The motivation is irrelevant; the methodology is the problem.
You can't just say it's irrelevant when I was responding to your declaration that I had a "desired" conclusion. I was refuting the "desired" part.
Not entirely, because it's been established that the Time War altered history extensively -- that the two sides kept going back in time and altering events to turn defeats into victories and so on, waging the same battles over and over. And though RTD left it ambiguous, Moffat established right off the bat that the history of the Doctor Who universe is mutable, and that major events from the RTD era like the Cyber King's rampage and the Dalek theft of Earth could be completely wiped from the timeline.
So since it was a Time War, it's entirely possible (under the very flexible temporal physics and logic of the Who-verse) that it was waged throughout history, that the Time Lords weren't just killed at a certain point in their timeline, but were effectively erased from ever having existed at all.
A good point, but also terribly annoying. I guess Doctor Who
is a show whose fans apparently demand less internal consistency than say, Star Trek
, but as a fan I find the "throw out what's inconvenient" thing to be pretty lazy. And yes, I am well aware of all the contradictions in Trek. It may be impossible to keep a consistent universe, but at least there is (apparently) an effort. If the events of past episodes are now null, there should be due consideration for how these things played out, and even why this change would have taken place. If Earth was never stolen, does that mean Mickey and Martha never met? What change did the Eleventh Doctor make so that these things didn't come to pass? That's just the way I like my speculative fiction, I guess.
The Time Lords being wiped from existence doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Many, many aliens have claimed to have heard of them in the modern Who
. Jo specifically references them in "Death of the Doctor." And if the Doctor's race is gone, is the Doctor somebody who just came into existence at some point, sans history, and at what point? We know that various people still had memories of him (Sarah Jane, Jo), others' lives were affected (as mentioned by Sarah Jane in regards to Ian, Barbara, Ben, Polly, Tegan, Ace), and there are records of him, like with UNIT, strongly implying the First through Eighth's adventures did take place.
Then why argue with me when I said she probably wasn't?! Why waste so many posts on it? Just to be annoying?
Initially I was responding to your passive-aggressive statement, which I found annoying. Then I was arguing against your premise that I was supposed to have some pure rhetorical reasoning. Finally, you made other points, and I was discussing them (like the nature of something being unimaginative).