S07E05 The Angels Take Manhatten

[Agamemnon]

Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.

Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why didn't someone
tell them from the start?

Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?

There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?

What was the guarantee that the Weeping Angel would send them both back to
the same time?

If it was the 1930s then since they were around about 30 years old, having
spent 10 years with the Doctor, that could put their death in the 1980s or
early 90s at about the time they were supposed to have been born.

What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see them after the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to see the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

How come the time distortion wasn't noticed by anyone when the Daleks were
in Manhatten?

Maybe they'll both be returned to their own time in time for the 50th
anniversary special.


10/10

[The Doctor]

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why didn't someone
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?
What was the guarantee that the Weeping Angel would send them both back to
the same time?
If it was the 1930s then since they were around about 30 years old, having
spent 10 years with the Doctor, that could put their death in the 1980s or
early 90s at about the time they were supposed to have been born.
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see them after the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to see the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?
How come the time distortion wasn't noticed by anyone when the Daleks were
in Manhatten?
Maybe they'll both be returned to their own time in time for the 50th
anniversary special.
10/10

I will be back.

[Agamemnon]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why didn't someone
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?
What was the guarantee that the Weeping Angel would send them both back to
the same time?
If it was the 1930s then since they were around about 30 years old, having
spent 10 years with the Doctor, that could put their death in the 1980s or
early 90s at about the time they were supposed to have been born.
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see them after the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to see the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?
How come the time distortion wasn't noticed by anyone when the Daleks were
in Manhatten?
Maybe they'll both be returned to their own time in time for the 50th
anniversary special.
10/10

I will be back.

So you're Arnold Swazernegger now?

[The Doctor]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why didn't someone
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?
What was the guarantee that the Weeping Angel would send them both back to
the same time?
If it was the 1930s then since they were around about 30 years old, having
spent 10 years with the Doctor, that could put their death in the 1980s or
early 90s at about the time they were supposed to have been born.
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see them after the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to see the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?
How come the time distortion wasn't noticed by anyone when the Daleks were
in Manhatten?
Maybe they'll both be returned to their own time in time for the 50th
anniversary special.
10/10

I will be back.

So you're Arnold Swazernegger now?

No chance.

I am back now.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

Post by Agamemnon
So you're Arnold Swazernegger now?

He's a drug abusing misogynist with a dicky ticker?

[The Doctor]

Post by Charles E. Hardwidge

Post by Agamemnon
So you're Arnold Swazernegger now?

He's a drug abusing misogynist with a dicky ticker?
--
Charles E. Hardwidge

That's dangerous.

[TB]

The Doctor tries to travel to New York on April 3, 1938, but bounces off because New York is full of temporal disturbances. Why doesn't he just land a few miles out and come in by taxi or by car? I do know that not all of Earth is covered, since the Doctor successfully visited Berlin that month!

[TB]

After the TARDIS bounces off 1938 New York, it returns to 2012. I had thought that the year should be 2013, since "The Power Of Three" was produced in 2012, set in the present, and took a television year, so I thought that the year would have advanced to 2013.

[TB]

The Statute of Liberty at the River Quay, with its mouth wide open and showing sharp teeth.

Rory and Amy jumping off the Winter Quay to kill the Angels with paradox.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.

There was lots of prancing around in Dredd (2012). In fact the whole movie
was almost non-stop prancing around. They pranced a little this way then
pranced a little that way. Then they want PRANCE, PRANCE, PRANCE.

And just when Dredd was having the last word Anderson PRANCED OFF.

Hah.

[Agamemnon]

Post by Charles E. Hardwidge

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.

There was lots of prancing around in Dredd (2012). In fact the whole movie
was almost non-stop prancing around. They pranced a little this way then
pranced a little that way. Then they want PRANCE, PRANCE, PRANCE.
And just when Dredd was having the last word Anderson PRANCED OFF.
Hah.

Wasn't even aware there was a remake. What was wrong with the Sylvester
Stallone version?

Same can be said with Total Recall. What was wrong with the Arnold
Swazernegger version?

Post by Charles E. Hardwidge
--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[MDS]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Charles E. Hardwidge

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.

There was lots of prancing around in Dredd (2012). In fact the whole movie
was almost non-stop prancing around. They pranced a little this way then
pranced a little that way. Then they want PRANCE, PRANCE, PRANCE.
And just when Dredd was having the last word Anderson PRANCED OFF.
Hah.

Wasn't even aware there was a remake. What was wrong with the Sylvester
Stallone version?
Same can be said with Total Recall. What was wrong with the Arnold
Swazernegger version?

Never saw Judge Dredd, but the original Total Recall was very good.
I've seen enough piss poor remakes to skip the TR remake.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Charles E. Hardwidge

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story
from being told properly.

There was lots of prancing around in Dredd (2012). In fact the whole
movie was almost non-stop prancing around. They pranced a little this way
then pranced a little that way. Then they want PRANCE, PRANCE, PRANCE.
And just when Dredd was having the last word Anderson PRANCED OFF.
Hah.

Wasn't even aware there was a remake. What was wrong with the Sylvester
Stallone version?
Same can be said with Total Recall. What was wrong with the Arnold
Swazernegger version?

Dredd was a new movie based directly off the comic book franchise so wasn't
a remake (or even a sequel). I must admit a closet liking for emotionally
textured rollercoasters to LOVED the bit where Dredd got heavy and played
tag team with Anderson. This played into a flat scene where Moma fell 200
floors to her death which was a neat coincidental twist on this weeks DW
episode. While both scenes lingered Moffat's didn't have as many layers and
was a touch overlong but certainly better than RTD's goodbyes.

Paul Verhoeven's 'Total Recall' is a movie classic and was an awesome
cinematic experience. I never felt anything much about another sci-fi movie
until The Matrix hit the big screen a decade later. I'm not philosophically
opposed to remakes or sequels, or borrowing from the same source material
(or even borrowing from other material). Unfortunately, the Total Recall
remake and Matrix sequels were poor. They fall firmly into the category of
movies I wish had never been made.

[Agamemnon]

Post by Charles E. Hardwidge

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Charles E. Hardwidge

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story
from being told properly.

There was lots of prancing around in Dredd (2012). In fact the whole
movie was almost non-stop prancing around. They pranced a little this way
then pranced a little that way. Then they want PRANCE, PRANCE, PRANCE.
And just when Dredd was having the last word Anderson PRANCED OFF.
Hah.

Wasn't even aware there was a remake. What was wrong with the Sylvester
Stallone version?
Same can be said with Total Recall. What was wrong with the Arnold
Swazernegger version?

Dredd was a new movie based directly off the comic book franchise so wasn't
a remake (or even a sequel). I must admit a closet liking for emotionally

So what was Stallone's Judge Dredd movie based on then?

Post by Charles E. Hardwidge
textured rollercoasters to LOVED the bit where Dredd got heavy and played
tag team with Anderson. This played into a flat scene where Moma fell 200
floors to her death which was a neat coincidental twist on this weeks DW
episode. While both scenes lingered Moffat's didn't have as many layers and
was a touch overlong but certainly better than RTD's goodbyes.
Paul Verhoeven's 'Total Recall' is a movie classic and was an awesome
cinematic experience. I never felt anything much about another sci-fi movie
until The Matrix hit the big screen a decade later. I'm not
philosophically
opposed to remakes or sequels, or borrowing from the same source material
(or even borrowing from other material). Unfortunately, the Total Recall
remake and Matrix sequels were poor. They fall firmly into the category of
movies I wish had never been made.

Think that goes for all the Jurassic Park sequels and most if not all of the
Highlander ones.

Post by Charles E. Hardwidge
--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Charles E. Hardwidge
Dredd was a new movie based directly off the comic book franchise so
wasn't a remake (or even a sequel). I must admit a closet liking for
emotionally

So what was Stallone's Judge Dredd movie based on then?

Post by Charles E. Hardwidge
Unfortunately, the Total Recall remake and Matrix sequels were poor. They
fall firmly into the category of movies I wish had never been made.

Think that goes for all the Jurassic Park sequels and most if not all of
the Highlander ones.

Cocaine?

Yeppers.

[Agamemnon]

Post by Charles E. Hardwidge

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Charles E. Hardwidge
Dredd was a new movie based directly off the comic book franchise so
wasn't a remake (or even a sequel). I must admit a closet liking for
emotionally

So what was Stallone's Judge Dredd movie based on then?

Post by Charles E. Hardwidge
Unfortunately, the Total Recall remake and Matrix sequels were poor. They
fall firmly into the category of movies I wish had never been made.

Think that goes for all the Jurassic Park sequels and most if not all of
the Highlander ones.

Cocaine?

?

Post by Charles E. Hardwidge
Yeppers.

And all of the Police Academy movies, never mind the sequels.

Post by Charles E. Hardwidge
--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

Post by Charles E. Hardwidge

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Charles E. Hardwidge
Dredd was a new movie based directly off the comic book franchise so
wasn't a remake (or even a sequel). I must admit a closet liking for
emotionally

So what was Stallone's Judge Dredd movie based on then?

Cocaine?

?

The first Dredd movie had its plus points but was otherwise a misfire. Some
people suggest the producers misunderstood the material or market.

[An tSin Gorm]

Post by Agamemnon
So what was Stallone's Judge Dredd movie based on then?

Stallone's ego.

Post by Agamemnon
Think that goes for all the Jurassic Park sequels and most if not all of the
Highlander ones.

Starting with the first Jurassic Park sequel I was rooting for the dinosaurs to
kill all the humans.

What were they thinking bringing a baby tyrannosaurus rex into their trailer?
I've played Tomb Raider--I know how cranky they can get.

[Ross]

Post by Agamemnon
So what was Stallone's Judge Dredd movie based on then?

Close as anyone who's ever read the REAL Judge Dredd can tell, a
couple of people in a bar who'd once seen a Dredd comic from a
distance through a dirty window speculating on what it might be about
and getting it wrong in pretty much ever concievable way.

[Ian B]

Post by Ross

Post by Agamemnon
So what was Stallone's Judge Dredd movie based on then?

Close as anyone who's ever read the REAL Judge Dredd can tell, a
couple of people in a bar who'd once seen a Dredd comic from a
distance through a dirty window speculating on what it might be about
and getting it wrong in pretty much ever concievable way.

Well, I dunno. I watched part of it the other day on Youtube, by
coincidence. It's actually got quite a lot of the comic in it. The main
mistake was some Hollywoodisation, which every movie has to do to some
degree- the trick is getting the right balance. Stallone was miscast- but
then he's miscast as anything but a punch-drunk boxer, what with the
dim-witted look and slurred speech. They added "comic" relief with Rob
Schneider. They had Dredd take his helmet off, unaware of how much hardcore
fans would bitch about that. Not many A-List actors would do a film with
their face covered all the way, at least back then.

I think Dredd is one of those things like Batman and (original) Star Trek
that has a whole mythology built up by fans that it was something it wasn't.
Like, Batman (or Bat Man, whatever) was this hardcore gritty adult thing-
then you look back and it wasn't, it was some guy dressed as a clown and
also the Joker. And "let's go down to the Bat Cave and polish the Batmobile,
Dick!". For kids. The "darkness" was Frank Miller's re-invention in the 80s.
But the idea it was always serious and dark acts as a justification for
being a fan of silly old Golden Age comics. Likewise, Roddenberry created a
myth on the convention circuit that Trek had been this great philosophical
thing, but when you watch the episodes, it never was- it was a fun sci-fi
adventure series in the classic 60s formula; it had one or two "liberal"
ideas in it, but as Harve Bennet said, when he was producer of Wrath of
Khan; Roddenberry talked his ear off about all these things the series was
supposed to have been, then Bennett went and actually watched the episodes,
and they weren't there.

Likewise, Dredd. It's a kid's comic strip, and a satire of police dramas
with everything turned up to 11. And you read the old comics (i did when I
was a kid) and there was all this wacky silly stuff in there, that created
this surreal universe. But then you get all these people saying, "it's
supposed to be deadly serious", and it's like they don't get the fact that
it was taking the piss. In that sense, it's quite disturbing that apparently
there are all these people out there who don't get that making a cop "judge,
jury and executioner" and having him pack people off to the cubes for
trivialities like jaywalking and the whole "citizen" tacked on there was a
reaction against the Dirty Harry type stuff- you know, where The Cop is
always right, and held back from doing justice by those pesky Constitutional
Safeguards and Due Process and that stuff.

So in that sense, Dredd was a quirky British take on the American style of
fascism; and it used a lot of humour, surreality, and quirkiness to make
that whole world work. Asking for it to be too serious seems to me to be
missing the point.


Ian

[TB]

River Song to the Doctor: Why did you have to break mine (wrist, which was being gripped firmly by a Weeping Angel)? River Song got out, but had to break her OWN wrist. Yet the book she wrote implies that the DOCTOR broke her wrist! This would mean that history DID get changed a little! The Doctor uses some of his regeneration energy to heal her wrist.

[TB]

At the Winter Quay is an aged Rory. The Weeping Angels take people there to send them back in time and feed on the temporal energies. Why isn't that hotel filled to the brim with old folks?

[TB]

Great moments: The Statue of Liberty wandering over to the Winter Quay. How did it do that?

Rory and Amy jumping off to generate an Angel killing paradox.

Rory and Amy being sent back in time (Amelia's Final Farewell).

[Tim Bruening]

Post by TB
Great moments: The Statue of Liberty wandering over to the Winter Quay. How did it do that?
Rory and Amy jumping off to generate an Angel killing paradox.
Rory and Amy being sent back in time (Amelia's Final Farewell).

The Doctor recovering the last page that he had torn out of the book that related Amy's and Rory's last Doctor Who adventure. I find it amazing that the page hadn't blown away or been trashed!

The Doctor reading Amy's note about her life after the Angel zapped her back in time to rejoin her husband.

[Fett]

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why didn't someone
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?
What was the guarantee that the Weeping Angel would send them both back to
the same time?
If it was the 1930s then since they were around about 30 years old, having
spent 10 years with the Doctor, that could put their death in the 1980s or
early 90s at about the time they were supposed to have been born.
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see them after the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to see the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?
How come the time distortion wasn't noticed by anyone when the Daleks were
in Manhatten?
Maybe they'll both be returned to their own time in time for the 50th
anniversary special.
10/10

I never get your reviews. You tend to bring up some valid questions but then proceed to give every episode 10/10. By this standard, Genesis or Androzani should get about 20/10.

[¡Gölök Z.L.F Buday AKA The Black Jester AKA The Voltairian]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 22:11:21 +0100, in rec.arts.drwho "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:

¡Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
¡absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
¡being told properly.
¡
¡Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why didn't someone
¡tell them from the start?
¡
¡Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
¡Rory's dad?

He already asked if anyone's died.

¡There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
¡back even further than the 1930s?

Nicely done, spotted the most inane of the bad.

¡What was the guarantee that the Weeping Angel would send them both back to
¡the same time?
¡
¡If it was the 1930s then since they were around about 30 years old, having
¡spent 10 years with the Doctor, that could put their death in the 1980s or
¡early 90s at about the time they were supposed to have been born.

Some people like Kevin McCarthy died at 80ish born before that recently. In all fairness.

¡What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see them after the
¡1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to see the
¡Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

You forget one of those was born in NY then, I think, and changed as a little girl, although think something in the folklore requiring a
maturity before regen works, or it just makes sense.

¡How come the time distortion wasn't noticed by anyone when the Daleks were
¡in Manhatten?

Which time, when they chased 1st one or built the building they chased the first one too and fell off of.

¡Maybe they'll both be returned to their own time in time for the 50th
¡anniversary special.
¡

Yet agains the word "special" gets a adjustment.

[solar penguin]

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes

Sounds good. Wish I'd seen that. Unfortunately, I was watching
Angels Take Manhattan at the time.

Post by Agamemnon
What was the guarantee that the Weeping Angel would send them both back to
the same time?

Because that's what Tennant said about them in Blink.

Post by Agamemnon
If it was the 1930s then since they were around about 30 years old, having
spent 10 years with the Doctor, that could put their death in the 1980s or
early 90s at about the time they were supposed to have been born.
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see them after the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to see the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

Because the Moff wanted a schmaltzy, over-sentimental ending, and
didn't care how ridiculous or contrived or nonsensical it was.

[An tSin Gorm]

Post by Agamemnon
If it was the 1930s then since they were around about 30 years old, having
spent 10 years with the Doctor, that could put their death in the 1980s or
early 90s at about the time they were supposed to have been born.
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see them after the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to see the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

This will be decided by a power even greater than the Doctor: Gillan's and
Darvill's agents.

Post by Agamemnon
How come the time distortion wasn't noticed by anyone when the Daleks were
in Manhatten?

I'm not sure about the Manhattan skyline, but were those the World Trade Center
towers after the credits?

[Ross]

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why didn't someone
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?
What was the guarantee that the Weeping Angel would send them both back to
the same time?

We don't, but the overwhelming likelihood is that the angel that got
them is the same one as got Rory at the beginning of the episode, and
I think 'Blink' established that the same angel is liable (but not
guaranteed) to send you the same amount back in time.

Post by Agamemnon
If it was the 1930s then since they were around about 30 years old, having
spent 10 years with the Doctor, that could put their death in the 1980s or
early 90s at about the time they were supposed to have been born.

The gravestone did look fairly new, though it's hard to tell with
gravestones.

Post by Agamemnon
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see them after the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to see the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

Fixed points in time. Though there's no absolutely necessary reason
the doctor can't pop back to New Jersey in 1940 and send them a
telegram to meet him somewhere, whisk them off for an adventure, then
drop them back home, but if he were to meddle in their lives, he'd be
chancing getting one of them killed or lost somewhere, which would
violate the fixed point in time, and we all know how that ends.

Post by Agamemnon
How come the time distortion wasn't noticed by anyone when the Daleks were
in Manhatten?
Maybe they'll both be returned to their own time in time for the 50th
anniversary special.
10/10

[solar penguin]

Post by Ross

Post by Agamemnon
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see them after the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to see the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

Fixed points in time. Though there's no absolutely necessary reason
the doctor can't pop back to New Jersey in 1940 and send them a
telegram to meet him somewhere

It does seem to be one of the Moff's rules that once you know when or
how a person dies (e.g. Madame de Pompadour, the Brigadier), you can
no longer travel back and meet them at all. It doesn't make sense,
but at least he's consistent.

The only exception seems to be River and the Doctor meeting each
other, but that's probably because they're both time travellers, or
because she isn't really dead in the library computer.

[An tSin Gorm]

Post by solar penguin

Post by Ross

Post by Agamemnon
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see them after the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to see the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

Fixed points in time. Though there's no absolutely necessary reason
the doctor can't pop back to New Jersey in 1940 and send them a
telegram to meet him somewhere

It does seem to be one of the Moff's rules that once you know when or
how a person dies (e.g. Madame de Pompadour, the Brigadier), you can
no longer travel back and meet them at all. It doesn't make sense,
but at least he's consistent.

That's silly.

The problem is either silly restrictions or use Bill and Ted rules were wishing
makes it true, since you can wait until the end of the universe for someone to
come back and make the wish come true.

[Ross]

Post by An tSin Gorm

Post by solar penguin

Post by Ross

Post by Agamemnon
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see them after the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to see the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

Fixed points in time. Though there's no absolutely necessary reason
the doctor can't pop back to New Jersey in 1940 and send them a
telegram to meet him somewhere

It does seem to be one of the Moff's rules that once you know when or
how a person dies (e.g. Madame de Pompadour, the Brigadier), you can
no longer travel back and meet them at all.  It doesn't make sense,
but at least he's consistent.

That's silly.
The problem is either silly restrictions or use Bill and Ted rules were wishing
makes it true, since you can wait until the end of the universe for someone to
come back and make the wish come true.

We basically see why in The Wedding of River Song. If you see someone
die, it's a fixed point in time for you, so if you go back and
interact with them afterward, you run the risk of altering the
circumstances of their death, and then it's all winston churchill
being emperor of egypt and Shakespeare dating Charles Dickens.

It does suggest that if you were *very careful*, you could go back and
have tea with them on the odd occasion, but going off on adventures is
right out (And even tea is taking a risk, particularly if you're The
Doctor and trouble is liable to find you wherever you go.)

[Agamemnon]

In article

Post by solar penguin

Post by Ross

Post by Agamemnon
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see them
after
the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to see the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

Fixed points in time. Though there's no absolutely necessary reason
the doctor can't pop back to New Jersey in 1940 and send them a
telegram to meet him somewhere

It does seem to be one of the Moff's rules that once you know when or
how a person dies (e.g. Madame de Pompadour, the Brigadier), you can
no longer travel back and meet them at all. It doesn't make sense,
but at least he's consistent.

That's silly.
The problem is either silly restrictions or use Bill and Ted rules were wishing
makes it true, since you can wait until the end of the universe for someone to
come back and make the wish come true.

<<<We basically see why in The Wedding of River Song. If you see someone
die, it's a fixed point in time for you, so if you go back and
interact with them afterward, you run the risk of altering the
circumstances of their death, and then it's all winston churchill
being emperor of egypt and Shakespeare dating Charles Dickens.

It does suggest that if you were *very careful*, you could go back and
have tea with them on the odd occasion, but going off on adventures is
right out (And even tea is taking a risk, particularly if you're The
Doctor and trouble is liable to find you wherever you go.)>>>

On the other hand, given that the Doctor knows they're going to die in their
80s then why wouldn't the Doctor go back and have lots and lots of
adventures with them, just as long as it's before they reach 80 something?

[Ross]

Post by Agamemnon

In article

Post by solar penguin

Post by Ross

Post by Agamemnon
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see them
after
the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to see the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

Fixed points in time. Though there's no absolutely necessary reason
the doctor can't pop back to New Jersey in 1940 and send them a
telegram to meet him somewhere

It does seem to be one of the Moff's rules that once you know when or
how a person dies (e.g. Madame de Pompadour, the Brigadier), you can
no longer travel back and meet them at all. It doesn't make sense,
but at least he's consistent.

That's silly.
The problem is either silly restrictions or use Bill and Ted rules were wishing
makes it true, since you can wait until the end of the universe for someone to
come back and make the wish come true.

<<<We basically see why in The Wedding of River Song. If you see someone
die, it's a fixed point in time for you, so if you go back and
interact with them afterward, you run the risk of altering the
circumstances of their death, and then it's all winston churchill
being emperor of egypt and Shakespeare dating Charles Dickens.
It does suggest that if you were *very careful*, you could go back and
have tea with them on the odd occasion, but going off on adventures is
right out (And even tea is taking a risk, particularly if you're The
Doctor and trouble is liable to find you wherever you go.)>>>
On the other hand, given that the Doctor knows they're going to die in their
80s then why wouldn't the Doctor go back and have lots and lots of
adventures with them, just as long as it's before they reach 80 something?- Hide quoted text -

Because if they're off saving the planet Floob and mid-forties Rory
catches a plasma-arrow in the chest, then he can't die at the ripe old
age of 84 in New York. And then there's a paradox and flying killer
time monkeys.

And the Doctor *is* willing ot own up to the fact that he can't
guarantee their safety. Heck, Rory died three times in just this
episode.

[The Doctor]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

In article

Post by solar penguin

Post by Ross

What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see the=

m

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin

Post by Ross

after
the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to se=

e

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin

Post by Ross

the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

Fixed points in time. Though there's no absolutely necessary reason
the doctor can't pop back to New Jersey in 1940 and send them a
telegram to meet him somewhere

It does seem to be one of the Moff's rules that once you know when or
how a person dies (e.g. Madame de Pompadour, the Brigadier), you can
no longer travel back and meet them at all. It doesn't make sense,
but at least he's consistent.

That's silly.
The problem is either silly restrictions or use Bill and Ted rules were wishing
makes it true, since you can wait until the end of the universe for someone to
come back and make the wish come true.

<<<We basically see why in The Wedding of River Song. If you see someone
die, it's a fixed point in time for you, so if you go back and
interact with them afterward, you run the risk of altering the
circumstances of their death, and then it's all winston churchill
being emperor of egypt and Shakespeare dating Charles Dickens.
It does suggest that if you were *very careful*, you could go back and
have tea with them on the odd occasion, but going off on adventures is
right out (And even tea is taking a risk, particularly if you're The
Doctor and trouble is liable to find you wherever you go.)>>>
On the other hand, given that the Doctor knows they're going to die in th=

eir

Post by Agamemnon
80s then why wouldn't the Doctor go back and have lots and lots of
adventures with them, just as long as it's before they reach 80 something=

?- Hide quoted text -
Because if they're off saving the planet Floob and mid-forties Rory
catches a plasma-arrow in the chest, then he can't die at the ripe old
age of 84 in New York. And then there's a paradox and flying killer
time monkeys.
And the Doctor *is* willing ot own up to the fact that he can't
guarantee their safety. Heck, Rory died three times in just this
episode.

How manny times did Rory diey with the 11th Doctor?

[Ross]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

In article

Post by solar penguin

Post by Ross

What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see the=

m

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin

Post by Ross

after
the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to se=

e

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin

Post by Ross

the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

Fixed points in time. Though there's no absolutely necessary reason
the doctor can't pop back to New Jersey in 1940 and send them a
telegram to meet him somewhere

It does seem to be one of the Moff's rules that once you know when or
how a person dies (e.g. Madame de Pompadour, the Brigadier), you can
no longer travel back and meet them at all. It doesn't make sense,
but at least he's consistent.

That's silly.
The problem is either silly restrictions or use Bill and Ted rules were wishing
makes it true, since you can wait until the end of the universe for someone to
come back and make the wish come true.

<<<We basically see why in The Wedding of River Song. If you see someone
die, it's a fixed point in time for you, so if you go back and
interact with them afterward, you run the risk of altering the
circumstances of their death, and then it's all winston churchill
being emperor of egypt and Shakespeare dating Charles Dickens.
It does suggest that if you were *very careful*, you could go back and
have tea with them on the odd occasion, but going off on adventures is
right out (And even tea is taking a risk, particularly if you're The
Doctor and trouble is liable to find you wherever you go.)>>>
On the other hand, given that the Doctor knows they're going to die in th=

eir

Post by Agamemnon
80s then why wouldn't the Doctor go back and have lots and lots of
adventures with them, just as long as it's before they reach 80 something=

?- Hide quoted text -
Because if they're off saving the planet Floob and mid-forties Rory
catches a plasma-arrow in the chest, then he can't die at the ripe old
age of 84 in New York. And then there's a paradox and flying killer
time monkeys.
And the Doctor *is* willing ot own up to the fact that he can't
guarantee their safety. Heck, Rory died three times in just this
episode.

How manny times did Rory diey with the 11th Doctor?
--
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
USA petition to dissolve the Republic and vote to disoolve it in November 2012

All of them.

[The Doctor]

.com>,
..

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

In article

What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see =

the=3D

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon
m

after
the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to=

se=3D

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon
e

the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

Fixed points in time. Though there's no absolutely necessary rea=

son

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

the doctor can't pop back to New Jersey in 1940 and send them a
telegram to meet him somewhere

It does seem to be one of the Moff's rules that once you know when=

or

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

how a person dies (e.g. Madame de Pompadour, the Brigadier), you c=

an

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

no longer travel back and meet them at all. It doesn't make sense,
but at least he's consistent.

That's silly.
The problem is either silly restrictions or use Bill and Ted rules w=

ere

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

wishing
makes it true, since you can wait until the end of the universe for someone to
come back and make the wish come true.

<<<We basically see why in The Wedding of River Song. If you see someo=

ne

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

die, it's a fixed point in time for you, so if you go back and
interact with them afterward, you run the risk of altering the
circumstances of their death, and then it's all winston churchill
being emperor of egypt and Shakespeare dating Charles Dickens.
It does suggest that if you were *very careful*, you could go back and
have tea with them on the odd occasion, but going off on adventures is
right out (And even tea is taking a risk, particularly if you're The
Doctor and trouble is liable to find you wherever you go.)>>>
On the other hand, given that the Doctor knows they're going to die in=

th=3D

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon
eir

80s then why wouldn't the Doctor go back and have lots and lots of
adventures with them, just as long as it's before they reach 80 someth=

ing=3D

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon
?- Hide quoted text -
Because if they're off saving the planet Floob and mid-forties Rory
catches a plasma-arrow in the chest, then he can't die at the ripe old
age of 84 in New York. And then there's a paradox and flying killer
time monkeys.
And the Doctor *is* willing ot own up to the fact that he can't
guarantee their safety. Heck, Rory died three times in just this
episode.

How manny times did Rory diey with the 11th Doctor?
--

2k.ab.ca

Post by The Doctor
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist ri=

sing!http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k

Post by The Doctor
USA petition to dissolve the Republic and vote to disoolve it in November=

2012
All of them.

5 but not all.

[Agamemnon]

Post by Agamemnon

In article

Post by solar penguin

Post by Ross

Post by Agamemnon
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see them
after
the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to see the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

Fixed points in time. Though there's no absolutely necessary reason
the doctor can't pop back to New Jersey in 1940 and send them a
telegram to meet him somewhere

It does seem to be one of the Moff's rules that once you know when or
how a person dies (e.g. Madame de Pompadour, the Brigadier), you can
no longer travel back and meet them at all. It doesn't make sense,
but at least he's consistent.

That's silly.
The problem is either silly restrictions or use Bill and Ted rules were wishing
makes it true, since you can wait until the end of the universe for someone to
come back and make the wish come true.

<<<We basically see why in The Wedding of River Song. If you see someone
die, it's a fixed point in time for you, so if you go back and
interact with them afterward, you run the risk of altering the
circumstances of their death, and then it's all winston churchill
being emperor of egypt and Shakespeare dating Charles Dickens.
It does suggest that if you were *very careful*, you could go back and
have tea with them on the odd occasion, but going off on adventures is
right out (And even tea is taking a risk, particularly if you're The
Doctor and trouble is liable to find you wherever you go.)>>>
On the other hand, given that the Doctor knows they're going to die in their
80s then why wouldn't the Doctor go back and have lots and lots of
adventures with them, just as long as it's before they reach 80
something?- Hide quoted text -

<<<Because if they're off saving the planet Floob and mid-forties Rory
catches a plasma-arrow in the chest, then he can't die at the ripe old
age of 84 in New York. And then there's a paradox and flying killer
time monkeys.>>>

So time has to be set back to normal and Rory lives. Even better.

<<<And the Doctor *is* willing ot own up to the fact that he can't
guarantee their safety. Heck, Rory died three times in just this
episode.>>>

We knew he would die at the age of 84 from the start before he went to New
York the first time when the grave stone was first shown.

[TB]

Post by Agamemnon
We knew he would die at the age of 84 from the start before he went to New
York the first time when the grave stone was first shown.

I thought that I saw a death age of 82 for Rory on that gravestone.

[TB]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

In article

Post by solar penguin

Post by Ross

Post by Agamemnon
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see them
after
the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to see the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

Fixed points in time. Though there's no absolutely necessary reason
the doctor can't pop back to New Jersey in 1940 and send them a
telegram to meet him somewhere

It does seem to be one of the Moff's rules that once you know when or
how a person dies (e.g. Madame de Pompadour, the Brigadier), you can
no longer travel back and meet them at all. It doesn't make sense,
but at least he's consistent.

That's silly.
The problem is either silly restrictions or use Bill and Ted rules were wishing
makes it true, since you can wait until the end of the universe for someone to
come back and make the wish come true.

<<<We basically see why in The Wedding of River Song. If you see someone
die, it's a fixed point in time for you, so if you go back and
interact with them afterward, you run the risk of altering the
circumstances of their death, and then it's all winston churchill
being emperor of egypt and Shakespeare dating Charles Dickens.
It does suggest that if you were *very careful*, you could go back and
have tea with them on the odd occasion, but going off on adventures is
right out (And even tea is taking a risk, particularly if you're The
Doctor and trouble is liable to find you wherever you go.)>>>
On the other hand, given that the Doctor knows they're going to die in their
80s then why wouldn't the Doctor go back and have lots and lots of
adventures with them, just as long as it's before they reach 80
something?- Hide quoted text -

<<<Because if they're off saving the planet Floob and mid-forties Rory
catches a plasma-arrow in the chest, then he can't die at the ripe old
age of 84 in New York. And then there's a paradox and flying killer
time monkeys.>>>
So time has to be set back to normal and Rory lives. Even better.
<<<And the Doctor *is* willing ot own up to the fact that he can't
guarantee their safety. Heck, Rory died three times in just this
episode.>>>
We knew he would die at the age of 84 from the start before he went to New
York the first time when the grave stone was first shown.

Rory's tombstone said 82.

[Tim Bruening]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

In article

Post by solar penguin

Post by Ross

Post by Agamemnon
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see them
after
the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to see the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

Fixed points in time. Though there's no absolutely necessary reason
the doctor can't pop back to New Jersey in 1940 and send them a
telegram to meet him somewhere

It does seem to be one of the Moff's rules that once you know when or
how a person dies (e.g. Madame de Pompadour, the Brigadier), you can
no longer travel back and meet them at all. It doesn't make sense,
but at least he's consistent.

That's silly.
The problem is either silly restrictions or use Bill and Ted rules were wishing
makes it true, since you can wait until the end of the universe for someone to
come back and make the wish come true.

<<<We basically see why in The Wedding of River Song. If you see someone
die, it's a fixed point in time for you, so if you go back and
interact with them afterward, you run the risk of altering the
circumstances of their death, and then it's all winston churchill
being emperor of egypt and Shakespeare dating Charles Dickens.
It does suggest that if you were *very careful*, you could go back and
have tea with them on the odd occasion, but going off on adventures is
right out (And even tea is taking a risk, particularly if you're The
Doctor and trouble is liable to find you wherever you go.)>>>
On the other hand, given that the Doctor knows they're going to die in their
80s then why wouldn't the Doctor go back and have lots and lots of
adventures with them, just as long as it's before they reach 80
something?- Hide quoted text -

<<<Because if they're off saving the planet Floob and mid-forties Rory
catches a plasma-arrow in the chest, then he can't die at the ripe old
age of 84 in New York. And then there's a paradox and flying killer
time monkeys.>>>
So time has to be set back to normal and Rory lives. Even better.
<<<And the Doctor *is* willing ot own up to the fact that he can't
guarantee their safety. Heck, Rory died three times in just this
episode.>>>
We knew he would die at the age of 84 from the start before he went to New
York the first time when the grave stone was first shown.

I saw a death age of 82. But why no year?

[The Doctor]

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

In article

Post by solar penguin

Post by Ross

Post by Agamemnon
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see them
after
the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to see
the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

Fixed points in time. Though there's no absolutely necessary reason
the doctor can't pop back to New Jersey in 1940 and send them a
telegram to meet him somewhere

It does seem to be one of the Moff's rules that once you know when or
how a person dies (e.g. Madame de Pompadour, the Brigadier), you can
no longer travel back and meet them at all. It doesn't make sense,
but at least he's consistent.

That's silly.
The problem is either silly restrictions or use Bill and Ted rules were wishing
makes it true, since you can wait until the end of the universe for someone to
come back and make the wish come true.

<<<We basically see why in The Wedding of River Song. If you see someone
die, it's a fixed point in time for you, so if you go back and
interact with them afterward, you run the risk of altering the
circumstances of their death, and then it's all winston churchill
being emperor of egypt and Shakespeare dating Charles Dickens.
It does suggest that if you were *very careful*, you could go back and
have tea with them on the odd occasion, but going off on adventures is
right out (And even tea is taking a risk, particularly if you're The
Doctor and trouble is liable to find you wherever you go.)>>>
On the other hand, given that the Doctor knows they're going to die in their
80s then why wouldn't the Doctor go back and have lots and lots of
adventures with them, just as long as it's before they reach 80
something?- Hide quoted text -

<<<Because if they're off saving the planet Floob and mid-forties Rory
catches a plasma-arrow in the chest, then he can't die at the ripe old
age of 84 in New York. And then there's a paradox and flying killer
time monkeys.>>>
So time has to be set back to normal and Rory lives. Even better.
<<<And the Doctor *is* willing ot own up to the fact that he can't
guarantee their safety. Heck, Rory died three times in just this
episode.>>>
We knew he would die at the age of 84 from the start before he went to New
York the first time when the grave stone was first shown.

I saw a death age of 82. But why no year?

Born before you die?

[Tim Bruening]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

In article

Post by solar penguin

Post by Ross

Post by Agamemnon
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see them
after
the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to see
the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

Fixed points in time. Though there's no absolutely necessary reason
the doctor can't pop back to New Jersey in 1940 and send them a
telegram to meet him somewhere

It does seem to be one of the Moff's rules that once you know when or
how a person dies (e.g. Madame de Pompadour, the Brigadier), you can
no longer travel back and meet them at all. It doesn't make sense,
but at least he's consistent.

That's silly.
The problem is either silly restrictions or use Bill and Ted rules were
wishing
makes it true, since you can wait until the end of the universe for
someone to
come back and make the wish come true.

<<<We basically see why in The Wedding of River Song. If you see someone
die, it's a fixed point in time for you, so if you go back and
interact with them afterward, you run the risk of altering the
circumstances of their death, and then it's all winston churchill
being emperor of egypt and Shakespeare dating Charles Dickens.
It does suggest that if you were *very careful*, you could go back and
have tea with them on the odd occasion, but going off on adventures is
right out (And even tea is taking a risk, particularly if you're The
Doctor and trouble is liable to find you wherever you go.)>>>
On the other hand, given that the Doctor knows they're going to die in their
80s then why wouldn't the Doctor go back and have lots and lots of
adventures with them, just as long as it's before they reach 80
something?- Hide quoted text -

<<<Because if they're off saving the planet Floob and mid-forties Rory
catches a plasma-arrow in the chest, then he can't die at the ripe old
age of 84 in New York. And then there's a paradox and flying killer
time monkeys.>>>
So time has to be set back to normal and Rory lives. Even better.
<<<And the Doctor *is* willing ot own up to the fact that he can't
guarantee their safety. Heck, Rory died three times in just this
episode.>>>
We knew he would die at the age of 84 from the start before he went to New
York the first time when the grave stone was first shown.

I saw a death age of 82. But why no year?

Born before you die?

Aren't most people born before they die?

[The Doctor]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

In article

Post by solar penguin

Post by Ross

Post by Agamemnon
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to

see them

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin

Post by Ross

Post by Agamemnon
after
the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them

going to see

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin

Post by Ross

Post by Agamemnon
the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

Fixed points in time. Though there's no absolutely necessary reason
the doctor can't pop back to New Jersey in 1940 and send them a
telegram to meet him somewhere

It does seem to be one of the Moff's rules that once you know when or
how a person dies (e.g. Madame de Pompadour, the Brigadier), you can
no longer travel back and meet them at all. It doesn't make sense,
but at least he's consistent.

That's silly.
The problem is either silly restrictions or use Bill and Ted rules were
wishing
makes it true, since you can wait until the end of the universe for
someone to
come back and make the wish come true.

<<<We basically see why in The Wedding of River Song. If you see someone
die, it's a fixed point in time for you, so if you go back and
interact with them afterward, you run the risk of altering the
circumstances of their death, and then it's all winston churchill
being emperor of egypt and Shakespeare dating Charles Dickens.
It does suggest that if you were *very careful*, you could go back and
have tea with them on the odd occasion, but going off on adventures is
right out (And even tea is taking a risk, particularly if you're The
Doctor and trouble is liable to find you wherever you go.)>>>
On the other hand, given that the Doctor knows they're going to die in their
80s then why wouldn't the Doctor go back and have lots and lots of
adventures with them, just as long as it's before they reach 80
something?- Hide quoted text -

<<<Because if they're off saving the planet Floob and mid-forties Rory
catches a plasma-arrow in the chest, then he can't die at the ripe old
age of 84 in New York. And then there's a paradox and flying killer
time monkeys.>>>
So time has to be set back to normal and Rory lives. Even better.
<<<And the Doctor *is* willing ot own up to the fact that he can't
guarantee their safety. Heck, Rory died three times in just this
episode.>>>
We knew he would die at the age of 84 from the start before he went to New
York the first time when the grave stone was first shown.

I saw a death age of 82. But why no year?

Born before you die?

Aren't most people born before they die?

The other way around.

[Tim Bruening]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

In article

Post by solar penguin

Post by Ross

Post by Agamemnon
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to

see them

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin

Post by Ross

Post by Agamemnon
after
the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them

going to see

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin

Post by Ross

Post by Agamemnon
the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

Fixed points in time. Though there's no absolutely necessary reason
the doctor can't pop back to New Jersey in 1940 and send them a
telegram to meet him somewhere

It does seem to be one of the Moff's rules that once you know when or
how a person dies (e.g. Madame de Pompadour, the Brigadier), you can
no longer travel back and meet them at all. It doesn't make sense,
but at least he's consistent.

That's silly.
The problem is either silly restrictions or use Bill and Ted rules were
wishing
makes it true, since you can wait until the end of the universe for
someone to
come back and make the wish come true.

<<<We basically see why in The Wedding of River Song. If you see someone
die, it's a fixed point in time for you, so if you go back and
interact with them afterward, you run the risk of altering the
circumstances of their death, and then it's all winston churchill
being emperor of egypt and Shakespeare dating Charles Dickens.
It does suggest that if you were *very careful*, you could go back and
have tea with them on the odd occasion, but going off on adventures is
right out (And even tea is taking a risk, particularly if you're The
Doctor and trouble is liable to find you wherever you go.)>>>
On the other hand, given that the Doctor knows they're going to die in
their
80s then why wouldn't the Doctor go back and have lots and lots of
adventures with them, just as long as it's before they reach 80
something?- Hide quoted text -

<<<Because if they're off saving the planet Floob and mid-forties Rory
catches a plasma-arrow in the chest, then he can't die at the ripe old
age of 84 in New York. And then there's a paradox and flying killer
time monkeys.>>>
So time has to be set back to normal and Rory lives. Even better.
<<<And the Doctor *is* willing ot own up to the fact that he can't
guarantee their safety. Heck, Rory died three times in just this
episode.>>>
We knew he would die at the age of 84 from the start before he went to New
York the first time when the grave stone was first shown.

I saw a death age of 82. But why no year?

Born before you die?

Aren't most people born before they die?

The other way around.

Die before being born?

[The Doctor]

Post by Ross

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

In article

Post by solar penguin

On Sep 29, 5:11 pm, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to

see them

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin

Post by Agamemnon
after
the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them

going to see

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin

Post by Agamemnon
the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

Fixed points in time. Though there's no absolutely

necessary reason

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin

the doctor can't pop back to New Jersey in 1940 and send them a
telegram to meet him somewhere

It does seem to be one of the Moff's rules that once you

know when or

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin
how a person dies (e.g. Madame de Pompadour, the

Brigadier), you can

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin
no longer travel back and meet them at all. It doesn't make sense,
but at least he's consistent.

That's silly.
The problem is either silly restrictions or use Bill and Ted

rules were

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

wishing
makes it true, since you can wait until the end of the universe for
someone to
come back and make the wish come true.

<<<We basically see why in The Wedding of River Song. If you

see someone

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon
die, it's a fixed point in time for you, so if you go back and
interact with them afterward, you run the risk of altering the
circumstances of their death, and then it's all winston churchill
being emperor of egypt and Shakespeare dating Charles Dickens.
It does suggest that if you were *very careful*, you could go back and
have tea with them on the odd occasion, but going off on adventures is
right out (And even tea is taking a risk, particularly if you're The
Doctor and trouble is liable to find you wherever you go.)>>>
On the other hand, given that the Doctor knows they're going

to die in

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon
their
80s then why wouldn't the Doctor go back and have lots and lots of
adventures with them, just as long as it's before they reach 80
something?- Hide quoted text -

<<<Because if they're off saving the planet Floob and mid-forties Rory
catches a plasma-arrow in the chest, then he can't die at the ripe old
age of 84 in New York. And then there's a paradox and flying killer
time monkeys.>>>
So time has to be set back to normal and Rory lives. Even better.
<<<And the Doctor *is* willing ot own up to the fact that he can't
guarantee their safety. Heck, Rory died three times in just this
episode.>>>
We knew he would die at the age of 84 from the start before he

went to New

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
York the first time when the grave stone was first shown.

I saw a death age of 82. But why no year?

Born before you die?

Aren't most people born before they die?

The other way around.

Die before being born?

Yes.

[Tim Bruening]

Post by Ross

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

In article

Post by solar penguin

On Sep 29, 5:11 pm, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to

see them

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin

Post by Agamemnon
after
the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them

going to see

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin

Post by Agamemnon
the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

Fixed points in time. Though there's no absolutely

necessary reason

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin

the doctor can't pop back to New Jersey in 1940 and send them a
telegram to meet him somewhere

It does seem to be one of the Moff's rules that once you

know when or

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin
how a person dies (e.g. Madame de Pompadour, the

Brigadier), you can

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin
no longer travel back and meet them at all. It doesn't make sense,
but at least he's consistent.

That's silly.
The problem is either silly restrictions or use Bill and Ted

rules were

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

wishing
makes it true, since you can wait until the end of the universe for
someone to
come back and make the wish come true.

<<<We basically see why in The Wedding of River Song. If you

see someone

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon
die, it's a fixed point in time for you, so if you go back and
interact with them afterward, you run the risk of altering the
circumstances of their death, and then it's all winston churchill
being emperor of egypt and Shakespeare dating Charles Dickens.
It does suggest that if you were *very careful*, you could go back and
have tea with them on the odd occasion, but going off on adventures is
right out (And even tea is taking a risk, particularly if you're The
Doctor and trouble is liable to find you wherever you go.)>>>
On the other hand, given that the Doctor knows they're going

to die in

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon
their
80s then why wouldn't the Doctor go back and have lots and lots of
adventures with them, just as long as it's before they reach 80
something?- Hide quoted text -

<<<Because if they're off saving the planet Floob and mid-forties Rory
catches a plasma-arrow in the chest, then he can't die at the ripe old
age of 84 in New York. And then there's a paradox and flying killer
time monkeys.>>>
So time has to be set back to normal and Rory lives. Even better.
<<<And the Doctor *is* willing ot own up to the fact that he can't
guarantee their safety. Heck, Rory died three times in just this
episode.>>>
We knew he would die at the age of 84 from the start before he

went to New

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
York the first time when the grave stone was first shown.

I saw a death age of 82. But why no year?

Born before you die?

Aren't most people born before they die?

The other way around.

Die before being born?

Yes.

Have you ever met such a person?

[The Doctor]

Post by Ross

Post by Ross

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

In article

Post by solar penguin

On Sep 29, 5:11 pm, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to

see them

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin

Post by Agamemnon
after
the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them

going to see

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin

Post by Agamemnon
the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?

Fixed points in time. Though there's no absolutely

necessary reason

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin

the doctor can't pop back to New Jersey in 1940 and

send them a

Post by Ross

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin

telegram to meet him somewhere

It does seem to be one of the Moff's rules that once you

know when or

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin
how a person dies (e.g. Madame de Pompadour, the

Brigadier), you can

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin
no longer travel back and meet them at all. It doesn't

make sense,

Post by Ross

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

Post by solar penguin
but at least he's consistent.

That's silly.
The problem is either silly restrictions or use Bill and Ted

rules were

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

wishing
makes it true, since you can wait until the end of the

universe for

Post by Ross

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

someone to
come back and make the wish come true.

<<<We basically see why in The Wedding of River Song. If you

see someone

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon
die, it's a fixed point in time for you, so if you go back and
interact with them afterward, you run the risk of altering the
circumstances of their death, and then it's all winston churchill
being emperor of egypt and Shakespeare dating Charles Dickens.
It does suggest that if you were *very careful*, you could

go back and

Post by Ross

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon
have tea with them on the odd occasion, but going off on

adventures is

Post by Ross

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon
right out (And even tea is taking a risk, particularly if

you're The

Post by Ross

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon
Doctor and trouble is liable to find you wherever you go.)>>>
On the other hand, given that the Doctor knows they're going

to die in

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon
their
80s then why wouldn't the Doctor go back and have lots and lots of
adventures with them, just as long as it's before they reach 80
something?- Hide quoted text -

<<<Because if they're off saving the planet Floob and

mid-forties Rory

Post by Ross

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
catches a plasma-arrow in the chest, then he can't die at the

ripe old

Post by Ross

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
age of 84 in New York. And then there's a paradox and flying killer
time monkeys.>>>
So time has to be set back to normal and Rory lives. Even better.
<<<And the Doctor *is* willing ot own up to the fact that he can't
guarantee their safety. Heck, Rory died three times in just this
episode.>>>
We knew he would die at the age of 84 from the start before he

went to New

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
York the first time when the grave stone was first shown.

I saw a death age of 82. But why no year?

Born before you die?

Aren't most people born before they die?

The other way around.

Die before being born?

Yes.

Have you ever met such a person?

Any and Rory.

[Tim Bruening]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Tim Bruening
Die before being born?

Yes.

Have you ever met such a person?

Any and Rory.

You met them in person?

[The Doctor]

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Tim Bruening
Die before being born?

Yes.

Have you ever met such a person?

Any and Rory.

You met them in person?

Oh?!

[Tim Bruening]

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Tim Bruening
Die before being born?

Yes.

Have you ever met such a person?

Any and Rory.

You met them in person?

Oh?!

It was a question, not a statement. Note the question mark at the end.

[The Doctor]

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Tim Bruening
Die before being born?

Yes.

Have you ever met such a person?

Any and Rory.

You met them in person?

Oh?!

It was a question, not a statement. Note the question mark at the end.

We all did.

[Tim Bruening]

Post by Ross

Post by Agamemnon
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?
What was the guarantee that the Weeping Angel would send them both back to
the same time?

We don't, but the overwhelming likelihood is that the angel that got
them is the same one as got Rory at the beginning of the episode, and
I think 'Blink' established that the same angel is liable (but not
guaranteed) to send you the same amount back in time.

So ONE Angel got to feed off of Rory TWICE?

[The Doctor]

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Ross

Post by Agamemnon
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?
What was the guarantee that the Weeping Angel would send them both back to
the same time?

We don't, but the overwhelming likelihood is that the angel that got
them is the same one as got Rory at the beginning of the episode, and
I think 'Blink' established that the same angel is liable (but not
guaranteed) to send you the same amount back in time.

So ONE Angel got to feed off of Rory TWICE?

Temporal contradictions.

[Timothy Bruening]

Post by Ross

Post by Agamemnon
What was the guarantee that the Weeping Angel would send them both back to
the same time?

We don't, but the overwhelming likelihood is that the angel that got
them is the same one as got Rory at the beginning of the episode, and
I think 'Blink' established that the same angel is liable (but not
guaranteed) to send you the same amount back in time.

Can one recognize individual Weeping Angels?

[The Doctor]

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by Ross

Post by Agamemnon
What was the guarantee that the Weeping Angel would send them both back to
the same time?

We don't, but the overwhelming likelihood is that the angel that got
them is the same one as got Rory at the beginning of the episode, and
I think 'Blink' established that the same angel is liable (but not
guaranteed) to send you the same amount back in time.

Can one recognize individual Weeping Angels?

They come up quickly on you.

[TB]

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why didn't someone
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?

Why weren't there dates on the gravestone? Isn't it standard operating procedure to put a person's death date on the gravestone?

To figure out WHEN Rory and Amy died, I propose that the Doctor dig up their bodies and carbon date them to determine how long they have been dead, then subtract from the current year.

Post by Agamemnon
What was the guarantee that the Weeping Angel would send them both back to
the same time?

I am amazed that Amy would actually TRUST that Angel to send her back to the same time as it sent Rory! After all, according to the Doctor, Weeping Angels are the most malevolent lifeform in the universe! (A Time For Angels).

Post by Agamemnon
How come the time distortion wasn't noticed by anyone when the Daleks were
in Manhatten?

In what year were the Daleks in Manhatten? The Weeping Angels were there in 1938.

Why didn't anyone notice the beheaded state of the Statue of Liberty?

[TB]

Post by TB

Post by Agamemnon
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?

Why weren't there dates on the gravestone? Isn't it standard operating procedure to put a person's death date on the gravestone?
To figure out WHEN Rory and Amy died, I propose that the Doctor dig up their bodies and carbon date them to determine how long they have been dead, then subtract from the current year.

Or go to the local library and read through the microfiched newspapers until he finds the death notices of Amy and Rory.

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why didn't someone
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?

In "Time for Angels/Flesh and Stone", the Weeping Angels kill people. In "Angels Take Manhatten", they send people back in time. Why the change in Angel mode of operations?

Post by Agamemnon
What was the guarantee that the Weeping Angel would send them both back to
the same time?

What was the guarantee that the Angel would even send Amy back in time, rather than simply killing her? She is sure showing an amazing level of trust, in a very Malevolent life form!

[solar penguin]

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by Agamemnon
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't
sent back even further than the 1930s?

In "Time for Angels/Flesh and Stone", the Weeping Angels kill people.
In "Angels Take Manhatten", they send people back in time. Why the
change in Angel mode of operations?

Sending people back in time then feeding on the displaced time energy is
their normal mode of operations (as established in Blink.)

In Time/Flesh, they're already feeding on the time energy of the crack,
and don't need to send anyone back in time to displace any more energy.

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by Agamemnon
What was the guarantee that the Weeping Angel would send them both back
to the same time?

Each individual angel always sends someone back by a fixed amount of
time, although that varies from angel to angel. (Again, this was
established in Blink.)

Post by t***@gmail.com
What was the guarantee that the Angel would even send Amy back in time,
rather than simply killing her? She is sure showing an amazing level of
trust, in a very Malevolent life form!

What would it have to gain by killing her? By sending her back, it can
feed. If it kills her, it can't. No brainer.

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by solar penguin

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by Agamemnon
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't
sent back even further than the 1930s?

In "Time for Angels/Flesh and Stone", the Weeping Angels kill people.
In "Angels Take Manhatten", they send people back in time. Why the
change in Angel mode of operations?

Sending people back in time then feeding on the displaced time energy is
their normal mode of operations (as established in Blink.)
In Time/Flesh, they're already feeding on the time energy of the crack,
and don't need to send anyone back in time to displace any more energy.

I had gotten the impression in "Time For Angels" that the Angels in that cave system were starved for energy. An Angel had therefore hijacked a ship and crashed it on the surface just above the caves so that the other Angels could feast on the radiation leaking from it. If the Angels were feeding on the time crack, why would they have needed the radiation from the ship?

Post by solar penguin

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by Agamemnon
What was the guarantee that the Weeping Angel would send them both back
to the same time?

Each individual angel always sends someone back by a fixed amount of
time, although that varies from angel to angel. (Again, this was
established in Blink.)

Post by t***@gmail.com
What was the guarantee that the Angel would even send Amy back in time,
rather than simply killing her? She is sure showing an amazing level of
trust, in a very Malevolent life form!

What would it have to gain by killing her? By sending her back, it can
feed. If it kills her, it can't. No brainer.

Have the Angels ever considered setting up a Time Travel Agency whereby people could employ their time travel services, and pay with their temporal energies?

Plot: Weeping Angels haunt a baseball stadium (Angels in the Outfield).

[Tim Bruening]

Post by solar penguin

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by Agamemnon
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't
sent back even further than the 1930s?

In "Time for Angels/Flesh and Stone", the Weeping Angels kill people.
In "Angels Take Manhatten", they send people back in time. Why the
change in Angel mode of operations?

Sending people back in time then feeding on the displaced time energy is
their normal mode of operations (as established in Blink.)
In Time/Flesh, they're already feeding on the time energy of the crack,
and don't need to send anyone back in time to displace any more energy.

But then they realized that the Time Crack was dangerous to them. Why didn't they then start displacing people?

[The Doctor]

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by solar penguin

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by Agamemnon
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't
sent back even further than the 1930s?

In "Time for Angels/Flesh and Stone", the Weeping Angels kill people.
In "Angels Take Manhatten", they send people back in time. Why the
change in Angel mode of operations?

Sending people back in time then feeding on the displaced time energy is
their normal mode of operations (as established in Blink.)
In Time/Flesh, they're already feeding on the time energy of the crack,
and don't need to send anyone back in time to displace any more energy.

But then they realized that the Time Crack was dangerous to them. Why
didn't they then start displacing people?

Hence why the Doctor made for cover!

[TB]

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why didn't someone
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?
What was the guarantee that the Weeping Angel would send them both back to
the same time?
If it was the 1930s then since they were around about 30 years old, having
spent 10 years with the Doctor, that could put their death in the 1980s or
early 90s at about the time they were supposed to have been born.
What was there to stop the Doctor and River going back to see them after the
1930s if New York in the 30s was blocked off, or them going to see the
Doctor and River when they went to Area 51?
How come the time distortion wasn't noticed by anyone when the Daleks were
in Manhatten?
Maybe they'll both be returned to their own time in time for the 50th
anniversary special.

Another maddening item: Someone forgot to put the death dates on the Rory and Amy tombstone! I had thought that putting death dates was SOP.

[TB]

Post by Agamemnon
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?

Why no dates on the tombstones? I had thought that dates were SOP!

[TB]

Great moments: Amy reading a book, and she and the Doctor realizing that the book is about Rory, who had just gone to get coffee!

The TARDIS being blocked from landing in New York on April 3, 1938 by temporal anomolies. But what's to keep the TARDIS from landing a few miles outside New York?

River Song's wrist being caught by an Angel, and River Song asking the Doctor (both in the book and in real life) why he had to break her wrist. He says that its because he read it in a book! However, River Song eventually broke her own wrist to escape. Does that mean that events in the book can be changed?

The Doctor, Amy, Rory, and River Song seeing old Rory die in a bed at the Winter Quay.

[TB]

Rory and Amy being zapped back in time.

The tombstone with the death ages of Rory and Amy. But why doesn't it give the YEARS in which they died?

The last page of the novel, with Amy's afterword.

[TB]

Amy telling the Doctor to go to young Amy in the garden and tell her everything she would do! Won't that contaminate the timeline?

[Tim Bruening]

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why didn't someone
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?

That's the mystery: Why no dates on the gravestone?

[The Doctor]

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why didn't someone
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?

That's the mystery: Why no dates on the gravestone?

Died in the 1930s born in the 1980s . hmm...

[Tim Bruening]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why didn't someone
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?

That's the mystery: Why no dates on the gravestone?

Died in the 1930s born in the 1980s . hmm...

Amy and Rory lived into their 80s, so if they arrived in the 1930s, they would live into the 1990s or early 2000s, assuming that they were in their 20s when kidnapped by that Angel.

[The Doctor]

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why didn't someone
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?

That's the mystery: Why no dates on the gravestone?

Died in the 1930s born in the 1980s . hmm...

Amy and Rory lived into their 80s, so if they arrived in the 1930s, they
would live into the 1990s or early 2000s, assuming that they were in
their 20s when kidnapped by that Angel.

It would not make sense.

[Tim Bruening]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why didn't someone
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?

That's the mystery: Why no dates on the gravestone?

Died in the 1930s born in the 1980s . hmm...

Amy and Rory lived into their 80s, so if they arrived in the 1930s, they
would live into the 1990s or early 2000s, assuming that they were in
their 20s when kidnapped by that Angel.

It would not make sense.

Another Angel victim (Catherine Nightingale) has a gravestone with a birth year of 1902 and a death year of 1987. Thus it is kosher for Angel victims to have dates on their grave/tomb stones!

[The Doctor]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a

story from

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why

didn't someone

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they

weren't sent

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
back even further than the 1930s?

That's the mystery: Why no dates on the gravestone?

Died in the 1930s born in the 1980s . hmm...

Amy and Rory lived into their 80s, so if they arrived in the 1930s, they
would live into the 1990s or early 2000s, assuming that they were in
their 20s when kidnapped by that Angel.

It would not make sense.

Another Angel victim (Catherine Nightingale) has a gravestone with a
birth year of 1902 and a death year of 1987. Thus it is kosher for
Angel victims to have dates on their grave/tomb stones!

1902 ?

[Tim Bruening]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a

story from

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why

didn't someone

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they

weren't sent

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
back even further than the 1930s?

That's the mystery: Why no dates on the gravestone?

Died in the 1930s born in the 1980s . hmm...

Amy and Rory lived into their 80s, so if they arrived in the 1930s, they
would live into the 1990s or early 2000s, assuming that they were in
their 20s when kidnapped by that Angel.

It would not make sense.

Another Angel victim (Catherine Nightingale) has a gravestone with a
birth year of 1902 and a death year of 1987. Thus it is kosher for
Angel victims to have dates on their grave/tomb stones!

1902 ?

On Catherine's tombstone, I saw "1902-1987".

[The Doctor]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a

story from

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why

didn't someone

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's

going to tell

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they

weren't sent

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
back even further than the 1930s?

That's the mystery: Why no dates on the gravestone?

Died in the 1930s born in the 1980s . hmm...

Amy and Rory lived into their 80s, so if they arrived in the 1930s, they
would live into the 1990s or early 2000s, assuming that they were in
their 20s when kidnapped by that Angel.

It would not make sense.

Another Angel victim (Catherine Nightingale) has a gravestone with a
birth year of 1902 and a death year of 1987. Thus it is kosher for
Angel victims to have dates on their grave/tomb stones!

1902 ?

On Catherine's tombstone, I saw "1902-1987".

All right so Maoffat corrected that error.

[Tim Bruening]

Animals: Pigeons in New York.

[Timothy Bruening]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening
Another Angel victim (Catherine Nightingale) has a gravestone with a
birth year of 1902 and a death year of 1987. Thus it is kosher for
Angel victims to have dates on their grave/tomb stones!

1902 ?

On Catherine's tombstone, I saw "1902-1987".

All right so Maoffat corrected that error.

Maoffat, Chinese version of DW show runner?

[The Doctor]

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening
Another Angel victim (Catherine Nightingale) has a gravestone with a
birth year of 1902 and a death year of 1987. Thus it is kosher for
Angel victims to have dates on their grave/tomb stones!

1902 ?

On Catherine's tombstone, I saw "1902-1987".

All right so Maoffat corrected that error.

Maoffat, Chinese version of DW show runner?

Could be his Chinese side.

[Timothy Bruening]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a

story from

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why

didn't someone

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they

weren't sent

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
back even further than the 1930s?

That's the mystery: Why no dates on the gravestone?

Died in the 1930s born in the 1980s . hmm...

Amy and Rory lived into their 80s, so if they arrived in the 1930s, they
would live into the 1990s or early 2000s, assuming that they were in
their 20s when kidnapped by that Angel.

It would not make sense.

Another Angel victim (Catherine Nightingale) has a gravestone with a
birth year of 1902 and a death year of 1987. Thus it is kosher for
Angel victims to have dates on their grave/tomb stones!

1902 ?

That is what I saw on her tombstone.

[The Doctor]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a

story from

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why

didn't someone

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's

going to tell

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they

weren't sent

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
back even further than the 1930s?

That's the mystery: Why no dates on the gravestone?

Died in the 1930s born in the 1980s . hmm...

Amy and Rory lived into their 80s, so if they arrived in the 1930s, they
would live into the 1990s or early 2000s, assuming that they were in
their 20s when kidnapped by that Angel.

It would not make sense.

Another Angel victim (Catherine Nightingale) has a gravestone with a
birth year of 1902 and a death year of 1987. Thus it is kosher for
Angel victims to have dates on their grave/tomb stones!

1902 ?

That is what I saw on her tombstone.

Unholy!

[Timothy Bruening]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a

story from

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why

didn't someone

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's

going to tell

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they

weren't sent

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
back even further than the 1930s?

That's the mystery: Why no dates on the gravestone?

Died in the 1930s born in the 1980s . hmm...

Amy and Rory lived into their 80s, so if they arrived in the 1930s, they
would live into the 1990s or early 2000s, assuming that they were in
their 20s when kidnapped by that Angel.

It would not make sense.

Another Angel victim (Catherine Nightingale) has a gravestone with a
birth year of 1902 and a death year of 1987. Thus it is kosher for
Angel victims to have dates on their grave/tomb stones!

1902 ?

That is what I saw on her tombstone.

Unholy!

Why is 1902 unholy?

[The Doctor]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

On Saturday, September 29, 2012 at 2:11:21 PM UTC-7,

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves

there's

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a

story from

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why

didn't someone

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's

going to tell

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they

weren't sent

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon
back even further than the 1930s?

That's the mystery: Why no dates on the gravestone?

Died in the 1930s born in the 1980s . hmm...

Amy and Rory lived into their 80s, so if they arrived in the

1930s, they

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening
would live into the 1990s or early 2000s, assuming that they were in
their 20s when kidnapped by that Angel.

It would not make sense.

Another Angel victim (Catherine Nightingale) has a gravestone with a
birth year of 1902 and a death year of 1987. Thus it is kosher for
Angel victims to have dates on their grave/tomb stones!

1902 ?

That is what I saw on her tombstone.

Unholy!

Why is 1902 unholy?

The Weepings angels are unholy.

[Timothy Bruening]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

On Saturday, September 29, 2012 at 2:11:21 PM UTC-7,

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves

there's

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a

story from

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why

didn't someone

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's

going to tell

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they

weren't sent

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon
back even further than the 1930s?

That's the mystery: Why no dates on the gravestone?

Died in the 1930s born in the 1980s . hmm...

Amy and Rory lived into their 80s, so if they arrived in the

1930s, they

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening
would live into the 1990s or early 2000s, assuming that they were in
their 20s when kidnapped by that Angel.

It would not make sense.

Another Angel victim (Catherine Nightingale) has a gravestone with a
birth year of 1902 and a death year of 1987. Thus it is kosher for
Angel victims to have dates on their grave/tomb stones!

1902 ?

That is what I saw on her tombstone.

Unholy!

Why is 1902 unholy?

The Weepings angels are unholy.

Vulnerable to Holy Water?

[The Doctor]

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

In article

On Saturday, September 29, 2012 at 2:11:21 PM UTC-7,

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves

there's

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a

story from

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why

didn't someone

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's

going to tell

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they

weren't sent

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
back even further than the 1930s?

That's the mystery: Why no dates on the gravestone?

Died in the 1930s born in the 1980s . hmm...

Amy and Rory lived into their 80s, so if they arrived in the

1930s, they

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening
would live into the 1990s or early 2000s, assuming that they were in
their 20s when kidnapped by that Angel.

It would not make sense.

Another Angel victim (Catherine Nightingale) has a gravestone with a
birth year of 1902 and a death year of 1987. Thus it is kosher for
Angel victims to have dates on their grave/tomb stones!

1902 ?

That is what I saw on her tombstone.

Unholy!

Why is 1902 unholy?

The Weepings angels are unholy.

Vulnerable to Holy Water?

Could be. Depending how fast the water catches them.

[The Other Doctor]

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

In article

Post by Tim Bruening

In article

On Saturday, September 29, 2012 at 2:11:21 PM UTC-7,

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves

there's

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it
stops a

story from

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why

didn't someone

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's

going to tell

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know
they

weren't sent

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
back even further than the 1930s?

That's the mystery: Why no dates on the gravestone?

Died in the 1930s born in the 1980s . hmm...

Amy and Rory lived into their 80s, so if they arrived in the

1930s, they

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Tim Bruening
would live into the 1990s or early 2000s, assuming that they were in
their 20s when kidnapped by that Angel.

It would not make sense.

Another Angel victim (Catherine Nightingale) has a gravestone with a
birth year of 1902 and a death year of 1987. Thus it is kosher for
Angel victims to have dates on their grave/tomb stones!

1902 ?

That is what I saw on her tombstone.

Unholy!

Why is 1902 unholy?

The Weepings angels are unholy.

Vulnerable to Holy Water?

What do you think the difference is between tap water and "Holy Water"?

[Timothy Bruening]

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

In article

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 7:55:12 AM UTC-8, The Doctor

In article

On Saturday, September 29, 2012 at 2:11:21 PM UTC-7,

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves

there's

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it
stops a

story from

Post by Agamemnon
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why

didn't someone

Post by Agamemnon
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's

going to tell

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know
they

weren't sent

Post by Agamemnon
back even further than the 1930s?

That's the mystery: Why no dates on the gravestone?

Died in the 1930s born in the 1980s . hmm...

Amy and Rory lived into their 80s, so if they arrived in the

1930s, they

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

would live into the 1990s or early 2000s, assuming that they
were in
their 20s when kidnapped by that Angel.

It would not make sense.

Another Angel victim (Catherine Nightingale) has a gravestone with a
birth year of 1902 and a death year of 1987. Thus it is kosher for
Angel victims to have dates on their grave/tomb stones!

1902 ?

That is what I saw on her tombstone.

Unholy!

Why is 1902 unholy?

The Weepings angels are unholy.

Vulnerable to Holy Water?

What do you think the difference is between tap water and "Holy Water"?

Holy Water blessed by priests.

[The Other Doctor]

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

In article

Post by Agamemnon

In article

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 7:55:12 AM UTC-8, The Doctor

In article

On Saturday, September 29, 2012 at 2:11:21 PM UTC-7,

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which
proves

there's

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it
stops a

story from

Post by Agamemnon
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and
why

didn't someone

Post by Agamemnon
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and
who's

going to tell

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we
know
they

weren't sent

Post by Agamemnon
back even further than the 1930s?

That's the mystery: Why no dates on the gravestone?

Died in the 1930s born in the 1980s . hmm...

Amy and Rory lived into their 80s, so if they arrived in the

1930s, they

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon

would live into the 1990s or early 2000s, assuming that they
were in
their 20s when kidnapped by that Angel.

It would not make sense.

Another Angel victim (Catherine Nightingale) has a gravestone
with
a
birth year of 1902 and a death year of 1987. Thus it is kosher for
Angel victims to have dates on their grave/tomb stones!

1902 ?

That is what I saw on her tombstone.

Unholy!

Why is 1902 unholy?

The Weepings angels are unholy.

Vulnerable to Holy Water?

What do you think the difference is between tap water and "Holy Water"?

Holy Water blessed by priests.

In other words: none at all.

[Timothy Bruening]

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why didn't someone
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?

Why no dates on grave?

[The Doctor]

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why didn't someone
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?

Why no dates on grave?

Too many paradoxes

[Timothy Bruening]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why didn't someone
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?

Why no dates on grave?

Too many paradoxes

Did Time Monkeys attack engravers?

[The Doctor]

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why didn't someone
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?

Why no dates on grave?

Too many paradoxes

Did Time Monkeys attack engravers?

Solar PEnguin.

[Timothy Bruening]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why didn't someone
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?

Why no dates on grave?

Too many paradoxes

Did Time Monkeys attack engravers?

Solar PEnguin.

SP attacked engravers? Or did Time Monkeys attack SP?

[The Doctor]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a

story from

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why

didn't someone

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they

weren't sent

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
back even further than the 1930s?

Why no dates on grave?

Too many paradoxes

Did Time Monkeys attack engravers?

Solar PEnguin.

SP attacked engravers? Or did Time Monkeys attack SP?

The latter.

[Timothy Bruening]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening
Why no dates on grave?

Too many paradoxes

Did Time Monkeys attack engravers?

Solar PEnguin.

SP attacked engravers? Or did Time Monkeys attack SP?

The latter.

Why did Time Monkeys attack SP?

[The Doctor]

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening
Why no dates on grave?

Too many paradoxes

Did Time Monkeys attack engravers?

Solar PEnguin.

SP attacked engravers? Or did Time Monkeys attack SP?

The latter.

Why did Time Monkeys attack SP?

They wanted the solar feathers.

[Timothy Bruening]

This episode is in money! (ATM, Angels Take Manhattan).

[The Doctor]

Post by Timothy Bruening
This episode is in money! (ATM, Angels Take Manhattan).

Stop spamtrolling rec.arts.drwho Tim!!

You are making enemies!!

You are showing yourself to be anti-social.

[Timothy Bruening]

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why didn't someone
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?

Lack of dates maddening.

[The Doctor]

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
Finally a story which works in 45 minutes and which proves there's
absolutely no need for stupid prancing around since it stops a story from
being told properly.
Now when are the other writers going to learn that and why didn't someone
tell them from the start?
Pitty Amy and Rory had to go the way they did, and who's going to tell
Rory's dad?
There were no dates on the grave stone so how do we know they weren't sent
back even further than the 1930s?

Lack of dates maddening.

Paradoxes!!