Whould You Buy Monster The Doctor Or Fanta

Which Doctor Who monster is your favorite?

“Don't blink. Don't even blink, blink and you're dead. They are fast, faster than you could believe. Don't turn your back, don't look away, and don't blink.”My favorite is easily the Weeping Angels. They're nearly indestructible. You have to either risk your own destruction for the low chance you could successfully trap them in a circle, looking at each other, or create a time paradox. Both have a slim chance of actually working, as well.So they're almost impossible to fight. Besides that, you can't even defend yourself. To quote the (tenth) Doctor, “In the sight of any living thing, they literally turn to stone. And you can't kill a stone. Of course, a stone can't kill you either. But then you turn your head away. Then you blink, and oh yes, it can.” The moment you take your eyes off the thing, you're dead. They have a built-in defense mechanism that's one of the creepiest things I've seen:And you have no counter to it.They don't even directly kill you, but instead they feed off your life potential. To get energy from the life you would've lived, they send you back in time with a single touch and just let you live to death. Of course, it doesn't sound too bad. Right now, that is.You're going to be sent back in time without all the amazing things we have today. Without modern medical technology, you're more likely to die sooner. And there's also your quality of life. Even if you do live, it won't be as good as if you were in your own time. If you’re sent back, you'll be missing whatever you had in your time, whether you're from the 21st or 17th century. You're going to lose something.If you don't particularly care about today's devices, well, you're still losing everyone you know. All your friends and family stay in now, while you travel to then. You're essentially starting over in a new world.All of this is sudden, too. You don't know when you'll be sent to, when it'll happen, or if it'll happen at all. All you know is that it has the potential to occur.And they're even more dangerous when you consider “That which holds the image of an angel becomes itself an angel.” The picture I pasted above? Angel. Don't touch your computer screen. And don't blink.Beware the angels.(“You think you'll come back to life?”“When don't I?”)

What would happen in Doctor Who if a monster existed that had the abilities of both Weeping Angels, and the Silence?

Everyone Dies.™Well, maybe not. But I've always wanted to use that. Also, if the monster is malicious, lots more people die. Lets reason this out and decide if anyone gets out alive.Let's assume they have both the powers and limitations.You see the monster. Oh no! Don't blink. Blink and you're dead.Everyone Blinks.™When you do, just for a second, you forget. Hey. What is that thing right there? You forget not to blink. You're dead.Now remember the angels kill by sending you back in time. Not a very efficient method, is it?The Silence kill you with flashy death beams. That seems straight forward.If the monsters use the Silence death beams to kill, and they're evil enough to commit genocide, we'd better hope the Doctor is in the zone. But wait. There's more.The Silence are able to give suggestions as well. And I don't think the Doc would be able to pull off the “You should kill us all on sight” trick with this new monster. Even then, the second you blink or look away, you forget that there's anything that needs killing.We're in trouble. And even moreso if they send people back in time. If that's the case, with the Silence's powers, there would be little to stop massive amounts of people back in time.So many people going back in time with no memory of how they got there is a problem. Especially with nobody to put a stop to it. Even moreso if these monsters are numerous and with a mind for destruction.We're talking time paradoxes. Plenty of them. Perhaps enough to cause a disruption on the scale of The Wedding of River Song.Time breaks. Stars fall. Every time the Doctor tries to save us, a blink means forgetting, followed by a time jump at best or a death beam.And Everyone Dies.™(Thanks for the A2A, Albin.)

Which is the scariest monster/species in Doctor Who?

Weeping angels sure are creepy as hell but at least they let you live out your remaining years sometime in the past.Also, The Angels Take Manhattan kind of took away much of their uncanny appeal. (The Time of Angels / Flesh and Stone already felt like a bit of an overkill but that NY episode really ruined the weeping angels for me.)So, in the new series, vashta nerada takes the cake. It's greatly due to the combination of motifs specific to that story (and I'm not sure I'd find them quite as scary in another setting) - walking spacesuits with empty eye sockets staring out of them, endless re-iterations of a single sentence - and the whole damn idea of "ghosting", which, frankly, is ten times creepier than any other thing Moff has written for this show. It just resonates with me very, very strongly.Or maybe it's that thing from Midnight... Kudos to Lesley Sharp, because her acting is a huge contributing factor here. And there is of course the mystery surrounding that entity - and the way RTD managed to turn a 'knock knock' joke into a fucking nightmare...:-) The Entity of course is not the true monster of the story, people are - but Sky, taken over by the Entity, silent, observing and focused, lurking in the background - one of the creepiest things I've seen in that show.Midnight is a *gem* of an episode.EDIT!And after listening to Dark Eyes, I gotta add the Eminence and its infinity warriors to the list. Walking dead, mad scientists, intelligent gas clouds or the idea of contamination/possession are not new of course - but at Big Finish they took all these, tossed in some pretty excellent voice acting and created one of the scariest DW adversaries ever. The Eminence creeps me out like few other DW monsters do.Not familiar enough with classic who, unfortunately.

Has anyone really seen a Loch Ness monster before?

Yes. There have been thousands of people who have claimed to have “really” seen the Loch Ness Monster.It is likely a percentage of those claims are mistaken or hoaxes. But not all claims can be easily dismissed. In the 1950s a medical doctor named Constance Whyte spent many years tracking down over 200 witnesses and interviewing them. She felt many of these people had “integrity” and no reason to hoax or lie about what they saw. When you think about it, 200 witnesses is quite a large number! Add to that, many of witnesses were not alone but were a part of “multi-witness” sightings. Some of the witnesses saw the “monster” crawling about on the shore.Constance Whyte’s book is called “More than a Legend” and is recommended reading if you are seriously considering the reality of the Loch Ness Monster.In the 1960s, a scientist named Dr Denys Tucker was sacked from his job as a curator of the Natural History Museum after insisting he saw the monster! There are many fervant skeptics who are “anti-loch ness monster”. I suspect there are many pseudo-skeptics amongst them who will automatically reject any evidence or sighting case you give them.Many will dismiss the idea of the monster because it sounds like something out of Scottish folklore (they have many lake monsters) and many wonder how such a large creature would get enough to eat in the Loch Ness environment. Another good question to ask is, “What is the Loch Ness Monster?”. I think people do “see” the Loch Ness monster but I wonder what it is they are really seeing. For example, it could be a misidentified overgrown eel, or it could be a plesiosaur who has gone thru a time slip, or it could be something supernatural along the lines of the Djinn. There is also the possibility it is an elusive animal that is very shy around humans.Another thing to mention is the best “proof” of the monster is not the iconic 1930′s surgeon’s photo. It was not the first photo taken either. There are a large number of alleged photographs and one even made the cover of the much respected science journal “Nature” in 1975. A film of the purported monster was also taken in 1960 and since that time other video has been shot. So there is “evidence” but the validity of the evidence is always called into question.Also see: 2017 has been a 'record year' for sightings of the Loch Ness monster

Can a doctor easily buy a gaming console?

The obvious answer : yes. $400 for a ps4 pro wouldn't make a dent into a doctor's wallet.And now we must think of reality. The long exhausting hours of speaking with patients and higher ups. The amount of walking an average doctor does, especially if they work at a hospital. You work a 16 hour shift because you're needed to. You have lives to save.Finally after a long day of work you come home. How much it kills you on the inside, knowing full well that you must be well rested to make clear and accurate decisions for the better of your patients. So rather than firing up that brand new ps4, you eat a filling well rounded dinner and head straight to bed.The cycle repeats until 1 day everything goes right for once. All your patients are treated, no emergency admissions, you've done all your paperwork. You leave on time and get home reasonably early. Finally you have a chance to launch up the console and fire up a game.Tl;dr yes but they'd have little to no time to actually enjoy it.

Would Frankenstein's monster be classified as a zombie?

Not at all. Zombie myths are originally to do with slavery: zombies were supposed to be obedient to the shamanistic individual who put them under a spell. Frankenstein’s creature is about the elan vital, the spark that might give the appearance of human life, but cannot create the human soul: no surprise that Mary Shelley’s tale coincided with a period of scientific exploration of the nature of electricity (eg Benjamin Franklin, galvanism) and was written in a summer of violent thunderstorms during a sojourn on Lake Geneva, in a period when the European climate was seriously affected by the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in the Dutch East Indies. Subtitled “The New Prometheus”, the tale expresses anxieties about the mechanistic application of scientific knowledge at a moment when the frontiers of science were expanding at (to Mary Shelley) an alarming, perhaps limitless rate.