Melody Pond
one might argue Captain Jack
who else?
Melody Pond
one might argue Captain Jack
who else?
On 7/30/2026 5:08 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Melody PondJack wasn't a Time Lord type regeneration. Rose was, until that doctor >sucked all the energy out of her.
one might argue Captain Jack
who else?
----
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky >dirty old man.
Melody Pond
one might argue Captain Jack
who else?
Melody Pond
one might argue Captain Jack
who else?
Nomen Nescio wrote:
Melody Pond
one might argue Captain Jack
Not a regeneration per se, he came back to life in
the same body.
who else?
The Master / Romana / The General
Oh, and Tecteun in a flashback scene.
On 31/07/2026 6:27 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
one might argue Captain Jack
Not a regeneration per se, he came back to life
in the same body.
WHAT?? Like DoctorDavid did early on with-in The TARDIS.
Daniel70 wrote:
On 31/07/2026 6:27 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
one might argue Captain Jack
Not a regeneration per se, he came back to life
in the same body.
WHAT?? Like DoctorDavid did early on with-in The TARDIS.
No, like an immortal that was revived by the power of the
Time Vortex and can't be killed... so he keeps on coming
back to life in the same body, again and again and again...
instead of staying dead.
On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 02:08:57 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
<nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
Melody Pond
one might argue Captain Jack
who else?
The Master
The Abbot (Planet of the Spiders)
The Rani
Strangely, none of the Gallifreyans in "Deadly Assasin" - the
novelisation stated that the Lord President had none left but why not >Chancellor Goth, Commander Hilred or the TV commentator?
Mawdryn, but it didn't turn out the way he wanted.--
--
Jerry Brown
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Daniel70 wrote:
On 31/07/2026 6:27 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
one might argue Captain Jack
Not a regeneration per se, he came back to life
in the same body.
WHAT?? Like DoctorDavid did early on with-in The TARDIS.
No, like an immortal that was revived by the power of the
Time Vortex and can't be killed... so he keeps on coming
back to life in the same body, again and again and again...
instead of staying dead.
Nomen Nescio wrote:
Melody Pond
one might argue Captain Jack
Not a regeneration per se, he came back to life in
the same body.
who else?
The Master / Romana / The General
Oh, and Tecteun in a flashback scene.
On 31/07/2026 6:27 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
Melody Pond
one might argue Captain Jack
Not a regeneration per se, he came back to life in
the same body.
WHAT?? Like DoctorDavid did early on with-in The TARDIS.
who else?
The Master / Romana / The General
Oh, and Tecteun in a flashback scene.
----
Daniel70
Daniel70 wrote:
On 31/07/2026 6:27 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
one might argue Captain Jack
Not a regeneration per se, he came back to life
in the same body.
WHAT?? Like DoctorDavid did early on with-in The TARDIS.
No, like an immortal that was revived by the power of the
Time Vortex and can't be killed... so he keeps on coming
back to life in the same body, again and again and again...
instead of staying dead.
Verily, in article <xn0psxety5rtd4i000@post.eweka.nl>, did >blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 31/07/2026 6:27 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
one might argue Captain Jack
Not a regeneration per se, he came back to life
in the same body.
WHAT?? Like DoctorDavid did early on with-in The TARDIS.
No, like an immortal that was revived by the power of the
Time Vortex and can't be killed... so he keeps on coming
back to life in the same body, again and again and again...
instead of staying dead.
YouTube has what purports to be a compilation of all non-Doctor >regenerations, if anyone's interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWrL173HoU4 >&pp=ygUYbm9uLWRvY3RvciByZWdlbmVyYXRpb25z
----
The meek shall inherit, we're told,
But I'm not so easily sold.
For supposing they should,
It would do them no good --
They'd lose it at once to the bold.
On 31/07/2026 10:20 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:Oh!! That's right, Captain Jack gained THAT ability, didn't he??
On 31/07/2026 6:27 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
one might argue Captain Jack
Not a regeneration per se, he came back to life
in the same body.
WHAT?? Like DoctorDavid did early on with-in The TARDIS.
No, like an immortal that was revived by the power of the
Time Vortex and can't be killed... so he keeps on coming
back to life in the same body, again and again and again...
instead of staying dead.
----
Daniel70
In article <114iajp$2pln7$2@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 31/07/2026 10:20 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:Oh!! That's right, Captain Jack gained THAT ability, didn't he??
On 31/07/2026 6:27 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
one might argue Captain Jack
Not a regeneration per se, he came back to life
in the same body.
WHAT?? Like DoctorDavid did early on with-in The TARDIS.
No, like an immortal that was revived by the power of the
Time Vortex and can't be killed... so he keeps on coming
back to life in the same body, again and again and again...
instead of staying dead.
In Parting of the Ways.
----
Daniel70
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; 31 years in the ISP business!
Nomen Nescio wrote:
Melody Pond
one might argue Captain Jack
Not a regeneration per se, he came back to life in
the same body.
who else?
The Master / Romana / The General
Oh, and Tecteun in a flashback scene.
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
In article <114iajp$2pln7$2@dont-email.me>,AntiChrist rising!
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 31/07/2026 10:20 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:Oh!! That's right, Captain Jack gained THAT ability, didn't he??
On 31/07/2026 6:27 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
one might argue Captain Jack
Not a regeneration per se, he came back to life
in the same body.
WHAT?? Like DoctorDavid did early on with-in The TARDIS.
No, like an immortal that was revived by the power of the
Time Vortex and can't be killed... so he keeps on coming
back to life in the same body, again and again and again...
instead of staying dead.
In Parting of the Ways.
----
Daniel70
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; 31 years in the ISP business!
Sounds like a zombie.
On 7/31/2026 03:27, Blueshirt wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
Melody Pond
one might argue Captain Jack
Not a regeneration per se, he came back to life in
the same body.
who else?
The Master / Romana / The General
Oh, and Tecteun in a flashback scene.
The Regeneration didn't happen on screen, but didn't the Time Lord
Council mention that Cardinal Barousa had just recently regenerated in,
"The Five Doctors"?
----
Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
--Carl Sagan
So, is rCLDoctors WhorCY the accepted plural, rather than rCLDoctor WhosrCY?
Le 01/08/2026 |a 00:10, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro a |-crit :
So, is rCLDoctors WhorCY the accepted plural, rather than rCLDoctor WhosrCY?
I'd go with 'Doctors Who' for the plural. Cf.:
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph? content=the+Misses+Bront%C3%AB%2Cthe+Miss+Bront%C3%ABs&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3>
The graph is clear-cut at the beginning, but shows some latter-day confusion. (Our world is well on its way to Hell in a handcart.)
Confusion could arise with certain names if they were pluralised -
Jenkin could no longer be distinguished from Jenkins, for instance.
What's right for Doctor Jenkin is right for Doctor Who.
Le 01/08/2026 |a 00:10, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro a |-crit :
So, is rCLDoctors WhorCY the accepted plural, rather than rCLDoctor WhosrCY?
I'd go with 'Doctors Who' for the plural. Cf.:
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+Misses+Bront%C3%AB%2Cthe+Miss+Bront%C3%ABs&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3>
The graph is clear-cut at the beginning, but shows some latter-day
confusion. (Our world is well on its way to Hell in a handcart.)
Confusion could arise with certain names if they were pluralised -
Jenkin could no longer be distinguished from Jenkins, for instance.
What's right for Doctor Jenkin is right for Doctor Who.
The Regeneration didn't happen on screen, but didn't the
Time Lord Council mention that Cardinal Barousa had just
recently regenerated in, "The Five Doctors"?
On 01/08/26 17:15, Hibou wrote:
Le 01/08/2026 |a 00:10, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro a |-crit :
So, is rCLDoctors WhorCY the accepted plural, rather than rCLDoctor WhosrCY?
I'd go with 'Doctors Who' for the plural. Cf.:
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?
content=the+Misses+Bront%C3%AB%2Cthe+Miss+Bront%C3%ABs&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3>
The graph is clear-cut at the beginning, but shows some latter-day
confusion. (Our world is well on its way to Hell in a handcart.)
Confusion could arise with certain names if they were pluralised -
Jenkin could no longer be distinguished from Jenkins, for instance.
What's right for Doctor Jenkin is right for Doctor Who.
Except that Dr Who wasn't his name. He was just "The Doctor". The "Who"
part only occurred in the series title.
On 01/08/26 17:15, Hibou wrote:
Le 01/08/2026 |a 00:10, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro a |-crit :
So, is rCLDoctors WhorCY the accepted plural, rather than
rCLDoctor WhosrCY?
I'd go with 'Doctors Who' for the plural. Cf.:
The graph is clear-cut at the beginning, but shows some
latter-day confusion. (Our world is well on its way to Hell
in a handcart.)
Confusion could arise with certain names if they were
pluralised - Jenkin could no longer be distinguished from
Jenkins, for instance. What's right for Doctor Jenkin is
right for Doctor Who.
Except that Dr Who wasn't his name. He was just "The Doctor".
The "Who" part only occurred in the series title.
Hornplayer9599 wrote:
The Regeneration didn't happen on screen, but didn't the
Time Lord Council mention that Cardinal Barousa had just
recently regenerated in, "The Five Doctors"?
Yes, which explained the change in actor.
On 01/08/26 17:15, Hibou wrote:
Le 01/08/2026 |a 00:10, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro a |-crit :
So, is rCLDoctors WhorCY the accepted plural, rather than rCLDoctor WhosrCY?
I'd go with 'Doctors Who' for the plural. Cf.:
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+Misses+Bront%C3%AB%2Cthe+Miss+Bront%C3%ABs&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3>
The graph is clear-cut at the beginning, but shows some latter-day
confusion. (Our world is well on its way to Hell in a handcart.)
Confusion could arise with certain names if they were pluralised -
Jenkin could no longer be distinguished from Jenkins, for instance.
What's right for Doctor Jenkin is right for Doctor Who.
Except that Dr Who wasn't his name. He was just "The Doctor". The "Who"
part only occurred in the series title.
And with Jenkins, the Doctors Jenkins is, I think, cleaner than the
Doctor Jenkinses.
Peter Moylan formulated the question :
Except that Dr Who wasn't his name. He was just "The Doctor". The
"Who" part only occurred in the series title.
4th Doctor: "I'm the Doctor"
Local Official: "Who?"
4th Doctor: "Yes"
(One of the Key To Time series, IIRC)
On Sat, 01 Aug 2026 11:54:44 -0700, Snidely wrote:
Peter Moylan formulated the question :
Except that Dr Who wasn't his name. He was just "The Doctor".
The "Who" part only occurred in the series title.
4th Doctor: "I'm the Doctor" Local Official: "Who?" 4th Doctor:
"Yes"
(One of the Key To Time series, IIRC)
Was it ever explained, Doctor of what?
There are some who would say that only those with an MD can
legitimately call themselves rCLDoctorrCY, everybody else, with
non-medical degrees, should use some other term instead ...
On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 08:38:49 +0100, Hibou wrote:
And with Jenkins, the Doctors Jenkins is, I think, cleaner than the
Doctor Jenkinses.
Ah, now, this becomes an excuse to segue into another, entirely
unrelated, one of my pet peeves.
I think your use of the singular in the above has to do with the role
of the word as an adjective: qualifying the type of rCLDoctorrCY you are >referring to as specifically those named rCLJenkinsrCY.
This is a common usage in other contexts: e.g. a rCLcar parkrCY would >typically cater for more than one car; a rCLtoothbrushrCY is normally used
to brush more than one tooth, and so on.
However, there are one or two CompSci terms that violate this
convention. E.g. rCLmulti-mediarCY (or rCLmultimediarCY) instead of >rCLmulti-mediumrCY (or rCLmultimediumrCY, and rCLdata-baserCY (or rCLdatabaserCY)
instead of rCLdatum-baserCY (or rCLdatumbaserCY).
In short, I want my multimedium datumbase!
The medical meaning, which came a little later, was an extension of
this.
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 11:18:12 +1000, Peter Moylan wrote:
The medical meaning, which came a little later, was an extension
of this.
This was also a time, I gather, when rCLdoctorsrCY considered it beneath themselves to perform surgery. Instead, that was left to the
barbers.
There is still a tradition, in Britain and elsewhere, to refer to
surgeons as rCLMisterrCYr++ rather than rCLDoctorrCY. This in spite of the fact that you would have to qualify as a GP first before becoming a specialist surgeon.
r++Not sure how they refer to women surgeons--
On 02/08/26 13:49, Lawrence DAOliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 11:18:12 +1000, Peter Moylan wrote:
The medical meaning, which came a little later, was an extension
of this.
This was also a time, I gather, when odoctorso considered it beneath
themselves to perform surgery. Instead, that was left to the
barbers.
Surgery could get a bit messy. Not something a gentleman should get his
hands dirty with. Besides, barbers already had the skill of working with >sharp blades.
There is still a tradition, in Britain and elsewhere, to refer to
surgeons as oMistero? rather than oDoctoro. This in spite of the
fact that you would have to qualify as a GP first before becoming a
specialist surgeon.
What title should we use that outranks "Doctor". Hmm, let's see ...
Meanwhile, the universities had to come up with something that was
higher than PhD. How about "Bachelor of giving a donation to the
university"? No, doesn't have the right ring to it. I know! Let's try
"FIFA Peace Prize".
This is a common usage in other contexts: e.g. a rCLcar parkrCY would typically cater for more than one car; a rCLtoothbrushrCY is normally used
to brush more than one tooth, and so on.
However, there are one or two CompSci terms that violate this
convention. E.g. rCLmulti-mediarCY (or rCLmultimediarCY) instead of rCLmulti-mediumrCY (or rCLmultimediumrCY, and rCLdata-baserCY (or rCLdatabaserCY)
instead of rCLdatum-baserCY (or rCLdatumbaserCY).
In short, I want my multimedium datumbase! [...]
What title should we use that outranks "Doctor". [...]
Le 02/08/2026 |a 05:29, Peter Moylan a |-crit :
What title should we use that outranks "Doctor". [...]
Dr Who is a Time Lord. I suppose one could call him Lord Who of
Gallifrey and nowhen (or something).
How about inflecting him for case? I spoke to Dr Whom? (Like all of us,
he already has a genitive form: Dr Who's.)
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 14:29:14 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 02/08/26 13:49, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 11:18:12 +1000, Peter Moylan wrote:
The medical meaning, which came a little later, was an extension
of this.
This was also a time, I gather, when rCLdoctorsrCY considered it beneath >>> themselves to perform surgery. Instead, that was left to the
barbers.
Surgery could get a bit messy. Not something a gentleman should get his
hands dirty with. Besides, barbers already had the skill of working with
sharp blades.
There is still a tradition, in Britain and elsewhere, to refer to
surgeons as rCLMisterrCY? rather than rCLDoctorrCY. This in spite of the >>> fact that you would have to qualify as a GP first before becoming a
specialist surgeon.
What title should we use that outranks "Doctor". Hmm, let's see ...
Meanwhile, the universities had to come up with something that was
higher than PhD. How about "Bachelor of giving a donation to the
university"? No, doesn't have the right ring to it. I know! Let's try
"FIFA Peace Prize".
Now that I think about it they've never had a Time Lord adopting the
academic title "The Bachelor", a term which also fits a significant proportion of the fanbase.
However, there are one or two CompSci terms that violate this
convention. E.g. rCLmulti-mediarCY (or rCLmultimediarCY) instead of rCLmulti-mediumrCY (or rCLmultimediumrCY, and rCLdata-baserCY (or rCLdatabaserCY)
instead of rCLdatum-baserCY (or rCLdatumbaserCY).
On 02/08/26 10:09, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2026 11:54:44 -0700, Snidely wrote:
Peter Moylan formulated the question :
Except that Dr Who wasn't his name. He was just "The Doctor".
The "Who" part only occurred in the series title.
4th Doctor: "I'm the Doctor" Local Official: "Who?" 4th Doctor:
"Yes"
(One of the Key To Time series, IIRC)
Was it ever explained, Doctor of what?
There are some who would say that only those with an MD can
legitimately call themselves "Doctor", everybody else, with
non-medical degrees, should use some other term instead ...
"Doctor" comes the the Latin for "teacher" or "scholar". It appeared in English in about 1300 AD with the primary meaning of religious teacher, doctor of the church. Later in that century it came to mean the highest qualification in a university, a meaning that it has retained to this
day. The medical meaning, which came a little later, was an extension of this.
It takes about the same length of study to become a Bachelor or Medicine
as it does to become a Doctor of Philosophy, so the traditional doctors
have no objection to medicos adopting the title.
Den 02.08.2026 kl. 02.06 skrev Lawrence DrCOOliveiro:
However, there are one or two CompSci terms that violate this
convention. E.g. rCLmulti-mediarCY (or rCLmultimediarCY) instead of
rCLmulti-mediumrCY (or rCLmultimediumrCY, and rCLdata-baserCY (or rCLdatabaserCY)
instead of rCLdatum-baserCY (or rCLdatumbaserCY).
I'll give you "multi-medium" though one often has several in mind, but a database containing only one datum is quite a rare thing and usually a temporary condition.
Le 02/08/2026 |a 10:44, Bertel Lund Hansen a |-crit :
Den 02.08.2026 kl. 02.06 skrev Lawrence DrCOOliveiro:
However, there are one or two CompSci terms that violate this
convention. E.g. rCLmulti-mediarCY (or rCLmultimediarCY) instead of
rCLmulti-mediumrCY (or rCLmultimediumrCY, and rCLdata-baserCY (or rCLdatabaserCY)
instead of rCLdatum-baserCY (or rCLdatumbaserCY).
I'll give you "multi-medium" though one often has several in mind, but a database containing only one datum is quite a rare thing and usually a temporary condition.
A bit like a car park, then?
Once upon a time, we had Purchase Tax. Now we have sales taxes.
Singular, plural.
It's the exceptions that give the rule a hard time.
Hibou posted:
Once upon a time, we had Purchase Tax. Now we have sales taxes.
Singular, plural.
Purchases Tax would be a bit of a mouthful
Dr Who is a Time Lord. I suppose one could call him Lord Who of
Gallifrey and nowhen (or something).
Presumably The Master was less highly qualified than The Doctor.
There are exceptions in normal English, too: sports jacket, savings
account, arms race, customs official, sales tax, clothes basket, arts
degree, media frenzyrCa.
Arguably, 'data' is becoming invariable in number (though I'd be
surprised to hear someone say "a data"):
Anyway, being skilled in writing Python etc. doesn't mean one is
skilled in writing English.
I'll give you "multi-medium" though one often has several in mind,
but a database containing only one datum is quite a rare thing and
usually a temporary condition.
Speaking of which: is zero a singular or a plural?
Obvious:
rCLWe donrCOt have any bananas today.rCY
vs
rCLWe donrCOt have any banana today.rCY
Not so obvious:
rCLNone of these components are fit for the job.rCY
vs
rCLNone of these components is fit for the job.rCY
Speaking of which: is zero a singular or a plural?
Obvious:
rCLWe donrCOt have any bananas today.rCY
rCLWe donrCOt have any banana today.rCY
Not so obvious:
rCLNone of these components are fit for the job.rCY
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 75 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 09:32:12 |
| Calls: | 1,199 |
| Files: | 1,356 |
| D/L today: |
14 files (10,808K bytes) |
| Messages: | 296,332 |