Amy and Rory Williams - rec.arts.drwho

The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
rec.arts.drwho
Message from discussion Amy and Rory Williams
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: r17ni19qap.0!nntp.google.com!l8no30678504qao.0!postnews.google.com!n16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,alt.usenet.kooks,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho,rec.arts.sf.tv
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 23:38:58 -0700 (PDT)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: n16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=109.144.221.98; posting-account=z30iLwoAAAD3Qx3VRr1lWvLr9ZwSezjT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 109.144.221.98
References: <k48aea$qht$1@gallifrey.nk.ca> <0e5db797-d5d7-4b73-8de9-8bd312398881@r10g2000vby.googlegroups.com>
 <k4q79j$ed8$1@gallifrey.nk.ca> <ba755bee-336e-4478-b396-e25b399e4092@a6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
 <k4sm0g$p7n$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Message-ID: <9d2715c2-c1d8-4094-9772-0d2564c59d43@n16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Amy and Rory Williams
From: solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 06:38:58 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1



The Douchebag wrote:

> In article <ba755bee-336e-4478-b396-e25b399e4...@a6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> In article <0e5db797-d5d7-4b73-8de9-8bd312398...@r10g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> >> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> In article <99e8efc1-8df0-44e3-86ff-c1ebf58c6...@y6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> In article <5e4766ef-834b-4e16-b8f5-859c9eaff...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> In article <8004c435-5cc2-4f4c-8290-85fece750...@j12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> >> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> In article <3b01cf71-5a9f-402c-860a-c831063a5...@c20g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> In article <7a6896db-2cf9-4c34-8c73-3cc6ff3f2...@g4g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In article <f9d223df-a1f0-45d4-90db-0ec1358a4...@h16g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In article <a3429c7d-d3da-47ac-ac39-ed28ed3ac...@r10g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In article <5ecf792f-03f3-40dc-816e-adca6a5ae...@10g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In article <ef8847c4-c1f9-4459-8b17-07fc7c5b3...@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In article <e10876ac-e2fb-4663-bcf2-a05fcfdae...@l18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In article <3c88c2d3-0222-4fe1-9f5b-eb2faecc2...@k6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In article <9b187f02-bb45-46eb-8197-11a51b534...@p22g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >But you still haven't proved that Susan's grandmother was his wife and
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >not the more likely scenario that she was just his lover.  (There's no
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >evidence in any episode that Gallifreyan culture even has a concept of
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >marriage.)  That's what you're trying to prove, remember.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Then ask yourself what happened pre-time-war?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >I did.  And my answer didn't involve the Doctor getting married.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Marriage implies commitment, dedication, belonging, and that's
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >something the Doctor hates.  Even if Gallifrey had an institution of
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >marriage, I couldn't see the Doctor doing it.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >I could see him taking a lover once, simply out of curiosity, and even
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >getting her pregnant.  But then he'd get bored, and move on to try
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >something else, such as ice cream juggling.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >His dumped lover would then regenerate herself into a man, call
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >herself The Master, and pursue a love/hate relationship with him
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >throughout time and space.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >That's my answer to what happened pre-Time War.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And that makes sense.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Thank you.  So you finally admit that we can't assume the first Doctor
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >was married.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Nope.  !960s UK, that would be scandalous.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Last time I checked, Gallifrey wasn't in the UK.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Last time I checked DW was modeled on UK society.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Was it?  When was this?  How did you check it?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >And even if that was the original intention of the original creators
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >of DW, both the show and society have moved on from the 1960s.  What
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >was scandalous then is not necessarily scandalous now.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Such is dumbing down.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >No, it isn't.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> then unexplained 'unwanted pregnancies'.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >They've occurred in all eras of history, not just the UK since the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >1960s.  But they're not scandalous any more, which means we now have
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >organisations like abortion agencies to actively help deal with them.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Abortion agencies help?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Apparently, yes.  Obviously, I've never needed one myself, so I can't
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >speak from first hand experience, but I'm told they do help people to
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >get rid of their unwanted pregnancies.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>  That is a very bad use of words!
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Why?  Ok, so the whole idea of what they do is a bit icky, or even a
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >lot icky.  I'd hate to do a job like that.  But let's not let our
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >personal phobias get in the way of solid facts.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> You chose the  words.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >Yes, and I still don't see why you have a problem with them.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Abortion is another word for convenient murder.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Yes, convenient.  That's right.  And it's precisely because it's so
> >> >> >> >> >convenient that makes it such a big help.  That's my point.  It helps
> >> >> >> >> >because it's so convenient now.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >But what has this got to do with DW?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You said abortion not me.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Only in response to your question about 'unwanted pregnancies'.  If
> >> >> >> >that wasn't what you intended by the question, then what is?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>  Also it is unnatural termination.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Yes I know that.  What is your point?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Careful he words you choose.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I was careful.  There was nothing wrong with the words I chose.  Why
> >> >> >do you have a problem with them?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Abortion not a word for the carefully chosen.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >No, just the opposite.  It allows women to carefully choose whether to
> >> >keep a child or not.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You have got to be joking!
> >>
> >
> >Why?  You should know my sense of humour by now: surreal ideas and
> >corny wordplay.  That's neither, just a simple, undeniable statement
> >of fact.
> >
> >But I still don't see what this 'unwanted pregnancies' bit of the
> >discussion has to do with the first Doctor.  Are you going anywhere
> >with it?
> >
>
> As I said you choose the playng field and words.
>

No, Yads.  YOU brought up the subject of 'unwanted pregnancies'.  Not
me.  Did you have a reason for doing so?

> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >However, I'm still puzzled about how this digression is supposed to
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >prove the Doctor was officially married to Susan's grandmother.  After
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >all, the grandmother presumably didn't abort the child that become
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Susan's father, so it presumably wasn't an 'unwanted pregnancy'.  And
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >that means none of this is relevant.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Would it have been?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >Would it have been what?  A pregnancy?  An unwanted pregnancy?
> >> >> >> >> >> >Relevant to this discussion?
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >You didn't answer this.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Pregnancy yes AND the Doctor loved his granddaughter.  Clue!
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Not much of a clue to anything really.  He could still have loved her
> >> >> >> >even if he wasn't married to her grandmother.  After all, you don't
> >> >> >> >have to marry someone's grandmother in order to love them, do you?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Say again?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I said, the Doctor could still love his granddaughter even if he
> >> >> >wasn't married to her grandmother.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What's so odd about that?  I know a grandfather who loves his
> >> >> >granddaughter even though he isn't married to her grandmother.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I would say the Doctor and Susan are blood related.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Yes, that's possible.  But even blood relations through "illegitimate"
> >> >family lines are still blood related.  There's still nothing to say
> >> >that we definitely know for certain that the first Doctor was married.
> >>
> >> How would he get a granddaughter?
> >>
> >
> >Don't you know the birds and the bees?  Well, the usual way is by
> >getting a woman pregnant (whether or not she just happens to be his
> >wife) and then when the child is grown up it has a daughter, and
> >that's the granddaughter.  But there's no need for anyone to be
> >married to do any of that.
>
> I know the Birds and the bees.
>

Then you know that people don't need to be married to have children or
grandchildren.

> >
> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >Unlike Susan, I don't have the DNA for Time Lord-style telepathy, so
> >> >> >> >> >> >it's best if you don't ask questions in incomplete half-sentences and
> >> >> >> >> >> >expect me to read the rest from your mind.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >Anyway, if you meant "Would it have been a pregnancy?" then, that
> >> >> >> >> >> >reminds me, there's all that business with the Looms in Lungbarrow,
> >> >> >> >> >> >suggesting that Time Lords don't reproduce sexually at all.  This
> >> >> >> >> >> >pretty much knocks your "wife" theory dead.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >And since we've started looking at printed stories, not just TV,
> >> >> >> >> >> >there's also Eric Saward's short story revealing that Susan is in fact
> >> >> >> >> >> >Lady Larn who stowed away on board the TARDIS and merely pretends the
> >> >> >> >> >> >Doctor is her grandfather to prevent the Time Lords tracing her.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >All in all, once you take printed stories into account, there's no
> >> >> >> >> >> >clear evidence that the first Doctor ever even knew Susan's
> >> >> >> >> >> >grandmother, let alone married her!
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> I have my doubts.  In Unearthly Child, the Doctor says
> >> >> >> >> >> he is cut off from home and family.
> >> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >That doesn't necessarily mean a wife.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Notice the grandfather grandchild relationship.
> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >But like I keep saying, it's possible to be a grandfather without
> >> >> >> >being married.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Come on you!
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Why?  What's so odd about that.  I know some unmarried grandfathers.
> >> >> >Don't you?  Every family probably has at least one nowadays.
> >> >>
> >> >> Widowers maybe.
> >> >> --
> >> >
> >> >None of the ones I know are widowers.  They're divorcees or cohabitees
> >> >or both.  People nowadays don't often stay married to one partner long
> >> >enough to be widowed.
> >> >
> >> >But yes, there are widowers out there, and like I said before, the
> >> >Doctor could well be one, if he'd once had a wife who was exterminated
> >> >in the Time War.  We just plain don't know .  That's my point.  How
> >> >many more times must I repeat it?
> >>
> >> Well We know about the Doctor's mother.
> >> --
> >
> >Yes, he's half human on his mother's side.
>
> She was on Gallifrey.
> --

Why?  What was she doing there, when she's not even Gallifreyan?
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
