsible to point out all scientific flaws in the rest of DW--when
I don't even like the other Doctors (except for a new fondness for
Troughton)--to somehow justify my right to point out this particular
flaw, are meaningless.  It's a flaw, and I'm pointing it out.

--Jeri

Visit Jeri's Dr. Who Fiction Page!
http://www.pipeline.com/~jeriwho/index.html
Stories and images from the Third Doctor era!
Essays on tae kwon do, the Christian and literature,
and the Valkyries novel

He says "Reverse the Polarity" in TERROR OF THE AUTONS.
Brad F. mentioned that the entire phrase ("Reverse the polarity of the
neutron flow") shows up in SEA DEVILS
I noted it in TIME MONSTER, when the TOMTIT machine is running amok.
The Doctor yells the directive to the woman scientist, and she seems
to know what he means, because she pulls out a component of the
machine, reverses it, and reinstalls it.
He says it again in FRONTIER IN SPACE when he turns the sonic
screwdriver into a magnet.  There may be more, but those are the ones
I can recall in context.

I think somebody mentioned early in the thread that Troughton said it.
But maybe the person meant Pertwee.

--Jeri

Visit Jeri's Dr. Who Fiction Page!
http://www.pipeline.com/~jeriwho/index.html
Stories and images from the Third Doctor era!
Essays on tae kwon do, the Christian and literature,
and the Valkyries novel

Okay, here goes.  I have a two year degree in EET.  There came a point
in the course work when we just jumped from saying E (for emf) and
then started calling it V (voltage).  But our teacher definitely
warned us (since we would be the people handling the electrical
equipment) NOT to adhere to the adage that voltage won't kill you;
current will, because voltage had to be there for current to be there,
and that very high voltage with very low current would indeed kill a
person.  This was proved out when a painter at Vogel Nuclear plant
stood up between two discharge spheres and caused an arc.  No current
flowed until he made himself the other end of the potential difference
for a discharge to ground.  He was killed.  And on t he other end of
the question, people who work from a floating ground can mess with
live wires.  Though the current may be high enough to kill, the
floating ground prevents the discharge.  Not that *I'm* going to try
it.  I turn stuff of at the breaker box.

This is purely asking for clarification.  I think the Doctor was
talking in the 70's, when anything was possible as long as it sounded
sufficiently complex.

--Jeri

Visit Jeri's Dr. Who Fiction Page!
http://www.pipeline.com/~jeriwho/index.html
Stories and images from the Third Doctor era!
Essays on tae kwon do, the Christian and literature,
and the Valkyries novel

Jeri Massi <jeri...@pipeline.com> wrote in article
<5oso5m$...@camel2.mindspring.com>...

Pertwee used the phrase in the Five Doctors. I think it was put in for
nostalgic value.
--
  http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/7628/index.html
  ____    * /) /)      ___  /) Bill (William A) Thompson
 ( /  )    // //      () / //    wath...@mail.gmi.net
  /--<  / (/ (/     ____/_(/_  _______  _      _____
_/___)_/\_/\_/\_)  (___/  / /_(_) / ) )/_)_/)_(_) / )__)
"Goodbye! It's good isn't it. Hmm?"   /)  No unsolicited
 Tom Baker - 30 Years in the TARDIS  (/commercial email!

No, no, no, NO! These are classic Science Fiction standards!
(read- cliches) Where would the show be without these? Esp.
time travel (yikes).

Doctor: Hm, there is so much evil and wrongdoing in the universe.

   {glances at the nonfunctional Time Rotor}

Doctor: Oh well.

--NekoLeo
     /\/\
    (*^*)   )
    /    \  (       Be nice to people. They outnumber              
   /l l l l\  )              you 5.5 billion to one.
    m m                    neko...@aol.com

Carl Muckenhoupt <c...@earthweb.com> writes

Twice. Once in the Sea Devils, and once in the Five Doctors.

--
Keith Topping