From Newsgroup: rec.arts.drwho.moderated   
   From Address: jameskuyper@verizon.net   
   Subject: Re: Angels take Manhattan plot holes   
      
   On 10/23/2012 04:21 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:   
   > In article ,   
   > James Kuyper   wrote:   
   >>> -- Regeneration energy to fix River Song?  What?  Really, that was totally   
   out   
   >>> of left field (and raises the question of why the Doctor never did that to   
   >>> help anyone else, including people who were actually dying).   
   >> A) she's his wife. B) his entire current supply of regeneration energy   
   >> (which is apparently sufficient to support at least a couple of   
   >> additional regenerations) came from her; he was appalled that she gave   
   >> it to him, and is looking for excuses to give some of it back.   
   >    
   > That raises its own can of worms: we assumed that the regeneration energy   
   > she gave him was used up.  If it wasn't used up, and all he had to do was   
   > wait until he got well enough that he could give it back, it wasn't even a   
   > sacrifice.   
      
   I never assumed that. I don't have a recording of the episode, so I   
   can't be sure what exactly was said - but my impression was that she   
   gave him all of her regeneration energy, enough for several   
   regenerations. I think it's reasonable to assume that the transfer of   
   regeneration energy is lossy, so that he received less regeneration   
   energy than she lost. A lossy transfer would also explain why she   
   objected to getting some of the energy back; and if we assume it was   
   lossy, it was definitely a sacrifice, even if some of the energy could   
   be returned.   
      
   >> It's a fixed point in time - no matter what you attempt to do to change   
   >> things, something will normally happen to interfere. We've seen what   
   >> happens if you're unfortunate enough to be clever enough to find a way   
   >> to break a fixed point in time.   
   >    
   > What's a fixed point in time?  They didn't know she broke her wrist.  They   
   > knew there was a book where she writes of breaking her wrist.  No reason to   
   > believe she wrote the truth in the book (her name certainly isn't Malone).   
      
   I'd never claim DW is a model of consistency. This episode made it much   
   easier than it should be to create a fixed point in time, and the rules   
   governing such creations are far from clear, and probably inconsistent.   
   But the Doctor said that a fixed point in time had been created, and I   
   don't think there's anyone who's a better authority on such matters than   
   he is. Of course "Rule 1: The Doctor Lies", but there doesn't seem to be   
   a reason for applying Rule 1 in this context.   
      
   > Furthermore, when the Doctor thought that she got out without breaking her   
   > wrist, his reaction wasn't "oh no!  Look what you did!  You violated a   
   > fixed point in time and that'll cause a disaster!"   
      
   Agreed - another inconsistency. That breaking a fixed point would result   
   in the defeat of the Angels, rather than the destruction of time itself,   
   is inconsistent with previous episodes.   
   --    
   James Kuyper   
      
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp   
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (1:2320/105.97)   
   --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux   
    * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)