Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-3999524-20141211184047/@comment-3999524-20141212061018

I did see your quotes, and I disagree with your interpretation of them. And they weren't even accurate. It doesn't say he can't regenerate, it says that regeneration wouldn't be able to save him from death. Since he's not dead, the "omniscient" narrator is obviously unreliable, so my original point still stands that there very well could have been a regeneration. As for the "when does regeneration mean incarnation instead of regeneration?", that's entirely subjective and open for debate, so, again, isn't supported within the text and is a semantics/intent debate that leaves the matter neither definitive or unambiguous.

Beevers is the same incarnation as Pratt, so saying that he's one of the "Two and a half" bodies means that so is Pratt, and therefor that Pratt and Delgado are different bodies; IE: different incarnations.

I made misinformed statements about the Deadly Assassin novelization, yes. Since the novelizations had already been dismissed from the debate, I'm not sure what your point is though in regards to that fact.

At no time did I ever say that there was an incarnation between Delgado and Pratt, just that Delgado and Pratt are the different incarnations. I still think the evidence supports that there was a regeneration after Susan blew up his device in his face. The "Two and a Half Bodies" line is from the Eighth Doctor, talking about how many incarnations of the character he's run into since Delgado, being Pratt/Beevers, Ainley, and Roberts. I think there's been a misunderstanding somewhere on your part over what I'm trying to say.

Finally, what is the wiki's policy in regards to newer sources contradicting older ones? I ask due to the fact that An Earthly Child (and other audios) renders much of Legacy of the Daleks no longer in continuity, so am wondering how much of the book can be taken as "fact" since there's now new continuity in play.

Cousin Zagreus ☎  06:10, December 12, 2014 (UTC)