>> In article <d5c1db42-2851-4709-a45f-1b4afa01a...@ez26g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> In article <51434700-00ec-4429-b8e2-dd404fa51...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> In article <b18c4cde-c6ae-4878-893e-d6427e282...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >Well, Yads, did you have a reason? You seemed to mention them as
>> >> >> >evidence that DW was "dumbing down". I still can't see the
>> >> >> >connection.
>> >> >> Even heard of thinking shift?
>> >> >No. Do you mean "paradigm shift"? If not, what is it, and why is it
>> >> >relevant?
>> >> Remeber unborn children were considered humans before abortion was made
>> >> popular!
>> >Yes, some people did used to make the mistake of thinking of embryos
>> >as humans. But you've got cause and effect muddled up. First science
>> >showed that they weren't fully human yet, and only after then, because
>> >of that, did abortion start to become accepted. (I wouldn't say
>> >'popular,' because hopefully it will never be that.)
>> >See Ross's reply for a fuller history of abortion.
>> >And anyway, what does this have to do with the 'dumbing down' of
>> >Doctor Who?
>> Ross is correct leave it as that.
>So does this mean you're no longer claiming that unwanted pregnancies
>prove DW is dumbing down?
>> >> >> >That's irrelevant. Morality is all about what ought to happen. We're
>> >> >> >discussing what could have happened. Two totally different things.
>> >> >> Wrong; can split up aspects of an argument.
>> >> >Is that even supposed to mean something? How am I wrong? What can
>> >> >spilt up which aspects of whose argument?
>> >> what you said about morality being irrelevant!
>> >Well, _*HOW*_ is it relevant to this specific discussion!?! We're
>> >discussing what _could have_ happened, not what _ought to_ happen.
>> >But even if you do want to shift the goalposts by suddenly bringing
>> >morality into it, how do you know that having babies outside of
>> >marriage is considered immoral by _Gallifreyan_ moral codes?
>> >More importantly, would the Doctor's own, highly anarchic moral code
>> >consider it to be immoral?
>> >> >> >And how does that prove the first Doctor was married?
>> >> >> End of Time the 2 parter that saw the exist of David Tennant ?
>> >> >> --
>> >> >So when you said "From End to time", I was supposed to guess that you
>> >> >actually meant "The End of Time"...?
>> >> >But even if that were the Doctor's mother (and it's far from proven)
>> >> >how does she mean that the first Doctor was married?
>> >> Statement was released.
>> >> --
>> >Who released which statement about what?
>> >The Doctor's mother released a statement about his wife? His wife
>> >about his mother? Both of the about the Doctor?
>> >Come on Yads, say what you mean. Don't keep us guessing.
>> Last of the RTD DWs.
>> --
>Yes, I know what "The End Of Time" is. I just don't recall a scene
>where the Doctor's first wife releases a statement about his mother,
>or vice versa.
Mother is on Gallifrey, maybe the wife is.
>Perhaps you could upload that scene as well as the the ones from "The
>Sensorites". Thanks.
With Susan being a telepath.
-- Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising! http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k USA petition to dissolve the Republic and vote to disoolve it in November 2012
The Doctor wrote:
> In article <5631ca93-fc9e-4987-9ee3-10806b14e...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> In article <d5c1db42-2851-4709-a45f-1b4afa01a...@ez26g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> In article <51434700-00ec-4429-b8e2-dd404fa51...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> In article <b18c4cde-c6ae-4878-893e-d6427e282...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >Well, Yads, did you have a reason? You seemed to mention them as
> >> >> >> >evidence that DW was "dumbing down". I still can't see the
> >> >> >> >connection.
> >> >> >> Even heard of thinking shift?
> >> >> >No. Do you mean "paradigm shift"? If not, what is it, and why is it
> >> >> >relevant?
> >> >> Remeber unborn children were considered humans before abortion was made
> >> >> popular!
> >> >Yes, some people did used to make the mistake of thinking of embryos
> >> >as humans. But you've got cause and effect muddled up. First science
> >> >showed that they weren't fully human yet, and only after then, because
> >> >of that, did abortion start to become accepted. (I wouldn't say
> >> >'popular,' because hopefully it will never be that.)
> >> >See Ross's reply for a fuller history of abortion.
> >> >And anyway, what does this have to do with the 'dumbing down' of
> >> >Doctor Who?
> >> Ross is correct leave it as that.
> >So does this mean you're no longer claiming that unwanted pregnancies
> >prove DW is dumbing down?
> Not just DW. Still you brought up the analogy.
No, I didn't bring up any analogy. You brought up dumbing down and
unwanted pregnancies. Was that supposed to be some sort of analogy?
If so, what was it an analogy for?
> >> >> >> >That's irrelevant. Morality is all about what ought to happen. We're
> >> >> >> >discussing what could have happened. Two totally different things.
> >> >> >> Wrong; can split up aspects of an argument.
> >> >> >Is that even supposed to mean something? How am I wrong? What can
> >> >> >spilt up which aspects of whose argument?
> >> >> what you said about morality being irrelevant!
> >> >Well, _*HOW*_ is it relevant to this specific discussion!?! We're
> >> >discussing what _could have_ happened, not what _ought to_ happen.
> >> >But even if you do want to shift the goalposts by suddenly bringing
> >> >morality into it, how do you know that having babies outside of
> >> >marriage is considered immoral by _Gallifreyan_ moral codes?
> >> >More importantly, would the Doctor's own, highly anarchic moral code
> >> >consider it to be immoral?
> >Well?
> Debate it!
I've started the debate by asking the questions. Now it's your turn
to continue the debate by answering them, and asking me some in
return.
> >> >> >> >And how does that prove the first Doctor was married?
> >> >> >> End of Time the 2 parter that saw the exist of David Tennant ?
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >So when you said "From End to time", I was supposed to guess that you
> >> >> >actually meant "The End of Time"...?
> >> >> >But even if that were the Doctor's mother (and it's far from proven)
> >> >> >how does she mean that the first Doctor was married?
> >> >> Statement was released.
> >> >> --
> >> >Who released which statement about what?
> >> >The Doctor's mother released a statement about his wife? His wife
> >> >about his mother? Both of the about the Doctor?
> >> >Come on Yads, say what you mean. Don't keep us guessing.
> >> Last of the RTD DWs.
> >> --
> >Yes, I know what "The End Of Time" is. I just don't recall a scene
> >where the Doctor's first wife releases a statement about his mother,
> >or vice versa.
> Mother is on Gallifrey, maybe the wife is.
We don't know for certain that his mother is on Gallifrey. RTD said
the mysterious woman was supposed to be the Doctor's mother, just like
Hinchcliffe said those "Brain of Morbius" faces were supposed to be
pre-Hartnell incarnations of the Doctor. No-one believed him, so why
should we believe RTD?
Going on the evidence in the actual episode, the woman could just as
easily be Susan, or Romana, or the Doctor's girlfriend, or the
Doctor's father following a cross-gender regeneration, or (my current
favourite theory) a future incarnation of the Doctor himself following
a cross-gender regeneration.
But even if it was the Doctor's mother, that still doesn't mean the
first Doctor ever had a wife at all. Lots of people have mothers but
not wives.
> >Perhaps you could upload that scene as well as the the ones from "The
> >Sensorites". Thanks.
> With Susan being a telepath.
> --
And with an _explanation_ of how telepathy works, preferably with
reference to genes and DNA. That was the original context of the
discussion, remember?
>> In article <5631ca93-fc9e-4987-9ee3-10806b14e...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> In article <d5c1db42-2851-4709-a45f-1b4afa01a...@ez26g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> In article <51434700-00ec-4429-b8e2-dd404fa51...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> >> In article <b18c4cde-c6ae-4878-893e-d6427e282...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >Well, Yads, did you have a reason? You seemed to mention them as
>> >> >> >> >evidence that DW was "dumbing down". I still can't see the
>> >> >> >> >connection.
>> >> >> >> Even heard of thinking shift?
>> >> >> >No. Do you mean "paradigm shift"? If not, what is it, and why is it
>> >> >> >relevant?
>> >> >> Remeber unborn children were considered humans before abortion was made
>> >> >> popular!
>> >> >Yes, some people did used to make the mistake of thinking of embryos
>> >> >as humans. But you've got cause and effect muddled up. First science
>> >> >showed that they weren't fully human yet, and only after then, because
>> >> >of that, did abortion start to become accepted. (I wouldn't say
>> >> >'popular,' because hopefully it will never be that.)
>> >> >See Ross's reply for a fuller history of abortion.
>> >> >And anyway, what does this have to do with the 'dumbing down' of
>> >> >Doctor Who?
>> >> Ross is correct leave it as that.
>> >So does this mean you're no longer claiming that unwanted pregnancies
>> >prove DW is dumbing down?
>> Not just DW. Still you brought up the analogy.
>No, I didn't bring up any analogy. You brought up dumbing down and
>unwanted pregnancies. Was that supposed to be some sort of analogy?
>If so, what was it an analogy for?
>> >> >> >> >That's irrelevant. Morality is all about what ought to happen. We're
>> >> >> >> >discussing what could have happened. Two totally different things.
>> >> >> >> Wrong; can split up aspects of an argument.
>> >> >> >Is that even supposed to mean something? How am I wrong? What can
>> >> >> >spilt up which aspects of whose argument?
>> >> >> what you said about morality being irrelevant!
>> >> >Well, _*HOW*_ is it relevant to this specific discussion!?! We're
>> >> >discussing what _could have_ happened, not what _ought to_ happen.
>> >> >But even if you do want to shift the goalposts by suddenly bringing
>> >> >morality into it, how do you know that having babies outside of
>> >> >marriage is considered immoral by _Gallifreyan_ moral codes?
>> >> >More importantly, would the Doctor's own, highly anarchic moral code
>> >> >consider it to be immoral?
>> >Well?
>> Debate it!
>I've started the debate by asking the questions. Now it's your turn
>to continue the debate by answering them, and asking me some in
>return.
>> >> >> >> >> From End to time.
>> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >From which end?
>> >> >> >> >And to which time?
>> >> >> >> >And how does that prove the first Doctor was married?
>> >> >> >> End of Time the 2 parter that saw the exist of David Tennant ?
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >So when you said "From End to time", I was supposed to guess that you
>> >> >> >actually meant "The End of Time"...?
>> >> >> >But even if that were the Doctor's mother (and it's far from proven)
>> >> >> >how does she mean that the first Doctor was married?
>> >> >> Statement was released.
>> >> >> --
>> >> >Who released which statement about what?
>> >> >The Doctor's mother released a statement about his wife? His wife
>> >> >about his mother? Both of the about the Doctor?
>> >> >Come on Yads, say what you mean. Don't keep us guessing.
>> >> Last of the RTD DWs.
>> >> --
>> >Yes, I know what "The End Of Time" is. I just don't recall a scene
>> >where the Doctor's first wife releases a statement about his mother,
>> >or vice versa.
>> Mother is on Gallifrey, maybe the wife is.
>We don't know for certain that his mother is on Gallifrey. RTD said
>the mysterious woman was supposed to be the Doctor's mother, just like
>Hinchcliffe said those "Brain of Morbius" faces were supposed to be
>pre-Hartnell incarnations of the Doctor. No-one believed him, so why
>should we believe RTD?
>Going on the evidence in the actual episode, the woman could just as
>easily be Susan, or Romana, or the Doctor's girlfriend, or the
>Doctor's father following a cross-gender regeneration, or (my current
>favourite theory) a future incarnation of the Doctor himself following
>a cross-gender regeneration.
>But even if it was the Doctor's mother, that still doesn't mean the
>first Doctor ever had a wife at all. Lots of people have mothers but
>not wives.
Go back to the moarilty of this question.
>> >Perhaps you could upload that scene as well as the the ones from "The
>> >Sensorites". Thanks.
>> With Susan being a telepath.
>> --
>And with an _explanation_ of how telepathy works, preferably with
>reference to genes and DNA. That was the original context of the
>discussion, remember?
Yes I can. and in the Sensorites the Doctor does
explain it is back of his society's natural development.
-- Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising! http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k USA petition to dissolve the Republic and vote to disoolve it in November 2012
The Doctor wrote:
> In article <f34402c9-112b-42e1-a8bd-389321375...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> In article <5631ca93-fc9e-4987-9ee3-10806b14e...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> In article <d5c1db42-2851-4709-a45f-1b4afa01a...@ez26g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> In article <51434700-00ec-4429-b8e2-dd404fa51...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> >> In article <b18c4cde-c6ae-4878-893e-d6427e282...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >Well, Yads, did you have a reason? You seemed to mention them as
> >> >> >> >> >evidence that DW was "dumbing down". I still can't see the
> >> >> >> >> >connection.
> >> >> >> >> Even heard of thinking shift?
> >> >> >> >No. Do you mean "paradigm shift"? If not, what is it, and why is it
> >> >> >> >relevant?
> >> >> >> Remeber unborn children were considered humans before abortion was made
> >> >> >> popular!
> >> >> >Yes, some people did used to make the mistake of thinking of embryos
> >> >> >as humans. But you've got cause and effect muddled up. First science
> >> >> >showed that they weren't fully human yet, and only after then, because
> >> >> >of that, did abortion start to become accepted. (I wouldn't say
> >> >> >'popular,' because hopefully it will never be that.)
> >> >> >See Ross's reply for a fuller history of abortion.
> >> >> >And anyway, what does this have to do with the 'dumbing down' of
> >> >> >Doctor Who?
> >> >> Ross is correct leave it as that.
> >> >So does this mean you're no longer claiming that unwanted pregnancies
> >> >prove DW is dumbing down?
> >> Not just DW. Still you brought up the analogy.
> >No, I didn't bring up any analogy. You brought up dumbing down and
> >unwanted pregnancies. Was that supposed to be some sort of analogy?
> >If so, what was it an analogy for?
> You introduced the word abortion not me.
Only because that's the standard way of dealing with an unwanted
pregnancy. And _you_ introduced the topic of unwanted pregnancies,
and I'm still trying to work out why!
> >> >> >> >> >That's irrelevant. Morality is all about what ought to happen. We're
> >> >> >> >> >discussing what could have happened. Two totally different things.
> >> >> >> >> Wrong; can split up aspects of an argument.
> >> >> >> >Is that even supposed to mean something? How am I wrong? What can
> >> >> >> >spilt up which aspects of whose argument?
> >> >> >> what you said about morality being irrelevant!
> >> >> >Well, _*HOW*_ is it relevant to this specific discussion!?! We're
> >> >> >discussing what _could have_ happened, not what _ought to_ happen.
> >> >> >But even if you do want to shift the goalposts by suddenly bringing
> >> >> >morality into it, how do you know that having babies outside of
> >> >> >marriage is considered immoral by _Gallifreyan_ moral codes?
> >> >> >More importantly, would the Doctor's own, highly anarchic moral code
> >> >> >consider it to be immoral?
> >> >Well?
> >> Debate it!
> >I've started the debate by asking the questions. Now it's your turn
> >to continue the debate by answering them, and asking me some in
> >return.
> >> >> >> >> >> From End to time.
> >> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> >From which end?
> >> >> >> >> >And to which time?
> >> >> >> >> >And how does that prove the first Doctor was married?
> >> >> >> >> End of Time the 2 parter that saw the exist of David Tennant ?
> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >So when you said "From End to time", I was supposed to guess that you
> >> >> >> >actually meant "The End of Time"...?
> >> >> >> >But even if that were the Doctor's mother (and it's far from proven)
> >> >> >> >how does she mean that the first Doctor was married?
> >> >> >> Statement was released.
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >Who released which statement about what?
> >> >> >The Doctor's mother released a statement about his wife? His wife
> >> >> >about his mother? Both of the about the Doctor?
> >> >> >Come on Yads, say what you mean. Don't keep us guessing.
> >> >> Last of the RTD DWs.
> >> >> --
> >> >Yes, I know what "The End Of Time" is. I just don't recall a scene
> >> >where the Doctor's first wife releases a statement about his mother,
> >> >or vice versa.
> >> Mother is on Gallifrey, maybe the wife is.
> >We don't know for certain that his mother is on Gallifrey. RTD said
> >the mysterious woman was supposed to be the Doctor's mother, just like
> >Hinchcliffe said those "Brain of Morbius" faces were supposed to be
> >pre-Hartnell incarnations of the Doctor. No-one believed him, so why
> >should we believe RTD?
> >Going on the evidence in the actual episode, the woman could just as
> >easily be Susan, or Romana, or the Doctor's girlfriend, or the
> >Doctor's father following a cross-gender regeneration, or (my current
> >favourite theory) a future incarnation of the Doctor himself following
> >a cross-gender regeneration.
> >But even if it was the Doctor's mother, that still doesn't mean the
> >first Doctor ever had a wife at all. Lots of people have mothers but
> >not wives.
> Go back to the moarilty of this question.
Which question? I've asked you several in this thread, and you
haven't answered any!
And you still haven't explained how morality is relevant to this
discussion. After all, the Doctor (or his mother) may have acted in a
manner that you personally consider immoral, but that wouldn't change
what he did.
> >> >Perhaps you could upload that scene as well as the the ones from "The
> >> >Sensorites". Thanks.
> >> With Susan being a telepath.
> >> --
> >And with an _explanation_ of how telepathy works, preferably with
> >reference to genes and DNA. That was the original context of the
> >discussion, remember?
> Yes I can. and in the Sensorites the Doctor does
> explain it is back of his society's natural development.
> --
OK. I'm looking forward to seeing it when you've uploaded it.
>> In article <f34402c9-112b-42e1-a8bd-389321375...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> In article <5631ca93-fc9e-4987-9ee3-10806b14e...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> In article <d5c1db42-2851-4709-a45f-1b4afa01a...@ez26g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> >> In article <51434700-00ec-4429-b8e2-dd404fa51...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> In article <b18c4cde-c6ae-4878-893e-d6427e282...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >Well, Yads, did you have a reason? You seemed to mention them as
>> >> >> >> >> >evidence that DW was "dumbing down". I still can't see the
>> >> >> >> >> >connection.
>> >> >> >> >> Even heard of thinking shift?
>> >> >> >> >No. Do you mean "paradigm shift"? If not, what is it, and why is it
>> >> >> >> >relevant?
>> >> >> >> Remeber unborn children were considered humans before abortion was made
>> >> >> >> popular!
>> >> >> >Yes, some people did used to make the mistake of thinking of embryos
>> >> >> >as humans. But you've got cause and effect muddled up. First science
>> >> >> >showed that they weren't fully human yet, and only after then, because
>> >> >> >of that, did abortion start to become accepted. (I wouldn't say
>> >> >> >'popular,' because hopefully it will never be that.)
>> >> >> >See Ross's reply for a fuller history of abortion.
>> >> >> >And anyway, what does this have to do with the 'dumbing down' of
>> >> >> >Doctor Who?
>> >> >> Ross is correct leave it as that.
>> >> >So does this mean you're no longer claiming that unwanted pregnancies
>> >> >prove DW is dumbing down?
>> >> Not just DW. Still you brought up the analogy.
>> >No, I didn't bring up any analogy. You brought up dumbing down and
>> >unwanted pregnancies. Was that supposed to be some sort of analogy?
>> >If so, what was it an analogy for?
>> You introduced the word abortion not me.
>Only because that's the standard way of dealing with an unwanted
>pregnancy. And _you_ introduced the topic of unwanted pregnancies,
>and I'm still trying to work out why!
And you wonder why I think you are warped due to propagandial shifting.
>> >> >> >> >> >That's irrelevant. Morality is all about what ought to happen. We're
>> >> >> >> >> >discussing what could have happened. Two totally different things.
>> >> >> >> >> Wrong; can split up aspects of an argument.
>> >> >> >> >Is that even supposed to mean something? How am I wrong? What can
>> >> >> >> >spilt up which aspects of whose argument?
>> >> >> >> what you said about morality being irrelevant!
>> >> >> >Well, _*HOW*_ is it relevant to this specific discussion!?! We're
>> >> >> >discussing what _could have_ happened, not what _ought to_ happen.
>> >> >> >But even if you do want to shift the goalposts by suddenly bringing
>> >> >> >morality into it, how do you know that having babies outside of
>> >> >> >marriage is considered immoral by _Gallifreyan_ moral codes?
>> >> >> >More importantly, would the Doctor's own, highly anarchic moral code
>> >> >> >consider it to be immoral?
>> >> >Well?
>> >> Debate it!
>> >I've started the debate by asking the questions. Now it's your turn
>> >to continue the debate by answering them, and asking me some in
>> >return.
>> >> >> >Who released which statement about what?
>> >> >> >The Doctor's mother released a statement about his wife? His wife
>> >> >> >about his mother? Both of the about the Doctor?
>> >> >> >Come on Yads, say what you mean. Don't keep us guessing.
>> >> >> Last of the RTD DWs.
>> >> >> --
>> >> >Yes, I know what "The End Of Time" is. I just don't recall a scene
>> >> >where the Doctor's first wife releases a statement about his mother,
>> >> >or vice versa.
>> >> Mother is on Gallifrey, maybe the wife is.
>> >We don't know for certain that his mother is on Gallifrey. RTD said
>> >the mysterious woman was supposed to be the Doctor's mother, just like
>> >Hinchcliffe said those "Brain of Morbius" faces were supposed to be
>> >pre-Hartnell incarnations of the Doctor. No-one believed him, so why
>> >should we believe RTD?
>> >Going on the evidence in the actual episode, the woman could just as
>> >easily be Susan, or Romana, or the Doctor's girlfriend, or the
>> >Doctor's father following a cross-gender regeneration, or (my current
>> >favourite theory) a future incarnation of the Doctor himself following
>> >a cross-gender regeneration.
>> >But even if it was the Doctor's mother, that still doesn't mean the
>> >first Doctor ever had a wife at all. Lots of people have mothers but
>> >not wives.
>> Go back to the moarilty of this question.
>Which question? I've asked you several in this thread, and you
>haven't answered any!
>And you still haven't explained how morality is relevant to this
>discussion. After all, the Doctor (or his mother) may have acted in a
>manner that you personally consider immoral, but that wouldn't change
>what he did.
>> >> >Perhaps you could upload that scene as well as the the ones from "The
>> >> >Sensorites". Thanks.
>> >> With Susan being a telepath.
>> >> --
>> >And with an _explanation_ of how telepathy works, preferably with
>> >reference to genes and DNA. That was the original context of the
>> >discussion, remember?
>> Yes I can. and in the Sensorites the Doctor does
>> explain it is back of his society's natural development.
>> --
>OK. I'm looking forward to seeing it when you've uploaded it.
One moment please while I convert from VHS to DVD.
-- Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising! http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k USA petition to dissolve the Republic and vote to disoolve it in November 2012
The Doctor wrote:
> In article <ce8be293-be91-4db0-8a66-b3b127e0e...@p14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> In article <f34402c9-112b-42e1-a8bd-389321375...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> In article <5631ca93-fc9e-4987-9ee3-10806b14e...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> In article <d5c1db42-2851-4709-a45f-1b4afa01a...@ez26g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> >> In article <51434700-00ec-4429-b8e2-dd404fa51...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> In article <b18c4cde-c6ae-4878-893e-d6427e282...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >Well, Yads, did you have a reason? You seemed to mention them as
> >> >> >> >> >> >evidence that DW was "dumbing down". I still can't see the
> >> >> >> >> >> >connection.
> >> >> >> >> >> Even heard of thinking shift?
> >> >> >> >> >No. Do you mean "paradigm shift"? If not, what is it, and why is it
> >> >> >> >> >relevant?
> >> >> >> >> Remeber unborn children were considered humans before abortion was made
> >> >> >> >> popular!
> >> >> >> >Yes, some people did used to make the mistake of thinking of embryos
> >> >> >> >as humans. But you've got cause and effect muddled up. First science
> >> >> >> >showed that they weren't fully human yet, and only after then, because
> >> >> >> >of that, did abortion start to become accepted. (I wouldn't say
> >> >> >> >'popular,' because hopefully it will never be that.)
> >> >> >> >See Ross's reply for a fuller history of abortion.
> >> >> >> >And anyway, what does this have to do with the 'dumbing down' of
> >> >> >> >Doctor Who?
> >> >> >> Ross is correct leave it as that.
> >> >> >So does this mean you're no longer claiming that unwanted pregnancies
> >> >> >prove DW is dumbing down?
> >> >> Not just DW. Still you brought up the analogy.
> >> >No, I didn't bring up any analogy. You brought up dumbing down and
> >> >unwanted pregnancies. Was that supposed to be some sort of analogy?
> >> >If so, what was it an analogy for?
> >> You introduced the word abortion not me.
> >Only because that's the standard way of dealing with an unwanted
> >pregnancy. And _you_ introduced the topic of unwanted pregnancies,
> >and I'm still trying to work out why!
> And you wonder why I think you are warped due to propagandial shifting.
Well, I hadn't wondered that. But since you mention it, do you think
I'm warped due to propagandail shifting? And if so, why?
And, more importantly, what do you think is the standard way of
dealing with an unwanted pregnancy nowadays? If it's not abortion,
then what is it?
And what does any of this have to do with dumbing down DW?
> >> >> >> >> >> >That's irrelevant. Morality is all about what ought to happen. We're
> >> >> >> >> >> >discussing what could have happened. Two totally different things.
> >> >> >> >> >> Wrong; can split up aspects of an argument.
> >> >> >> >> >Is that even supposed to mean something? How am I wrong? What can
> >> >> >> >> >spilt up which aspects of whose argument?
> >> >> >> >> what you said about morality being irrelevant!
> >> >> >> >Well, _*HOW*_ is it relevant to this specific discussion!?! We're
> >> >> >> >discussing what _could have_ happened, not what _ought to_ happen.
> >> >> >> >But even if you do want to shift the goalposts by suddenly bringing
> >> >> >> >morality into it, how do you know that having babies outside of
> >> >> >> >marriage is considered immoral by _Gallifreyan_ moral codes?
> >> >> >> >More importantly, would the Doctor's own, highly anarchic moral code
> >> >> >> >consider it to be immoral?
> >> >> >Well?
> >> >> Debate it!
> >> >I've started the debate by asking the questions. Now it's your turn
> >> >to continue the debate by answering them, and asking me some in
> >> >return.
> >> How archaic is his code?
> >Not very. It's much more anarchic than archaic.
> Anarchy implies no order. I argue the opposite.
You're arguing that anarchy implies order? After all, that is the
opposite of "Anarchy implies order."
And yes, you could argue that if you want, since anarchy doesn't
necessarily imply no order. It implies no leaders, no artificially
imposed order. It can allow for a natural order to emerge naturally
from the chaos, or so its supporters claim.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> From End to time.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> >> >From which end?
> >> >> >> >> >> >And to which time?
> >> >> >> >> >> >And how does that prove the first Doctor was married?
> >> >> >> >> >> End of Time the 2 parter that saw the exist of David Tennant ?
> >> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> >So when you said "From End to time", I was supposed to guess that you
> >> >> >> >> >actually meant "The End of Time"...?
> >> >> >> >> >But even if that were the Doctor's mother (and it's far from proven)
> >> >> >> >> >how does she mean that the first Doctor was married?
> >> >> >> >Who released which statement about what?
> >> >> >> >The Doctor's mother released a statement about his wife? His wife
> >> >> >> >about his mother? Both of the about the Doctor?
> >> >> >> >Come on Yads, say what you mean. Don't keep us guessing.
> >> >> >> Last of the RTD DWs.
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >Yes, I know what "The End Of Time" is. I just don't recall a scene
> >> >> >where the Doctor's first wife releases a statement about his mother,
> >> >> >or vice versa.
> >> >> Mother is on Gallifrey, maybe the wife is.
> >> >We don't know for certain that his mother is on Gallifrey. RTD said
> >> >the mysterious woman was supposed to be the Doctor's mother, just like
> >> >Hinchcliffe said those "Brain of Morbius" faces were supposed to be
> >> >pre-Hartnell incarnations of the Doctor. No-one believed him, so why
> >> >should we believe RTD?
> >> >Going on the evidence in the actual episode, the woman could just as
> >> >easily be Susan, or Romana, or the Doctor's girlfriend, or the
> >> >Doctor's father following a cross-gender regeneration, or (my current
> >> >favourite theory) a future incarnation of the Doctor himself following
> >> >a cross-gender regeneration.
> >> >But even if it was the Doctor's mother, that still doesn't mean the
> >> >first Doctor ever had a wife at all. Lots of people have mothers but
> >> >not wives.
> >> Go back to the moarilty of this question.
> >Which question? I've asked you several in this thread, and you
> >haven't answered any!
> >And you still haven't explained how morality is relevant to this
> >discussion. After all, the Doctor (or his mother) may have acted in a
> >manner that you personally consider immoral, but that wouldn't change
> >what he did.
> Opposite sex relationships.
What about them? If Susan is the first Doctor's biological
granddaughter, then there probably were opposite sex relationships in
his life. But that doesn't necessarily mean any of those
relationships involved marriage.
And even if you personally consider that immoral, there's no evidence
that Gallifreyans in general, or the Doctor in particular, would share
your views.
> >> >> >Perhaps you could upload that scene as well as the the ones from "The
> >> >> >Sensorites". Thanks.
> >> >> With Susan being a telepath.
> >> >> --
> >> >And with an _explanation_ of how telepathy works, preferably with
> >> >reference to genes and DNA. That was the original context of the
> >> >discussion, remember?
> >> Yes I can. and in the Sensorites the Doctor does
> >> explain it is back of his society's natural development.
> >> --
> >OK. I'm looking forward to seeing it when you've uploaded it.
> One moment please while I convert from VHS to DVD.
> --
You believe in doing things the long way round, don't you? You
could've bought the DVD in the time it's taken you so far!
>The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <ce8be293-be91-4db0-8a66-b3b127e0e...@p14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> In article <f34402c9-112b-42e1-a8bd-389321375...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> In article <5631ca93-fc9e-4987-9ee3-10806b14e...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> >> In article <d5c1db42-2851-4709-a45f-1b4afa01a...@ez26g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> In article <51434700-00ec-4429-b8e2-dd404fa51...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> In article <b18c4cde-c6ae-4878-893e-d6427e282...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Well, Yads, did you have a reason? You seemed to mention them as
>> >> >> >> >> >> >evidence that DW was "dumbing down". I still can't see the
>> >> >> >> >> >> >connection.
>> >> >> >> >> >> Even heard of thinking shift?
>> >> >> >> >> >No. Do you mean "paradigm shift"? If not, what is it, and why is it
>> >> >> >> >> >relevant?
>> >> >> >> >> Remeber unborn children were considered humans before abortion was made
>> >> >> >> >> popular!
>> >> >> >> >Yes, some people did used to make the mistake of thinking of embryos
>> >> >> >> >as humans. But you've got cause and effect muddled up. First science
>> >> >> >> >showed that they weren't fully human yet, and only after then, because
>> >> >> >> >of that, did abortion start to become accepted. (I wouldn't say
>> >> >> >> >'popular,' because hopefully it will never be that.)
>> >> >> >> >See Ross's reply for a fuller history of abortion.
>> >> >> >> >And anyway, what does this have to do with the 'dumbing down' of
>> >> >> >> >Doctor Who?
>> >> >> >> Ross is correct leave it as that.
>> >> >> >So does this mean you're no longer claiming that unwanted pregnancies
>> >> >> >prove DW is dumbing down?
>> >> >> Not just DW. Still you brought up the analogy.
>> >> >No, I didn't bring up any analogy. You brought up dumbing down and
>> >> >unwanted pregnancies. Was that supposed to be some sort of analogy?
>> >> >If so, what was it an analogy for?
>> >> You introduced the word abortion not me.
>> >Only because that's the standard way of dealing with an unwanted
>> >pregnancy. And _you_ introduced the topic of unwanted pregnancies,
>> >and I'm still trying to work out why!
>> And you wonder why I think you are warped due to propagandial shifting.
>Well, I hadn't wondered that. But since you mention it, do you think
>I'm warped due to propagandail shifting? And if so, why?
>And, more importantly, what do you think is the standard way of
>dealing with an unwanted pregnancy nowadays? If it's not abortion,
>then what is it?
>And what does any of this have to do with dumbing down DW?
Abortion == murder . You are dumbed down when you think abortion <> murder.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >That's irrelevant. Morality is all about what ought to happen. We're
>> >> >> >> >> >> >discussing what could have happened. Two totally different things.
>> >> >> >> >> >> Wrong; can split up aspects of an argument.
>> >> >> >> >> >Is that even supposed to mean something? How am I wrong? What can
>> >> >> >> >> >spilt up which aspects of whose argument?
>> >> >> >> >> what you said about morality being irrelevant!
>> >> >> >> >Well, _*HOW*_ is it relevant to this specific discussion!?! We're
>> >> >> >> >discussing what _could have_ happened, not what _ought to_ happen.
>> >> >> >> >But even if you do want to shift the goalposts by suddenly bringing
>> >> >> >> >morality into it, how do you know that having babies outside of
>> >> >> >> >marriage is considered immoral by _Gallifreyan_ moral codes?
>> >> >> >> >More importantly, would the Doctor's own, highly anarchic moral code
>> >> >> >> >consider it to be immoral?
>> >> >> >Well?
>> >> >> Debate it!
>> >> >I've started the debate by asking the questions. Now it's your turn
>> >> >to continue the debate by answering them, and asking me some in
>> >> >return.
>> >> How archaic is his code?
>> >Not very. It's much more anarchic than archaic.
>> Anarchy implies no order. I argue the opposite.
>You're arguing that anarchy implies order? After all, that is the
>opposite of "Anarchy implies order."
>And yes, you could argue that if you want, since anarchy doesn't
>necessarily imply no order. It implies no leaders, no artificially
>imposed order. It can allow for a natural order to emerge naturally
>from the chaos, or so its supporters claim.
The Doctor is no anarchy except for despots " See SunMakers"
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> From End to time.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >> >> >From which end?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >And to which time?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >And how does that prove the first Doctor was married?
>> >> >> >> >> >> End of Time the 2 parter that saw the exist of David Tennant ?
>> >> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >> >So when you said "From End to time", I was supposed to guess that you
>> >> >> >> >> >actually meant "The End of Time"...?
>> >> >> >> >> >But even if that were the Doctor's mother (and it's far from proven)
>> >> >> >> >> >how does she mean that the first Doctor was married?
>> >> >> >> >Who released which statement about what?
>> >> >> >> >The Doctor's mother released a statement about his wife? His wife
>> >> >> >> >about his mother? Both of the about the Doctor?
>> >> >> >> >Come on Yads, say what you mean. Don't keep us guessing.
>> >> >> >> Last of the RTD DWs.
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >Yes, I know what "The End Of Time" is. I just don't recall a scene
>> >> >> >where the Doctor's first wife releases a statement about his mother,
>> >> >> >or vice versa.
>> >> >> Mother is on Gallifrey, maybe the wife is.
>> >> >We don't know for certain that his mother is on Gallifrey. RTD said
>> >> >the mysterious woman was supposed to be the Doctor's mother, just like
>> >> >Hinchcliffe said those "Brain of Morbius" faces were supposed to be
>> >> >pre-Hartnell incarnations of the Doctor. No-one believed him, so why
>> >> >should we believe RTD?
>> >> >Going on the evidence in the actual episode, the woman could just as
>> >> >easily be Susan, or Romana, or the Doctor's girlfriend, or the
>> >> >Doctor's father following a cross-gender regeneration, or (my current
>> >> >favourite theory) a future incarnation of the Doctor himself following
>> >> >a cross-gender regeneration.
>> >> >But even if it was the Doctor's mother, that still doesn't mean the
>> >> >first Doctor ever had a wife at all. Lots of people have mothers but
>> >> >not wives.
>> >> Go back to the moarilty of this question.
>> >Which question? I've asked you several in this thread, and you
>> >haven't answered any!
>> >And you still haven't explained how morality is relevant to this
>> >discussion. After all, the Doctor (or his mother) may have acted in a
>> >manner that you personally consider immoral, but that wouldn't change
>> >what he did.
>> Opposite sex relationships.
>What about them? If Susan is the first Doctor's biological
>granddaughter, then there probably were opposite sex relationships in
>his life. But that doesn't necessarily mean any of those
>relationships involved marriage.
>And even if you personally consider that immoral, there's no evidence
>that Gallifreyans in general, or the Doctor in particular, would share
>your views.
>> >> >> >Perhaps you could upload that scene as well as the the ones from "The
>> >> >> >Sensorites". Thanks.
>> >> >> With Susan being a telepath.
>> >> >> --
>> >> >And with an _explanation_ of how telepathy works, preferably with
>> >> >reference to genes and DNA. That was the original context of the
>> >> >discussion, remember?
>> >> Yes I can. and in the Sensorites the Doctor does
>> >> explain it is back of his society's natural development.
>> >> --
>> >OK. I'm looking forward to seeing it when you've uploaded it.
>> One moment please while I convert from VHS to DVD.
>> --
The Doctor wrote:
> In article <1b67389e-a5b3-4408-8b82-ef157ebab...@k20g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> In article <ce8be293-be91-4db0-8a66-b3b127e0e...@p14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> In article <f34402c9-112b-42e1-a8bd-389321375...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> In article <5631ca93-fc9e-4987-9ee3-10806b14e...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> >> In article <d5c1db42-2851-4709-a45f-1b4afa01a...@ez26g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> In article <51434700-00ec-4429-b8e2-dd404fa51...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Well, Yads, did you have a reason? You seemed to mention them as
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >evidence that DW was "dumbing down". I still can't see the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >connection.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Even heard of thinking shift?
> >> >> >> >> >> >No. Do you mean "paradigm shift"? If not, what is it, and why is it
> >> >> >> >> >> >relevant?
> >> >> >> >> >> Remeber unborn children were considered humans before abortion was made
> >> >> >> >> >> popular!
> >> >> >> >> >Yes, some people did used to make the mistake of thinking of embryos
> >> >> >> >> >as humans. But you've got cause and effect muddled up. First science
> >> >> >> >> >showed that they weren't fully human yet, and only after then, because
> >> >> >> >> >of that, did abortion start to become accepted. (I wouldn't say
> >> >> >> >> >'popular,' because hopefully it will never be that.)
> >> >> >> >> >See Ross's reply for a fuller history of abortion.
> >> >> >> >> >And anyway, what does this have to do with the 'dumbing down' of
> >> >> >> >> >Doctor Who?
> >> >> >> >> Ross is correct leave it as that.
> >> >> >> >So does this mean you're no longer claiming that unwanted pregnancies
> >> >> >> >prove DW is dumbing down?
> >> >> >> Not just DW. Still you brought up the analogy.
> >> >> >No, I didn't bring up any analogy. You brought up dumbing down and
> >> >> >unwanted pregnancies. Was that supposed to be some sort of analogy?
> >> >> >If so, what was it an analogy for?
> >> >> You introduced the word abortion not me.
> >> >Only because that's the standard way of dealing with an unwanted
> >> >pregnancy. And _you_ introduced the topic of unwanted pregnancies,
> >> >and I'm still trying to work out why!
> >> And you wonder why I think you are warped due to propagandial shifting.
> >Well, I hadn't wondered that. But since you mention it, do you think
> >I'm warped due to propagandail shifting? And if so, why?
> >And, more importantly, what do you think is the standard way of
> >dealing with an unwanted pregnancy nowadays? If it's not abortion,
> >then what is it?
> >And what does any of this have to do with dumbing down DW?
> Abortion == murder . You are dumbed down
> when you think abortion <> murder.
Irrelevant. Whether or not it just happens to be murder, doesn't make
any difference. It doesn't change the fact that it is also the
standard way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy nowadays.
Once again you're getting getting confused between morality (what you
think "ought to" happen) and facts (what really does happen in
practice). Let's just stick to the facts for now.
> You brought it up.
Stop blaming me. Why did you bring up unwanted pregnancies if you
didn't want to discuss them?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >That's irrelevant. Morality is all about what ought to happen. We're
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >discussing what could have happened. Two totally different things.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Wrong; can split up aspects of an argument.
> >> >> >> >> >> >Is that even supposed to mean something? How am I wrong? What can
> >> >> >> >> >> >spilt up which aspects of whose argument?
> >> >> >> >> >> what you said about morality being irrelevant!
> >> >> >> >> >Well, _*HOW*_ is it relevant to this specific discussion!?! We're
> >> >> >> >> >discussing what _could have_ happened, not what _ought to_ happen.
> >> >> >> >> >But even if you do want to shift the goalposts by suddenly bringing
> >> >> >> >> >morality into it, how do you know that having babies outside of
> >> >> >> >> >marriage is considered immoral by _Gallifreyan_ moral codes?
> >> >> >> >> >More importantly, would the Doctor's own, highly anarchic moral code
> >> >> >> >> >consider it to be immoral?
> >> >> >> >Well?
> >> >> >> Debate it!
> >> >> >I've started the debate by asking the questions. Now it's your turn
> >> >> >to continue the debate by answering them, and asking me some in
> >> >> >return.
> >> >> How archaic is his code?
> >> >Not very. It's much more anarchic than archaic.
> >> Anarchy implies no order. I argue the opposite.
> >You're arguing that anarchy implies order? After all, that is the
> >opposite of "Anarchy implies order."
> >And yes, you could argue that if you want, since anarchy doesn't
> >necessarily imply no order. It implies no leaders, no artificially
> >imposed order. It can allow for a natural order to emerge naturally
> >from the chaos, or so its supporters claim.
> The Doctor is no anarchy except for despots " See SunMakers"
See also The Macra Terror, The Evil Of The Daleks, Paradise Towers,
etc.
Just about everyone agrees: the Doctor is highly anarchic. (Except
where it comes to historical leaders of Earth countries, but they're
the exception, not the rule.)
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From End to time.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >From which end?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >And to which time?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >And how does that prove the first Doctor was married?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> End of Time the 2 parter that saw the exist of David Tennant ?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> >> >So when you said "From End to time", I was supposed to guess that you
> >> >> >> >> >> >actually meant "The End of Time"...?
> >> >> >> >> >> >But even if that were the Doctor's mother (and it's far from proven)
> >> >> >> >> >> >how does she mean that the first Doctor was married?
> >> >> >> >> >Who released which statement about what?
> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor's mother released a statement about his wife? His wife
> >> >> >> >> >about his mother? Both of the about the Doctor?
> >> >> >> >> >Come on Yads, say what you mean. Don't keep us guessing.
> >> >> >> >> Last of the RTD DWs.
> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >Yes, I know what "The End Of Time" is. I just don't recall a scene
> >> >> >> >where the Doctor's first wife releases a statement about his mother,
> >> >> >> >or vice versa.
> >> >> >> Mother is on Gallifrey, maybe the wife is.
> >> >> >We don't know for certain that his mother is on Gallifrey. RTD said
> >> >> >the mysterious woman was supposed to be the Doctor's mother, just like
> >> >> >Hinchcliffe said those "Brain of Morbius" faces were supposed to be
> >> >> >pre-Hartnell incarnations of the Doctor. No-one believed him, so why
> >> >> >should we believe RTD?
> >> >> >Going on the evidence in the actual episode, the woman could just as
> >> >> >easily be Susan, or Romana, or the Doctor's girlfriend, or the
> >> >> >Doctor's father following a cross-gender regeneration, or (my current
> >> >> >favourite theory) a future incarnation of the Doctor himself following
> >> >> >a cross-gender regeneration.
> >> >> >But even if it was the Doctor's mother, that still doesn't mean the
> >> >> >first Doctor ever had a wife at all. Lots of people have mothers but
> >> >> >not wives.
> >> >> Go back to the moarilty of this question.
> >> >Which question? I've asked you several in this thread, and you
> >> >haven't answered any!
> >> >And you still haven't explained how morality is relevant to this
> >> >discussion. After all, the Doctor (or his mother) may have acted in a
> >> >manner that you
>The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <1b67389e-a5b3-4408-8b82-ef157ebab...@k20g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
>> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> In article <ce8be293-be91-4db0-8a66-b3b127e0e...@p14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> In article <f34402c9-112b-42e1-a8bd-389321375...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> >> In article <5631ca93-fc9e-4987-9ee3-10806b14e...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> In article <d5c1db42-2851-4709-a45f-1b4afa01a...@ez26g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> In article <51434700-00ec-4429-b8e2-dd404fa51...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Well, Yads, did you have a reason? You seemed to mention them as
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >evidence that DW was "dumbing down". I still can't see the
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >connection.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Even heard of thinking shift?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >No. Do you mean "paradigm shift"? If not, what is it, and why is it
>> >> >> >> >> >> >relevant?
>> >> >> >> >> >> Remeber unborn children were considered humans before abortion was made
>> >> >> >> >> >> popular!
>> >> >> >> >> >Yes, some people did used to make the mistake of thinking of embryos
>> >> >> >> >> >as humans. But you've got cause and effect muddled up. First science
>> >> >> >> >> >showed that they weren't fully human yet, and only after then, because
>> >> >> >> >> >of that, did abortion start to become accepted. (I wouldn't say
>> >> >> >> >> >'popular,' because hopefully it will never be that.)
>> >> >> >> >> >See Ross's reply for a fuller history of abortion.
>> >> >> >> >> >And anyway, what does this have to do with the 'dumbing down' of
>> >> >> >> >> >Doctor Who?
>> >> >> >> >> Ross is correct leave it as that.
>> >> >> >> >So does this mean you're no longer claiming that unwanted pregnancies
>> >> >> >> >prove DW is dumbing down?
>> >> >> >> Not just DW. Still you brought up the analogy.
>> >> >> >No, I didn't bring up any analogy. You brought up dumbing down and
>> >> >> >unwanted pregnancies. Was that supposed to be some sort of analogy?
>> >> >> >If so, what was it an analogy for?
>> >> >> You introduced the word abortion not me.
>> >> >Only because that's the standard way of dealing with an unwanted
>> >> >pregnancy. And _you_ introduced the topic of unwanted pregnancies,
>> >> >and I'm still trying to work out why!
>> >> And you wonder why I think you are warped due to propagandial shifting.
>> >Well, I hadn't wondered that. But since you mention it, do you think
>> >I'm warped due to propagandail shifting? And if so, why?
>> >And, more importantly, what do you think is the standard way of
>> >dealing with an unwanted pregnancy nowadays? If it's not abortion,
>> >then what is it?
>> >And what does any of this have to do with dumbing down DW?
>> Abortion == murder . You are dumbed down
>> when you think abortion <> murder.
>Irrelevant. Whether or not it just happens to be murder, doesn't make
>any difference. It doesn't change the fact that it is also the
>standard way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy nowadays.
>Once again you're getting getting confused between morality (what you
>think "ought to" happen) and facts (what really does happen in
>practice). Let's just stick to the facts for now.
>> You brought it up.
>Stop blaming me. Why did you bring up unwanted pregnancies if you
>didn't want to discuss them?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >That's irrelevant. Morality is all about what ought to happen. We're
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >discussing what could have happened. Two totally different things.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Wrong; can split up aspects of an argument.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Is that even supposed to mean something? How am I wrong? What can
>> >> >> >> >> >> >spilt up which aspects of whose argument?
>> >> >> >> >> >> what you said about morality being irrelevant!
>> >> >> >> >> >Well, _*HOW*_ is it relevant to this specific discussion!?! We're
>> >> >> >> >> >discussing what _could have_ happened, not what _ought to_ happen.
>> >> >> >> >> >But even if you do want to shift the goalposts by suddenly bringing
>> >> >> >> >> >morality into it, how do you know that having babies outside of
>> >> >> >> >> >marriage is considered immoral by _Gallifreyan_ moral codes?
>> >> >> >> >> >More importantly, would the Doctor's own, highly anarchic moral code
>> >> >> >> >> >consider it to be immoral?
>> >> >> >> >Well?
>> >> >> >> Debate it!
>> >> >> >I've started the debate by asking the questions. Now it's your turn
>> >> >> >to continue the debate by answering them, and asking me some in
>> >> >> >return.
>> >> >> How archaic is his code?
>> >> >Not very. It's much more anarchic than archaic.
>> >> Anarchy implies no order. I argue the opposite.
>> >You're arguing that anarchy implies order? After all, that is the
>> >opposite of "Anarchy implies order."
>> >And yes, you could argue that if you want, since anarchy doesn't
>> >necessarily imply no order. It implies no leaders, no artificially
>> >imposed order. It can allow for a natural order to emerge naturally
>> >from the chaos, or so its supporters claim.
>> The Doctor is no anarchy except for despots " See SunMakers"
>See also The Macra Terror, The Evil Of The Daleks, Paradise Towers,
>etc.
Paradise Towers, yes, the rest are missing.
>Just about everyone agrees: the Doctor is highly anarchic. (Except
>where it comes to historical leaders of Earth countries, but they're
>the exception, not the rule.)
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From End to time.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >From which end?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >And to which time?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >And how does that prove the first Doctor was married?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> End of Time the 2 parter that saw the exist of David Tennant ?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >> >> >So when you said "From End to time", I was supposed to guess that you
>> >> >> >> >> >> >actually meant "The End of Time"...?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >But even if that were the Doctor's mother (and it's far from proven)
>> >> >> >> >> >> >how does she mean that the first Doctor was married?
>> >> >> >> >> >Who released which statement about what?
>> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor's mother released a statement about his wife? His wife
>> >> >> >> >> >about his mother? Both of the about the Doctor?
>> >> >> >> >> >Come on Yads, say what you mean. Don't keep us guessing.
>> >> >> >> >> Last of the RTD DWs.
>> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >Yes, I know what "The End Of Time" is. I just don't recall a scene
>> >> >> >> >where the Doctor's first wife releases a statement about his mother,
>> >> >> >> >or vice versa.
>> >> >> >> Mother is on Gallifrey, maybe the wife is.
>> >> >> >We don't know for certain that his mother is on Gallifrey. RTD said
>> >> >> >the mysterious woman was supposed to be the Doctor's mother, just like
>> >> >> >Hinchcliffe said those "Brain of Morbius" faces were supposed to be
>> >> >> >pre-Hartnell incarnations of the Doctor. No-one believed him, so why
>> >> >> >should we believe RTD?
>> >> >> >Going on the evidence in the actual episode, the woman could just as
>> >> >> >easily be Susan, or Romana, or the Doctor's girlfriend, or the
>> >> >> >Doctor's father following a cross-gender regeneration, or (my current
>> >> >> >favourite theory) a future incarnation of the Doctor himself following
>> >> >> >a cross-gender regeneration.
The Doctor wrote:
> In article <db38ad2e-f6df-4c22-8a39-ee5832f4e...@m5g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> In article <1b67389e-a5b3-4408-8b82-ef157ebab...@k20g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> In article <ce8be293-be91-4db0-8a66-b3b127e0e...@p14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> In article <f34402c9-112b-42e1-a8bd-389321375...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> >> In article <5631ca93-fc9e-4987-9ee3-10806b14e...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> In article <d5c1db42-2851-4709-a45f-1b4afa01a...@ez26g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Remeber unborn children were considered humans before abortion was made
> >> >> >> >> >> >> popular!
> >> >> >> >> >> >Yes, some people did used to make the mistake of thinking of embryos
> >> >> >> >> >> >as humans. But you've got cause and effect muddled up. First science
> >> >> >> >> >> >showed that they weren't fully human yet, and only after then, because
> >> >> >> >> >> >of that, did abortion start to become accepted. (I wouldn't say
> >> >> >> >> >> >'popular,' because hopefully it will never be that.)
> >> >> >> >> >> >See Ross's reply for a fuller history of abortion.
> >> >> >> >> >> >And anyway, what does this have to do with the 'dumbing down' of
> >> >> >> >> >> >Doctor Who?
> >> >> >> >> >> Ross is correct leave it as that.
> >> >> >> >> >So does this mean you're no longer claiming that unwanted pregnancies
> >> >> >> >> >prove DW is dumbing down?
> >> >> >> >> Not just DW. Still you brought up the analogy.
> >> >> >> >No, I didn't bring up any analogy. You brought up dumbing down and
> >> >> >> >unwanted pregnancies. Was that supposed to be some sort of analogy?
> >> >> >> >If so, what was it an analogy for?
> >> >> >> You introduced the word abortion not me.
> >> >> >Only because that's the standard way of dealing with an unwanted
> >> >> >pregnancy. And _you_ introduced the topic of unwanted pregnancies,
> >> >> >and I'm still trying to work out why!
> >> >> And you wonder why I think you are warped due to propagandial shifting.
> >> >Well, I hadn't wondered that. But since you mention it, do you think
> >> >I'm warped due to propagandail shifting? And if so, why?
> >> >And, more importantly, what do you think is the standard way of
> >> >dealing with an unwanted pregnancy nowadays? If it's not abortion,
> >> >then what is it?
> >> >And what does any of this have to do with dumbing down DW?
> >> Abortion == murder . You are dumbed down
> >> when you think abortion <> murder.
> >Irrelevant. Whether or not it just happens to be murder, doesn't make
> >any difference. It doesn't change the fact that it is also the
> >standard way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy nowadays.
> >Once again you're getting getting confused between morality (what you
> >think "ought to" happen) and facts (what really does happen in
> >practice). Let's just stick to the facts for now.
> >> You brought it up.
> >Stop blaming me. Why did you bring up unwanted pregnancies if you
> >didn't want to discuss them?
> I am flaming you because of you analogy.
Which analogy? I don't recall making _any_ particular analogy in this
section of the thread. I've been trying to stick to facts, pure and
simple.
If I made an analogy, give me a link to the post where I made it!
> >> >> >> >> >> >> what you said about morality being irrelevant!
> >> >> >> >> >> >Well, _*HOW*_ is it relevant to this specific discussion!?! We're
> >> >> >> >> >> >discussing what _could have_ happened, not what _ought to_ happen.
> >> >> >> >> >> >But even if you do want to shift the goalposts by suddenly bringing
> >> >> >> >> >> >morality into it, how do you know that having babies outside of
> >> >> >> >> >> >marriage is considered immoral by _Gallifreyan_ moral codes?
> >> >> >> >> >> >More importantly, would the Doctor's own, highly anarchic moral code
> >> >> >> >> >> >consider it to be immoral?
> >> >> >> >> >Well?
> >> >> >> >> Debate it!
> >> >> >> >I've started the debate by asking the questions. Now it's your turn
> >> >> >> >to continue the debate by answering them, and asking me some in
> >> >> >> >return.
> >> >> >> How archaic is his code?
> >> >> >Not very. It's much more anarchic than archaic.
> >> >> Anarchy implies no order. I argue the opposite.
> >> >You're arguing that anarchy implies order? After all, that is the
> >> >opposite of "Anarchy implies order."
> >> >And yes, you could argue that if you want, since anarchy doesn't
> >> >necessarily imply no order. It implies no leaders, no artificially
> >> >imposed order. It can allow for a natural order to emerge naturally
> >> >from the chaos, or so its supporters claim.
> >> The Doctor is no anarchy except for despots " See SunMakers"
> >See also The Macra Terror, The Evil Of The Daleks, Paradise Towers,
> >etc.
> Paradise Towers, yes, the rest are missing.
The audios are available. The recons are available.
And there are plenty of other stories where the Doctor is anarchic.
Those are just the most obvious ones that popped into my head straight
away.
> >Just about everyone agrees: the Doctor is highly anarchic. (Except
> >where it comes to historical leaders of Earth countries, but they're
> >the exception, not the rule.)
> He believes in Justice. Anarchists do not.
Don't they? They don't approve of artificially created institutions
to impose justice. That's not the same thing. For example, many
right-wing anarchists do believe in the justice of the mob, which they
consider a form of natural justice.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From End to time.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >From which end?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >And to which time?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >And how does that prove the first Doctor was married?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> End of Time the 2 parter that saw the exist of David Tennant ?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >So when you said "From End to time", I was supposed to guess that you
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >actually meant "The End of Time"...?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >But even if that were the Doctor's mother (and it's far from proven)
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >how does she mean that the first Doctor was married?
> >> >> >> >> >> >Who released which statement about what?
> >> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor's mother released a statement about his wife? His wife
> >> >> >> >> >> >about his mother? Both of the about the Doctor?
> >> >> >> >> >> >Come on Yads, say what you mean. Don't keep us guessing.
> >> >> >> >> >> Last of the RTD DWs.
> >> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> >Yes, I know what "The End Of Time" is. I just don't recall a scene
> >> >> >> >> >where the Doctor's first wife releases a statement about his mother,
> >> >> >> >> >or vice versa.
> >> >> >> >> Mother is on Gallifrey, maybe the wife is.
> >> >> >> >We don't know for certain that his mother is on Gallifrey. RTD said
> >> >> >> >the mysterious woman was supposed to be the Doctor's mother, just like
> >> >> >> >Hinchcliffe said those "Brain of Morbius" faces were supposed to be
> >> >> >> >pre-Hartnell incarnations of the Doctor. No-one believed him, so why
> >> >> >> >should we believe RTD?
> >> >> >> >Going on the evidence in the actual episode, the woman could just as
> >> >> >> >easily be Susan, or Romana, or the Doctor's girlfriend, or the
> >> >> >> >Doctor's father following a cross-gender regeneration, or (my current
> >> >> >> >favourite theory) a future incarnation of the Doctor himself following
> >> >> >> >a cross-gender regeneration.
> >> >> >> >But even if it was the Doctor's mother, that still doesn't mean the
> >> >> >> >first Doctor ever had a wife at all. Lots of people have mothers but
> >> >> >> >not wives.
> >> >> >> Go back to the moarilty of this question.
> >> >> >Which question? I've asked you several in this thread, and you
> >> >> >haven't answered any!
> >> >> >And you still haven't explained how morality
>The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <db38ad2e-f6df-4c22-8a39-ee5832f4e...@m5g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
>> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> In article <1b67389e-a5b3-4408-8b82-ef157ebab...@k20g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> In article <ce8be293-be91-4db0-8a66-b3b127e0e...@p14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> >> In article <f34402c9-112b-42e1-a8bd-389321375...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> In article <5631ca93-fc9e-4987-9ee3-10806b14e...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> In article <d5c1db42-2851-4709-a45f-1b4afa01a...@ez26g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Remeber unborn children were considered humans before abortion was made
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> popular!
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Yes, some people did used to make the mistake of thinking of embryos
>> >> >> >> >> >> >as humans. But you've got cause and effect muddled up. First science
>> >> >> >> >> >> >showed that they weren't fully human yet, and only after then, because
>> >> >> >> >> >> >of that, did abortion start to become accepted. (I wouldn't say
>> >> >> >> >> >> >'popular,' because hopefully it will never be that.)
>> >> >> >> >> >> >See Ross's reply for a fuller history of abortion.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >And anyway, what does this have to do with the 'dumbing down' of
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Doctor Who?
>> >> >> >> >> >> Ross is correct leave it as that.
>> >> >> >> >> >So does this mean you're no longer claiming that unwanted pregnancies
>> >> >> >> >> >prove DW is dumbing down?
>> >> >> >> >> Not just DW. Still you brought up the analogy.
>> >> >> >> >No, I didn't bring up any analogy. You brought up dumbing down and
>> >> >> >> >unwanted pregnancies. Was that supposed to be some sort of analogy?
>> >> >> >> >If so, what was it an analogy for?
>> >> >> >> You introduced the word abortion not me.
>> >> >> >Only because that's the standard way of dealing with an unwanted
>> >> >> >pregnancy. And _you_ introduced the topic of unwanted pregnancies,
>> >> >> >and I'm still trying to work out why!
>> >> >> And you wonder why I think you are warped due to propagandial shifting.
>> >> >Well, I hadn't wondered that. But since you mention it, do you think
>> >> >I'm warped due to propagandail shifting? And if so, why?
>> >> >And, more importantly, what do you think is the standard way of
>> >> >dealing with an unwanted pregnancy nowadays? If it's not abortion,
>> >> >then what is it?
>> >> >And what does any of this have to do with dumbing down DW?
>> >> Abortion == murder . You are dumbed down
>> >> when you think abortion <> murder.
>> >Irrelevant. Whether or not it just happens to be murder, doesn't make
>> >any difference. It doesn't change the fact that it is also the
>> >standard way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy nowadays.
>> >Once again you're getting getting confused between morality (what you
>> >think "ought to" happen) and facts (what really does happen in
>> >practice). Let's just stick to the facts for now.
>> >> You brought it up.
>> >Stop blaming me. Why did you bring up unwanted pregnancies if you
>> >didn't want to discuss them?
>> I am flaming you because of you analogy.
>Which analogy? I don't recall making _any_ particular analogy in this
>section of the thread. I've been trying to stick to facts, pure and
>simple.
>If I made an analogy, give me a link to the post where I made it!
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> what you said about morality being irrelevant!
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Well, _*HOW*_ is it relevant to this specific discussion!?! We're
>> >> >> >> >> >> >discussing what _could have_ happened, not what _ought to_ happen.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >But even if you do want to shift the goalposts by suddenly bringing
>> >> >> >> >> >> >morality into it, how do you know that having babies outside of
>> >> >> >> >> >> >marriage is considered immoral by _Gallifreyan_ moral codes?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >More importantly, would the Doctor's own, highly anarchic moral code
>> >> >> >> >> >> >consider it to be immoral?
>> >> >> >> >> >Well?
>> >> >> >> >> Debate it!
>> >> >> >> >I've started the debate by asking the questions. Now it's your turn
>> >> >> >> >to continue the debate by answering them, and asking me some in
>> >> >> >> >return.
>> >> >> >> How archaic is his code?
>> >> >> >Not very. It's much more anarchic than archaic.
>> >> >> Anarchy implies no order. I argue the opposite.
>> >> >You're arguing that anarchy implies order? After all, that is the
>> >> >opposite of "Anarchy implies order."
>> >> >And yes, you could argue that if you want, since anarchy doesn't
>> >> >necessarily imply no order. It implies no leaders, no artificially
>> >> >imposed order. It can allow for a natural order to emerge naturally
>> >> >from the chaos, or so its supporters claim.
>> >> The Doctor is no anarchy except for despots " See SunMakers"
>> >See also The Macra Terror, The Evil Of The Daleks, Paradise Towers,
>> >etc.
>> Paradise Towers, yes, the rest are missing.
>The audios are available. The recons are available.
>And there are plenty of other stories where the Doctor is anarchic.
>Those are just the most obvious ones that popped into my head straight
>away.
Originals are thbe authentics.
>> >Just about everyone agrees: the Doctor is highly anarchic. (Except
>> >where it comes to historical leaders of Earth countries, but they're
>> >the exception, not the rule.)
>> He believes in Justice. Anarchists do not.
>Don't they? They don't approve of artificially created institutions
>to impose justice. That's not the same thing. For example, many
>right-wing anarchists do believe in the justice of the mob, which they
>consider a form of natural justice.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From End to time.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >From which end?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >And to which time?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >And how does that prove the first Doctor was married?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> End of Time the 2 parter that saw the exist of David Tennant ?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >So when you said "From End to time", I was supposed to guess that you
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >actually meant "The End of Time"...?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >But even if that were the Doctor's mother (and it's far from proven)
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >how does she mean that the first Doctor was married?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Who released which statement about what?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor's mother released a statement about his wife? His wife
>> >> >> >> >> >> >about his mother? Both of the about the Doctor?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Come on Yads, say what you mean. Don't keep us guessing.
>> >> >> >> >> >> Last of the RTD DWs.
>> >> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >> >Yes, I know what "The End Of Time" is. I just don't recall a scene
>> >> >> >> >> >where the Doctor's first wife releases a statement about his mother,
>> >> >> >> >> >or vice versa.
>> >> >> >> >> Mother is on Gallifrey, maybe the wife is.
>> >> >> >> >We don't know for certain that his mother is on Gallifrey. RTD said
>> >> >> >> >the mysterious woman was supposed to be the Doctor's mother, just like
>> >> >> >> >Hinchcliffe said those "Brain of Morbius" faces were supposed to be
>> >> >> >> >pre-Hartnell incarnations of the Doctor. No-one believed him, so why
>> >> >> >> >should we believe RTD?
>> >> >> >> >Going on the evidence in the actual episode, the woman could just as
>> >> >> >> >easily be Susan, or Romana, or the Doctor's girlfriend, or the
>> >> >> >> >Doctor's father following a cross-gender regeneration, or (my current
>> >> >> >> >favourite theory) a future incarnation of the Doctor himself following
>> >> >> >> >a cross-gender
>>Which analogy? I don't recall making _any_ particular analogy in this
>>section of the thread. I've been trying to stick to facts, pure and
>>simple.
>>If I made an analogy, give me a link to the post where I made it!
> About abortion and unwanteds.
And the analogy is...??
>>The audios are available. The recons are available.
>>And there are plenty of other stories where the Doctor is anarchic.
>>Those are just the most obvious ones that popped into my head straight
>>away.
>>> >Just about everyone agrees: the Doctor is highly anarchic. (Except
>>> >where it comes to historical leaders of Earth countries, but they're
>>> >the exception, not the rule.)
>>> He believes in Justice. Anarchists do not.
>>Don't they? They don't approve of artificially created institutions
>>to impose justice. That's not the same thing. For example, many
>>right-wing anarchists do believe in the justice of the mob, which they
>>consider a form of natural justice.
> Rather unnatural I find.
So what's your idea of natural?
>>That's your personal choice. But even so, you still can't say for
>>definite that we know the first Doctor was married, as opposed to
>>simply having a pregnant girlfriend.
> Remember a Gallifreyan ages longer than a human.
Huh?
> Recall Time Tots?
No.
>>> >Just post the URL. There's no need to redirect it anywhere.
>>> Will do.
>>> --
>>Well, hurry up and do it.
> Give me moment. It went from quite to all noise is breaking loose.
What's your idea of a moment? A couple of minutes? A couple of years? Or never?
>>>Which analogy? I don't recall making _any_ particular analogy in this
>>>section of the thread. I've been trying to stick to facts, pure and
>>>simple.
>>>If I made an analogy, give me a link to the post where I made it!
>>>The audios are available. The recons are available.
>>>And there are plenty of other stories where the Doctor is anarchic.
>>>Those are just the most obvious ones that popped into my head straight
>>>away.
>> Originals are the authentics.
>Is that meant to mean anything?
>>>> >Just about everyone agrees: the Doctor is highly anarchic. (Except
>>>> >where it comes to historical leaders of Earth countries, but they're
>>>> >the exception, not the rule.)
>>>> He believes in Justice. Anarchists do not.
>>>Don't they? They don't approve of artificially created institutions
>>>to impose justice. That's not the same thing. For example, many
>>>right-wing anarchists do believe in the justice of the mob, which they
>>>consider a form of natural justice.
>> Rather unnatural I find.
>So what's your idea of natural?
Mobs are not natural.
>>>That's your personal choice. But even so, you still can't say for
>>>definite that we know the first Doctor was married, as opposed to
>>>simply having a pregnant girlfriend.
>> Remember a Gallifreyan ages longer than a human.
>>>> >Just post the URL. There's no need to redirect it anywhere.
>>>> Will do.
>>>> --
>>>Well, hurry up and do it.
>> Give me moment. It went from quite to all noise is breaking loose.
>What's your idea of a moment? A couple of minutes? A couple of years? Or >never?
I think I got the upgrade correct, so
-- Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising! http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k USA petition to dissolve the Republic and vote to disoolve it in November 2012
The Doctor wrote:
> In article <19976cd5-44a8-4d73-93ea-6884a7bbb...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> In article <db38ad2e-f6df-4c22-8a39-ee5832f4e...@m5g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> In article <1b67389e-a5b3-4408-8b82-ef157ebab...@k20g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> In article <ce8be293-be91-4db0-8a66-b3b127e0e...@p14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> >> In article <f34402c9-112b-42e1-a8bd-389321375...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> In article <5631ca93-fc9e-4987-9ee3-10806b14e...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ross is correct leave it as that.
> >> >> >> >> >> >So does this mean you're no longer claiming that unwanted pregnancies
> >> >> >> >> >> >prove DW is dumbing down?
> >> >> >> >> >> Not just DW. Still you brought up the analogy.
> >> >> >> >> >No, I didn't bring up any analogy. You brought up dumbing down and
> >> >> >> >> >unwanted pregnancies. Was that supposed to be some sort of analogy?
> >> >> >> >> >If so, what was it an analogy for?
> >> >> >> >> You introduced the word abortion not me.
> >> >> >> >Only because that's the standard way of dealing with an unwanted
> >> >> >> >pregnancy. And _you_ introduced the topic of unwanted pregnancies,
> >> >> >> >and I'm still trying to work out why!
> >> >> >> And you wonder why I think you are warped due to propagandial shifting.
> >> >> >Well, I hadn't wondered that. But since you mention it, do you think
> >> >> >I'm warped due to propagandail shifting? And if so, why?
> >> >> >And, more importantly, what do you think is the standard way of
> >> >> >dealing with an unwanted pregnancy nowadays? If it's not abortion,
> >> >> >then what is it?
> >> >> >And what does any of this have to do with dumbing down DW?
> >> >> Abortion == murder . You are dumbed down
> >> >> when you think abortion <> murder.
> >> >Irrelevant. Whether or not it just happens to be murder, doesn't make
> >> >any difference. It doesn't change the fact that it is also the
> >> >standard way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy nowadays.
> >> >Once again you're getting getting confused between morality (what you
> >> >think "ought to" happen) and facts (what really does happen in
> >> >practice). Let's just stick to the facts for now.
> >> >> You brought it up.
> >> >Stop blaming me. Why did you bring up unwanted pregnancies if you
> >> >didn't want to discuss them?
> >> I am flaming you because of you analogy.
> >Which analogy? I don't recall making _any_ particular analogy in this
> >section of the thread. I've been trying to stick to facts, pure and
> >simple.
> >If I made an analogy, give me a link to the post where I made it!
> About abortion and unwanteds.
I don't recall making any specific analogy about them. Which post was
it?
> >> >> >> Anarchy implies no order. I argue the opposite.
> >> >> >You're arguing that anarchy implies order? After all, that is the
> >> >> >opposite of "Anarchy implies order."
> >> >> >And yes, you could argue that if you want, since anarchy doesn't
> >> >> >necessarily imply no order. It implies no leaders, no artificially
> >> >> >imposed order. It can allow for a natural order to emerge naturally
> >> >> >from the chaos, or so its supporters claim.
> >> >> The Doctor is no anarchy except for despots " See SunMakers"
> >> >See also The Macra Terror, The Evil Of The Daleks, Paradise Towers,
> >> >etc.
> >> Paradise Towers, yes, the rest are missing.
> >The audios are available. The recons are available.
> >And there are plenty of other stories where the Doctor is anarchic.
> >Those are just the most obvious ones that popped into my head straight
> >away.
> Originals are thbe authentics.
True, but the the other sources can at least give you an idea of how
anarchic the Doctor is in those stories.
See also: The Stones of Blood, The Christmas Invasion, No Future, The
Trial of a Timelord, Unnatural History, The Happiness Patrol, etc.
> >> >Just about everyone agrees: the Doctor is highly anarchic. (Except
> >> >where it comes to historical leaders of Earth countries, but they're
> >> >the exception, not the rule.)
> >> He believes in Justice. Anarchists do not.
> >Don't they? They don't approve of artificially created institutions
> >to impose justice. That's not the same thing. For example, many
> >right-wing anarchists do believe in the justice of the mob, which they
> >consider a form of natural justice.
> Rather unnatural I find.
I'd agree if you thought "natural justice" wasn't real justice. But I
don't see you you can say it isn't natural. IMHO it's far too natural
for its own good, that's the problem.
> >> >> >> >> >> Mother is on Gallifrey, maybe the wife is.
> >> >> >> >> >We don't know for certain that his mother is on Gallifrey. RTD said
> >> >> >> >> >the mysterious woman was supposed to be the Doctor's mother, just like
> >> >> >> >> >Hinchcliffe said those "Brain of Morbius" faces were supposed to be
> >> >> >> >> >pre-Hartnell incarnations of the Doctor. No-one believed him, so why
> >> >> >> >> >should we believe RTD?
> >> >> >> >> >Going on the evidence in the actual episode, the woman could just as
> >> >> >> >> >easily be Susan, or Romana, or the Doctor's girlfriend, or the
> >> >> >> >> >Doctor's father following a cross-gender regeneration, or (my current
> >> >> >> >> >favourite theory) a future incarnation of the Doctor himself following
> >> >> >> >> >a cross-gender regeneration.
> >> >> >> >> >But even if it was the Doctor's mother, that still doesn't mean the
> >> >> >> >> >first Doctor ever had a wife at all. Lots of people have mothers but
> >> >> >> >> >not wives.
> >> >> >> >> Go back to the moarilty of this question.
> >> >> >> >Which question? I've asked you several in this thread, and you
> >> >> >> >haven't answered any!
> >> >> >> >And you still haven't explained how morality is relevant to this
> >> >> >> >discussion. After all, the Doctor (or his mother) may have acted in a
> >> >> >> >manner that you personally consider immoral, but that wouldn't change
> >> >> >> >what he did.
> >> >> >> Opposite sex relationships.
> >> >> >What about them? If Susan is the first Doctor's biological
> >> >> >granddaughter, then there probably were opposite sex relationships in
> >> >> >his life. But that doesn't necessarily mean any of those
> >> >> >relationships involved marriage.
> >> >> >And even if you personally consider that immoral, there's no evidence
> >> >> >that Gallifreyans in general, or the Doctor in particular, would share
> >> >> >your views.
> >> >> So how is Susan The Doctor's grandchild?
> >> >There are two main possibilities:
> >> >Either Saward and Platt are right and she isn't his grandchild but
> >> >just calls him grandfather.
> >> >Or she's the child of his child in the usual way, which of course
> >> >doesn't necessarily involve marriage. As I keep saying, her
> >> >grandmother could just as easily be the Doctor's girlfriend or lover,
> >> >rather than wife.
> >> I disbelieve Saward and PLatt.
> >That's your personal choice. But even so, you still can't say for
> >definite that we know the first Doctor was married, as opposed to
> >simply having a pregnant girlfriend.
> Remember a Gallifreyan ages longer than a human.
So what? If anything that means he's _less_ likely to get married. A
lifetime commitment to your spouse is achievable for human lifespans,
but needs a much bigger commitment to embark on it for a much bigger
lifetime. I like to imagine casual temporary relationships lasting
hundreds of years as the Time Lord equivalent of one night stands.
> Recall Time Tots?
A throwaway line that was never actually transmitted.
And even if you consider Shada canon, there was nothing there to say
that Time Tots' parents had to be married.
> >OK, if you're going to be _that_ pedantic, "First science showed that they
> >weren't
> >_something that most people would usually consider to be_ fully human..."
> Nope. The politics of abortion have very little to do with science, for
> most people on both sides of the issue, And, it does not help either side
> when they make false and unscientific claims.
So, where would _you_ draw the line between fully human and subhuman?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Stop blaming me. Why did you bring up unwanted pregnancies if you
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >didn't want to discuss them?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I am flaming you because of you analogy.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Which analogy? I don't recall making _any_ particular analogy in this
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >section of the thread. I've been trying to stick to facts, pure and
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >simple.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >If I made an analogy, give me a link to the post where I made it!
> >> >> >> >> >> >> About abortion and unwanteds.
> >> >> >> >> >> >I don't recall making any specific analogy about them. Which post was
> >> >> >> >> >> >it?
> >Well, Yads, are you going to answer this.
> Is your memory that bad?
I remember repeatedly asking you about this analogy and not getting a
proper reply.
> >> >> >> >> >> >True, but the the other sources can at least give you an idea of how
> >> >> >> >> >> >anarchic the Doctor is in those stories.
> >> >> >> >> >> >See also: The Stones of Blood, The Christmas Invasion, No Future, The
> >> >> >> >> >> >Trial of a Timelord, Unnatural History, The Happiness Patrol, etc.
> >> >> >> >> >> Trial? The eviedence was doctored by the high Council
> >> >> >> >> >Yes, or possibly by the Valyard, depending on who you believe. But
> >> >> >> >> >the faked evidence wasn't what I was referring to.
> >> >> >> >> Trial of a TimeLord is not a good example then.
> >> >> >> >Why not? At 14 episodes long, there are a lot of things in it, not
> >> >> >> >just the faking of evidence.
> >> >> >> >I was referring to the Doctor's lines in the courtroom scenes in parts
> >> >> >> >1 and 2, and his conversation with Mr Popplewick in part 13. They're
> >> >> >> >very good examples. And none of them involve faking evidence.
> >> >> >> Popplewick happens inside the MAtrix.
> >> >> >True, and that's the reason why I mentioned it in the first place.
> >> >> >Popplewick is a Matrix creation of the Doctor's hidden, buried non-
> >> >> >anarchic side, symbolising that side's desire for control and order.
> >> >> >The contrast between him and the actual Doctor just emphasises how
> >> >> >anarchic the Doctor usually is.
> >> >> Popplewick is the Valeyard. The Valeyard is AntiDoctor.
> >> >IIRC that's Pip & Jane's retcon in part 14. I clearly and
> >> >specifically referred to part 13 which had the original non-retconned
> >> >conceptions of the Valeyard and Popplewick by Robert Holmes.
> >> Well the established is that Popplewick is the AntiDoctor.
> >That's a ridiculous over-simplification. The word "AntiDoctor" isn't
> >even mentioned once in the dialogue.
> >But even assuming you're right and Popplewick is the "AntiDoctor",
> >that would still confirm my point. Popplewick is about artificial
> >concepts of order and protocol. The Doctor is the opposite. Which
> >would make him about anarchy.
> And the Doctor considers protocol artificial?
Yes. The desire for protocol and order is natural. But the
artificial protocols we build to satisfy that desire are artificial.
And the Doctor is intelligent enough to know this.
> I doubt it.
You doubt what exactly? Do you doubt that Popplewick's protocol is
artificial? Or that the considers it to be so?
> >> >> >Plenty of anarchic behaviour from the Doctor in that story too.
> >> >> Matrix and he keeps his cool.
> >> >I was thinking more of the stuff outside the Matrix for this story.
> >> >For example, in part 1 he knows that the President is going to be
> >> >assassinated, but he doesn't do anything to warn the authorities, or
> >> >anything like that. Why not? Because he just plain doesn't trust
> >> >authority figures, that's why! (Of course it later turns out that
> >> >he's right not to trust them in this case, but he doesn't really have
> >> >any way of knowing that at the start of the story!)
> >> He did not know who sent the ingram.
> >Yes, and he was reluctant to trust the authorities to help him find
> >out who was behind it. He always suspects the worst of the
> >authorities, doesn't he? Why would the be? Oh, yes, because of his
> >anarchic side!
> NOt his anarchic side would do that.
Then which side of him does do that?
I think your confusion is because living in North America means you're
more aware of American-style right wing anarchists (e.g. the Tea
Party). But the Doctor's anarchy is more in the tradition of the
British and European left wing anarchists. Big difference.
> >> >> >> >> >> Well what about Leela and Andred?
> >> >> >> >> >There's no on-screen evidence that they ever actually married. They
> >> >> >> >> >may have just lived together as lovers. (As you say, a Gallifreyan
> >> >> >> >> >ages slower and lives longer than a human, so for Andred it was
> >> >> >> >> >probably just a quick, casual fling with a bit of rough.)
> >> >> >> >> I doubt it was that casual.
> >> >> >> >You do have a lot of doubts, don't you? You're like the Doubting
> >> >> >> >Thomas of radw.
> >> >> >> >But just see how awkward and embarrassed he looks when Leela's telling
> >> >> >> >the Doctor about her decision to stay. Watch his face. Why would he
> >> >> >> >be feeling that way? Isn't it obvious? Although this is a serious
> >> >> >> >commitment for her, Andred looks like doesn't want her to know it's
> >> >> >> >different for him.
> >> >> >> >> and K-9 Mk 1 was their present.
> >> >> >> >No he wasn't. Watch the episode and you'll see that he wasn't. Do
> >> >> >> >you want me to upload the scene for you? We could make a race out of
> >> >> >> >it. See who gets their clip up first.
> >> >> >> Invasion of Time it is!!
> >> >> >Yes, I knew that. I didn't need to be told which story it was.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Recall Time Tots?
> >> >> >> >> >> >A throwaway line that was never actually transmitted.
> >> >> >> >> >> >And even if you consider Shada canon, there was nothing there to say
> >> >> >> >> >> >that Time Tots' parents had to be married.
> >> >> >> >> >> It is canon!
> >> >> >> >> >But that still doesn't mean that Time Tots' parents had to be married.
> >> >> >> >> How in Gallifrey do we know?
> >> >> >> >Eh? What? Pardon? Sorry? How do we know that in doesn't mean the
> >> >> >> >Tots' parents had to be married...!?!
> >> >> >> >Because the TARDIS translation circuits mean that the words we hear
> >> >> >> >have the appropriate English meaning. And there's nothing in the word
> >> >> >> >"tots" that specifies married parents.
> >> >> >> Shada is considred Canon.
> >> >> >But there's still nothing in it to say that Time Tots' parents (or
> >> >> >even grandparents) have to be married. Do you need me to upload that
> >> >> >clip too?
> >> >> I can do that.
> >> >> --
> >> >And how long will it take you?
> >> I am video mix.
> >> --
> >Are you? Any relation to Tom Mix?
> LOL!
> DVD is much better.
> Found the scene where Susan is able to communicate with
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Stop blaming me. Why did you bring up unwanted pregnancies if you
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >didn't want to discuss them?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I am flaming you because of you analogy.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Which analogy? I don't recall making _any_ particular analogy in this
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >section of the thread. I've been trying to stick to facts, pure and
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >simple.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >If I made an analogy, give me a link to the post where I made it!
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> About abortion and unwanteds.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >I don't recall making any specific analogy about them. Which post was
>> >> >> >> >> >> >it?
>> >Well, Yads, are you going to answer this.
>> Is your memory that bad?
>I remember repeatedly asking you about this analogy and not getting a
>proper reply.
Because you introduced the word abortion into the thread.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >True, but the the other sources can at least give you an idea of how
>> >> >> >> >> >> >anarchic the Doctor is in those stories.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >See also: The Stones of Blood, The Christmas Invasion, No Future, The
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Trial of a Timelord, Unnatural History, The Happiness Patrol, etc.
>> >> >> >> >> >> Trial? The eviedence was doctored by the high Council
>> >> >> >> >> >Yes, or possibly by the Valyard, depending on who you believe. But
>> >> >> >> >> >the faked evidence wasn't what I was referring to.
>> >> >> >> >> Trial of a TimeLord is not a good example then.
>> >> >> >> >Why not? At 14 episodes long, there are a lot of things in it, not
>> >> >> >> >just the faking of evidence.
>> >> >> >> >I was referring to the Doctor's lines in the courtroom scenes in parts
>> >> >> >> >1 and 2, and his conversation with Mr Popplewick in part 13. They're
>> >> >> >> >very good examples. And none of them involve faking evidence.
>> >> >> >> Popplewick happens inside the MAtrix.
>> >> >> >True, and that's the reason why I mentioned it in the first place.
>> >> >> >Popplewick is a Matrix creation of the Doctor's hidden, buried non-
>> >> >> >anarchic side, symbolising that side's desire for control and order.
>> >> >> >The contrast between him and the actual Doctor just emphasises how
>> >> >> >anarchic the Doctor usually is.
>> >> >> Popplewick is the Valeyard. The Valeyard is AntiDoctor.
>> >> >IIRC that's Pip & Jane's retcon in part 14. I clearly and
>> >> >specifically referred to part 13 which had the original non-retconned
>> >> >conceptions of the Valeyard and Popplewick by Robert Holmes.
>> >> Well the established is that Popplewick is the AntiDoctor.
>> >That's a ridiculous over-simplification. The word "AntiDoctor" isn't
>> >even mentioned once in the dialogue.
>> >But even assuming you're right and Popplewick is the "AntiDoctor",
>> >that would still confirm my point. Popplewick is about artificial
>> >concepts of order and protocol. The Doctor is the opposite. Which
>> >would make him about anarchy.
>> And the Doctor considers protocol artificial?
>Yes. The desire for protocol and order is natural. But the
>artificial protocols we build to satisfy that desire are artificial.
>And the Doctor is intelligent enough to know this.
What about manners?
>> I doubt it.
>You doubt what exactly? Do you doubt that Popplewick's protocol is
>artificial? Or that the considers it to be so?
I doubt the Doctor considers it artifical. Note his roots
about respecting local custom.
>> >> >> >Plenty of anarchic behaviour from the Doctor in that story too.
>> >> >> Matrix and he keeps his cool.
>> >> >I was thinking more of the stuff outside the Matrix for this story.
>> >> >For example, in part 1 he knows that the President is going to be
>> >> >assassinated, but he doesn't do anything to warn the authorities, or
>> >> >anything like that. Why not? Because he just plain doesn't trust
>> >> >authority figures, that's why! (Of course it later turns out that
>> >> >he's right not to trust them in this case, but he doesn't really have
>> >> >any way of knowing that at the start of the story!)
>> >> He did not know who sent the ingram.
>> >Yes, and he was reluctant to trust the authorities to help him find
>> >out who was behind it. He always suspects the worst of the
>> >authorities, doesn't he? Why would the be? Oh, yes, because of his
>> >anarchic side!
>> NOt his anarchic side would do that.
>Then which side of him does do that?
>I think your confusion is because living in North America means you're
>more aware of American-style right wing anarchists (e.g. the Tea
>Party). But the Doctor's anarchy is more in the tradition of the
>British and European left wing anarchists. Big difference.
Sinn Fein are left wing. So is the Scottish Socialist Party.
>> >> >> >> >> >> Well what about Leela and Andred?
>> >> >> >> >> >There's no on-screen evidence that they ever actually married. They
>> >> >> >> >> >may have just lived together as lovers. (As you say, a Gallifreyan
>> >> >> >> >> >ages slower and lives longer than a human, so for Andred it was
>> >> >> >> >> >probably just a quick, casual fling with a bit of rough.)
>> >> >> >> >> I doubt it was that casual.
>> >> >> >> >You do have a lot of doubts, don't you? You're like the Doubting
>> >> >> >> >Thomas of radw.
>> >> >> >> >But just see how awkward and embarrassed he looks when Leela's telling
>> >> >> >> >the Doctor about her decision to stay. Watch his face. Why would he
>> >> >> >> >be feeling that way? Isn't it obvious? Although this is a serious
>> >> >> >> >commitment for her, Andred looks like doesn't want her to know it's
>> >> >> >> >different for him.
>> >> >> >> >> and K-9 Mk 1 was their present.
>> >> >> >> >No he wasn't. Watch the episode and you'll see that he wasn't. Do
>> >> >> >> >you want me to upload the scene for you? We could make a race out of
>> >> >> >> >it. See who gets their clip up first.
>> >> >> >> Invasion of Time it is!!
>> >> >> >Yes, I knew that. I didn't need to be told which story it was.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Recall Time Tots?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >A throwaway line that was never actually transmitted.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >And even if you consider Shada canon, there was nothing there to say
>> >> >> >> >> >> >that Time Tots' parents had to be married.
>> >> >> >> >> >> It is canon!
>> >> >> >> >> >But that still doesn't mean that Time Tots' parents had to be married.
>> >> >> >> >> How in Gallifrey do we know?
>> >> >> >> >Eh? What? Pardon? Sorry? How do we know that in doesn't mean the
>> >> >> >> >Tots' parents had to be married...!?!
>> >> >> >> >Because the TARDIS translation circuits mean that the words we hear
>> >> >> >> >have the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Stop blaming me. Why did you bring up unwanted pregnancies if you
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >didn't want to discuss them?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I am flaming you because of you analogy.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Which analogy? I don't recall making _any_ particular analogy in this
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >section of the thread. I've been trying to stick to facts, pure and
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >simple.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >If I made an analogy, give me a link to the post where I made it!
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> About abortion and unwanteds.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >I don't recall making any specific analogy about them. Which post was
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >it?
> >> >Well, Yads, are you going to answer this.
> >> Is your memory that bad?
> >I remember repeatedly asking you about this analogy and not getting a
> >proper reply.
> Because you introduced the word abortion into the thread.
You're refusing to give me a proper reply because I used the word
'abortion' in this thread...!?!
> >> >> Well the established is that Popplewick is the AntiDoctor.
> >> >That's a ridiculous over-simplification. The word "AntiDoctor" isn't
> >> >even mentioned once in the dialogue.
> >> >But even assuming you're right and Popplewick is the "AntiDoctor",
> >> >that would still confirm my point. Popplewick is about artificial
> >> >concepts of order and protocol. The Doctor is the opposite. Which
> >> >would make him about anarchy.
> >> And the Doctor considers protocol artificial?
> >Yes. The desire for protocol and order is natural. But the
> >artificial protocols we build to satisfy that desire are artificial.
> >And the Doctor is intelligent enough to know this.
> What about manners?
Yes, what about them?
In Britain it's considered good manners to use your fork in the left
hand, not the right. In America, it's the other way round. I'm
disgusted by the sight of Americans eating wrongly in American series
and movies. No doubt they probably feel the same way about seeing
British people eat.
The desire for good manners is natural and universal. The specific
details about what makes good manners are artificial and arbitrary.
> >> I doubt it.
> >You doubt what exactly? Do you doubt that Popplewick's protocol is
> >artificial? Or that the considers it to be so?
> I doubt the Doctor considers it artifical. Note his roots
> about respecting local custom.
That usually only seems to apply to Earth customs, and even then it
seems strange. He's quick to stamp out alien customs that he doesn't
like. For example, compare his differing opinions on the custom of
voluntary sacrifice in The Aztecs and Big Finish's The Scapegoat.
> >> >> >> >Plenty of anarchic behaviour from the Doctor in that story too.
> >> >> >> Matrix and he keeps his cool.
> >> >> >I was thinking more of the stuff outside the Matrix for this story.
> >> >> >For example, in part 1 he knows that the President is going to be
> >> >> >assassinated, but he doesn't do anything to warn the authorities, or
> >> >> >anything like that. Why not? Because he just plain doesn't trust
> >> >> >authority figures, that's why! (Of course it later turns out that
> >> >> >he's right not to trust them in this case, but he doesn't really have
> >> >> >any way of knowing that at the start of the story!)
> >> >> He did not know who sent the ingram.
> >> >Yes, and he was reluctant to trust the authorities to help him find
> >> >out who was behind it. He always suspects the worst of the
> >> >authorities, doesn't he? Why would the be? Oh, yes, because of his
> >> >anarchic side!
> >> NOt his anarchic side would do that.
> >Then which side of him does do that?
> >I think your confusion is because living in North America means you're
> >more aware of American-style right wing anarchists (e.g. the Tea
> >Party). But the Doctor's anarchy is more in the tradition of the
> >British and European left wing anarchists. Big difference.
> Sinn Fein are left wing. So is the Scottish Socialist Party.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Well what about Leela and Andred?
> >> >> >> >> >> >There's no on-screen evidence that they ever actually married. They
> >> >> >> >> >> >may have just lived together as lovers. (As you say, a Gallifreyan
> >> >> >> >> >> >ages slower and lives longer than a human, so for Andred it was
> >> >> >> >> >> >probably just a quick, casual fling with a bit of rough.)
> >> >> >> >> >> I doubt it was that casual.
> >> >> >> >> >You do have a lot of doubts, don't you? You're like the Doubting
> >> >> >> >> >Thomas of radw.
> >> >> >> >> >But just see how awkward and embarrassed he looks when Leela's telling
> >> >> >> >> >the Doctor about her decision to stay. Watch his face. Why would he
> >> >> >> >> >be feeling that way? Isn't it obvious? Although this is a serious
> >> >> >> >> >commitment for her, Andred looks like doesn't want her to know it's
> >> >> >> >> >different for him.
> >> >> >> >> >> and K-9 Mk 1 was their present.
> >> >> >> >> >No he wasn't. Watch the episode and you'll see that he wasn't. Do
> >> >> >> >> >you want me to upload the scene for you? We could make a race out of
> >> >> >> >> >it. See who gets their clip up first.
> >> >> >> >> Invasion of Time it is!!
> >> >> >> >Yes, I knew that. I didn't need to be told which story it was.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Recall Time Tots?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >A throwaway line that was never actually transmitted.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >And even if you consider Shada canon, there was nothing there to say
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >that Time Tots' parents had to be married.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> It is canon!
> >> >> >> >> >> >But that still doesn't mean that Time Tots' parents had to be married.
> >> >> >> >> >> How in Gallifrey do we know?
> >> >> >> >> >Eh? What? Pardon? Sorry? How do we know that in doesn't mean the
> >> >> >> >> >Tots' parents had to be married...!?!
> >> >> >> >> >Because the TARDIS translation circuits mean that the words we hear
> >> >> >> >> >have the appropriate English meaning. And there's nothing in the word
> >> >> >> >> >"tots" that specifies married parents.
> >> >> >> >> Shada is considred Canon.
> >> >> >> >But there's still nothing in it to say that Time Tots' parents (or
> >> >> >> >even grandparents) have to be married. Do you need me to upload that
> >> >> >> >clip too?
> But that's no excuse for not getting the clip up in time.
Standard Yads' tactic. Make a wild claim, make a wilder claim that he can provide evidence, fail to find said evidence and then come up with excuses until you get bored with the topic and move on.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Stop blaming me. Why did you bring up unwanted pregnancies if you
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >didn't want to discuss them?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I am flaming you because of you analogy.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Which analogy? I don't recall making _any_ particular analogy in this
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >section of the thread. I've been trying to stick to facts, pure and
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >simple.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >If I made an analogy, give me a link to the post where I made it!
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> About abortion and unwanteds.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >I don't recall making any specific analogy about them. Which post was
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >it?
>> >> >Well, Yads, are you going to answer this.
>> >> Is your memory that bad?
>> >I remember repeatedly asking you about this analogy and not getting a
>> >proper reply.
>> Because you introduced the word abortion into the thread.
>You're refusing to give me a proper reply because I used the word
>'abortion' in this thread...!?!
>> >> >> Well the established is that Popplewick is the AntiDoctor.
>> >> >That's a ridiculous over-simplification. The word "AntiDoctor" isn't
>> >> >even mentioned once in the dialogue.
>> >> >But even assuming you're right and Popplewick is the "AntiDoctor",
>> >> >that would still confirm my point. Popplewick is about artificial
>> >> >concepts of order and protocol. The Doctor is the opposite. Which
>> >> >would make him about anarchy.
>> >> And the Doctor considers protocol artificial?
>> >Yes. The desire for protocol and order is natural. But the
>> >artificial protocols we build to satisfy that desire are artificial.
>> >And the Doctor is intelligent enough to know this.
>> What about manners?
>Yes, what about them?
>In Britain it's considered good manners to use your fork in the left
>hand, not the right. In America, it's the other way round. I'm
>disgusted by the sight of Americans eating wrongly in American series
>and movies. No doubt they probably feel the same way about seeing
>British people eat.
>The desire for good manners is natural and universal. The specific
>details about what makes good manners are artificial and arbitrary.
>> >You doubt what exactly? Do you doubt that Popplewick's protocol is
>> >artificial? Or that the considers it to be so?
>> I doubt the Doctor considers it artifical. Note his roots
>> about respecting local custom.
>That usually only seems to apply to Earth customs, and even then it
>seems strange. He's quick to stamp out alien customs that he doesn't
>like. For example, compare his differing opinions on the custom of
>voluntary sacrifice in The Aztecs and Big Finish's The Scapegoat.
>> >> >> >> >Plenty of anarchic behaviour from the Doctor in that story too.
>> >> >> >> Matrix and he keeps his cool.
>> >> >> >I was thinking more of the stuff outside the Matrix for this story.
>> >> >> >For example, in part 1 he knows that the President is going to be
>> >> >> >assassinated, but he doesn't do anything to warn the authorities, or
>> >> >> >anything like that. Why not? Because he just plain doesn't trust
>> >> >> >authority figures, that's why! (Of course it later turns out that
>> >> >> >he's right not to trust them in this case, but he doesn't really have
>> >> >> >any way of knowing that at the start of the story!)
>> >> >> He did not know who sent the ingram.
>> >> >Yes, and he was reluctant to trust the authorities to help him find
>> >> >out who was behind it. He always suspects the worst of the
>> >> >authorities, doesn't he? Why would the be? Oh, yes, because of his
>> >> >anarchic side!
>> >> NOt his anarchic side would do that.
>> >Then which side of him does do that?
>> >I think your confusion is because living in North America means you're
>> >more aware of American-style right wing anarchists (e.g. the Tea
>> >Party). But the Doctor's anarchy is more in the tradition of the
>> >British and European left wing anarchists. Big difference.
>> Sinn Fein are left wing. So is the Scottish Socialist Party.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Well what about Leela and Andred?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >There's no on-screen evidence that they ever actually married. They
>> >> >> >> >> >> >may have just lived together as lovers. (As you say, a Gallifreyan
>> >> >> >> >> >> >ages slower and lives longer than a human, so for Andred it was
>> >> >> >> >> >> >probably just a quick, casual fling with a bit of rough.)
>> >> >> >> >> >> I doubt it was that casual.
>> >> >> >> >> >You do have a lot of doubts, don't you? You're like the Doubting
>> >> >> >> >> >Thomas of radw.
>> >> >> >> >> >But just see how awkward and embarrassed he looks when Leela's telling
>> >> >> >> >> >the Doctor about her decision to stay. Watch his face. Why would he
>> >> >> >> >> >be feeling that way? Isn't it obvious? Although this is a serious
>> >> >> >> >> >commitment for her, Andred looks like doesn't want her to know it's
>> >> >> >> >> >different for him.
>> >> >> >> >> >> and K-9 Mk 1 was their present.
>> >> >> >> >> >No he wasn't. Watch the episode and you'll see that he wasn't. Do
>> >> >> >> >> >you want me to upload the scene for you? We could make a race out of
>> >> >> >> >> >it. See who gets their clip up first.
>> >> >> >> >> Invasion of Time it is!!
>> >> >> >> >Yes, I knew that. I didn't need to be told which story it was.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Recall Time Tots?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >A throwaway line that was never actually transmitted.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >And even if you consider Shada canon, there was nothing there to say
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >that Time Tots' parents had to be married.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> It is canon!
>> >> >> >> >> >> >But that still doesn't mean that Time Tots' parents had to be married.
>> >> >> >> >> >> How in Gallifrey do we know?
>> >> >> >> >> >Eh? What? Pardon? Sorry? How do we know that in doesn't mean the
>> >> >> >> >> >Tots' parents had to be married...!?!
>> >> >> >> >> >Because the TARDIS translation circuits mean that the words we hear
>> >> >> >> >> >have the appropriate English meaning. And there's nothing in the word
>> >> >> >> >> >"tots" that specifies married parents.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> About abortion and unwanteds.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >I don't recall making any specific analogy about them. Which post was
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >it?
> >> >> >Well, Yads, are you going to answer this.
> >> >> Is your memory that bad?
> >> >I remember repeatedly asking you about this analogy and not getting a
> >> >proper reply.
> >> Because you introduced the word abortion into the thread.
> >You're refusing to give me a proper reply because I used the word
> >'abortion' in this thread...!?!
> You introduced it.
Yes, but only because I thought that was where you were heading when
you introduced the subject of unwanted pregnancy.
If you weren't heading there, then where were you going with the
subject? What point were you trying to make by mentioning unwanted
pregnancy? I've asked you this several times and you still haven't
given a straight reply.
And you also haven't explained about this flameworthy analogy you
think I made.
> >> >> >> Well the established is that Popplewick is the AntiDoctor.
> >> >> >That's a ridiculous over-simplification. The word "AntiDoctor" isn't
> >> >> >even mentioned once in the dialogue.
> >> >> >But even assuming you're right and Popplewick is the "AntiDoctor",
> >> >> >that would still confirm my point. Popplewick is about artificial
> >> >> >concepts of order and protocol. The Doctor is the opposite. Which
> >> >> >would make him about anarchy.
> >> >> And the Doctor considers protocol artificial?
> >> >Yes. The desire for protocol and order is natural. But the
> >> >artificial protocols we build to satisfy that desire are artificial.
> >> >And the Doctor is intelligent enough to know this.
> >> What about manners?
> >Yes, what about them?
> >In Britain it's considered good manners to use your fork in the left
> >hand, not the right. In America, it's the other way round. I'm
> >disgusted by the sight of Americans eating wrongly in American series
> >and movies. No doubt they probably feel the same way about seeing
> >British people eat.
> >The desire for good manners is natural and universal. The specific
> >details about what makes good manners are artificial and arbitrary.
> Manners are protocol.
Yes, that's right, and manners and protocol are arbitrary and
artificial in their details. That's why the Doctor thinks the
organisations built up around them are ridiculous.
> >> >You doubt what exactly? Do you doubt that Popplewick's protocol is
> >> >artificial? Or that the considers it to be so?
> >> I doubt the Doctor considers it artifical. Note his roots
> >> about respecting local custom.
> >That usually only seems to apply to Earth customs, and even then it
> >seems strange. He's quick to stamp out alien customs that he doesn't
> >like. For example, compare his differing opinions on the custom of
> >voluntary sacrifice in The Aztecs and Big Finish's The Scapegoat.
> What about interference.
The two volume novel by Lawrence Miles? Well, the Doctor is very
anarchic in that.
> >> >I think your confusion is because living in North America means you're
> >> >more aware of American-style right wing anarchists (e.g. the Tea
> >> >Party). But the Doctor's anarchy is more in the tradition of the
> >> >British and European left wing anarchists. Big difference.
> >> Sinn Fein are left wing. So is the Scottish Socialist Party.
> >Your point being...?
> That is what I was asking you.
You were asking me what your point is? Don't you know?
I can only tell you about my point, which is that the Doctor isn't
likely to treat an artificial concept like marriage seriously. (e.g.
Look how the universe had to be falling apart before he could be
forced into marrying River.)
> >> >> >> >> >But there's still nothing in it to say that Time Tots' parents (or
> >> >> >> >> >even grandparents) have to be married. Do you need me to upload that
> >> >> >> >> >clip too?
> >> >> >> >> I can do that.
> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >And how long will it take you?
> >> >> >> I am video mix.
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >Are you? Any relation to Tom Mix?
> >> >> LOL!
> >> >> DVD is much better.
> >> >> Found the scene where Susan is able to communicate with the Sensorites.
> >> >> --
> >> >Good, and about time too. Now have you uploaded it?
> >> Not the one I am looking for.
> >> My goodness the orignal stuff is very neato!
> >> --
> >You're not watching 'The Sensorites' all the way through to find the
> >scene, are you? I gave you a tip the other week about doing a text
> >search on the script to find the scene, then you can find it quickly
> >on the DVD.
> YEs I am and did find Susan was communicating with the Sensorites.
Like I keep telling you, use a text search on the script to find the
precise scene you want, then you can locate it on the DVD much
quicker.
> >But that's no excuse for not getting the clip up in time.
> Desk is busy around here. Public and customer relations comes first.
> --
Too many people complaining that your dial-up ISP is crap and you need
to offer full broadband?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> About abortion and unwanteds.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >I don't recall making any specific analogy about them. Which post was
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >it?
>> >> >> >Well, Yads, are you going to answer this.
>> >> >> Is your memory that bad?
>> >> >I remember repeatedly asking you about this analogy and not getting a
>> >> >proper reply.
>> >> Because you introduced the word abortion into the thread.
>> >You're refusing to give me a proper reply because I used the word
>> >'abortion' in this thread...!?!
>> You introduced it.
>Yes, but only because I thought that was where you were heading when
>you introduced the subject of unwanted pregnancy.
>If you weren't heading there, then where were you going with the
>subject? What point were you trying to make by mentioning unwanted
>pregnancy? I've asked you this several times and you still haven't
>given a straight reply.
>And you also haven't explained about this flameworthy analogy you
>think I made.
>> >> >> >> Well the established is that Popplewick is the AntiDoctor.
>> >> >> >That's a ridiculous over-simplification. The word "AntiDoctor" isn't
>> >> >> >even mentioned once in the dialogue.
>> >> >> >But even assuming you're right and Popplewick is the "AntiDoctor",
>> >> >> >that would still confirm my point. Popplewick is about artificial
>> >> >> >concepts of order and protocol. The Doctor is the opposite. Which
>> >> >> >would make him about anarchy.
>> >> >> And the Doctor considers protocol artificial?
>> >> >Yes. The desire for protocol and order is natural. But the
>> >> >artificial protocols we build to satisfy that desire are artificial.
>> >> >And the Doctor is intelligent enough to know this.
>> >> What about manners?
>> >Yes, what about them?
>> >In Britain it's considered good manners to use your fork in the left
>> >hand, not the right. In America, it's the other way round. I'm
>> >disgusted by the sight of Americans eating wrongly in American series
>> >and movies. No doubt they probably feel the same way about seeing
>> >British people eat.
>> >The desire for good manners is natural and universal. The specific
>> >details about what makes good manners are artificial and arbitrary.
>> Manners are protocol.
>Yes, that's right, and manners and protocol are arbitrary and
>artificial in their details. That's why the Doctor thinks the
>organisations built up around them are ridiculous.
>> >> >You doubt what exactly? Do you doubt that Popplewick's protocol is
>> >> >artificial? Or that the considers it to be so?
>> >> I doubt the Doctor considers it artifical. Note his roots
>> >> about respecting local custom.
>> >That usually only seems to apply to Earth customs, and even then it
>> >seems strange. He's quick to stamp out alien customs that he doesn't
>> >like. For example, compare his differing opinions on the custom of
>> >voluntary sacrifice in The Aztecs and Big Finish's The Scapegoat.
>> What about interference.
>The two volume novel by Lawrence Miles? Well, the Doctor is very
>anarchic in that.
I recall the Aztecs and the Doctor scolding Barbara.
>> >> >I think your confusion is because living in North America means you're
>> >> >more aware of American-style right wing anarchists (e.g. the Tea
>> >> >Party). But the Doctor's anarchy is more in the tradition of the
>> >> >British and European left wing anarchists. Big difference.
>> >> Sinn Fein are left wing. So is the Scottish Socialist Party.
>> >Your point being...?
>> That is what I was asking you.
>You were asking me what your point is? Don't you know?
>I can only tell you about my point, which is that the Doctor isn't
>likely to treat an artificial concept like marriage seriously. (e.g.
>Look how the universe had to be falling apart before he could be
>forced into marrying River.)
>> >> >> >> >> >But there's still nothing in it to say that Time Tots' parents (or
>> >> >> >> >> >even grandparents) have to be married. Do you need me to upload that
>> >> >> >> >> >clip too?
>> >> >> >> >> I can do that.
>> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >And how long will it take you?
>> >> >> >> I am video mix.
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >Are you? Any relation to Tom Mix?
>> >> >> LOL!
>> >> >> DVD is much better.
>> >> >> Found the scene where Susan is able to communicate with the Sensorites.
>> >> >> --
>> >> >Good, and about time too. Now have you uploaded it?
>> >> Not the one I am looking for.
>> >> My goodness the orignal stuff is very neato!
>> >> --
>> >You're not watching 'The Sensorites' all the way through to find the
>> >scene, are you? I gave you a tip the other week about doing a text
>> >search on the script to find the scene, then you can find it quickly
>> >on the DVD.
>> YEs I am and did find Susan was communicating with the Sensorites.
>Like I keep telling you, use a text search on the script to find the
>precise scene you want, then you can locate it on the DVD much
>quicker.
Prefer to select from video.
>> >But that's no excuse for not getting the clip up in time.
>> Desk is busy around here. Public and customer relations comes first.
>> --
>Too many people complaining that your dial-up ISP is crap and you need
>to offer full broadband?
Not that.
-- Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising! http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k USA petition to dissolve the Republic and vote to disoolve it in November 2012
> > But that's no excuse for not getting the clip up in time.
> Standard Yads' tactic. Make a wild claim, make a wilder claim that he can
> provide evidence, fail to find said evidence and then come up with excuses
> until you get bored with the topic and move on.
True. Remember that time he insisted the original Biblical census was
preserved in a museum in Italy, but couldn't recall which museum or
even which town it was in, let alone how he'd heard about it in the
first place! That was classic Yads.
But this time I'm not going to let him get away with it. I'll keep on
at him until he uploads the clip, or admits that he can't find it.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> About abortion and unwanteds.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >I don't recall making any specific analogy about them. Which post was
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >it?
> >> >> >> >Well, Yads, are you going to answer this.
> >> >> >> Is your memory that bad?
> >> >> >I remember repeatedly asking you about this analogy and not getting a
> >> >> >proper reply.
> >> >> Because you introduced the word abortion into the thread.
> >> >You're refusing to give me a proper reply because I used the word
> >> >'abortion' in this thread...!?!
> >> You introduced it.
> >Yes, but only because I thought that was where you were heading when
> >you introduced the subject of unwanted pregnancy.
> >If you weren't heading there, then where were you going with the
> >subject? What point were you trying to make by mentioning unwanted
> >pregnancy? I've asked you this several times and you still haven't
> >given a straight reply.
> >And you also haven't explained about this flameworthy analogy you
> >think I made.
> Then drop it!
Why? Since you seem to think that good manners are important, perhaps
you should show some by actually answering a question for a change!
> >> >> >> And the Doctor considers protocol artificial?
> >> >> >Yes. The desire for protocol and order is natural. But the
> >> >> >artificial protocols we build to satisfy that desire are artificial.
> >> >> >And the Doctor is intelligent enough to know this.
> >> >> What about manners?
> >> >Yes, what about them?
> >> >In Britain it's considered good manners to use your fork in the left
> >> >hand, not the right. In America, it's the other way round. I'm
> >> >disgusted by the sight of Americans eating wrongly in American series
> >> >and movies. No doubt they probably feel the same way about seeing
> >> >British people eat.
> >> >The desire for good manners is natural and universal. The specific
> >> >details about what makes good manners are artificial and arbitrary.
> >> Manners are protocol.
> >Yes, that's right, and manners and protocol are arbitrary and
> >artificial in their details. That's why the Doctor thinks the
> >organisations built up around them are ridiculous.
> Such as the Queen?
The Queen herself isn't an institution, just a person employed by the
institution of the Monarchy. And I've already said, historic Earth-
based institutions and customs seem to be the exception to the rule.
(Probably because most of the scriptwriters tend to come from Earth.)
> >> >> >You doubt what exactly? Do you doubt that Popplewick's protocol is
> >> >> >artificial? Or that the considers it to be so?
> >> >> I doubt the Doctor considers it artifical. Note his roots
> >> >> about respecting local custom.
> >> >That usually only seems to apply to Earth customs, and even then it
> >> >seems strange. He's quick to stamp out alien customs that he doesn't
> >> >like. For example, compare his differing opinions on the custom of
> >> >voluntary sacrifice in The Aztecs and Big Finish's The Scapegoat.
> >> What about interference.
> >The two volume novel by Lawrence Miles? Well, the Doctor is very
> >anarchic in that.
> I recall the Aztecs and the Doctor scolding Barbara.
And like I said above, "compare his differing opinions on the custom
of voluntary sacrifice in The Aztecs and Big Finish's The Scapegoat."
> >> >> >I think your confusion is because living in North America means you're
> >> >> >more aware of American-style right wing anarchists (e.g. the Tea
> >> >> >Party). But the Doctor's anarchy is more in the tradition of the
> >> >> >British and European left wing anarchists. Big difference.
> >> >> Sinn Fein are left wing. So is the Scottish Socialist Party.
> >> >Your point being...?
> >> That is what I was asking you.
> >You were asking me what your point is? Don't you know?
> >I can only tell you about my point, which is that the Doctor isn't
> >likely to treat an artificial concept like marriage seriously. (e.g.
> >Look how the universe had to be falling apart before he could be
> >forced into marrying River.)
> About anarchaic party.
Is that supposed to mean something? What is about which anarchic
party?
> >> >> >> >> >> >But there's still nothing in it to say that Time Tots' parents (or
> >> >> >> >> >> >even grandparents) have to be married. Do you need me to upload that
> >> >> >> >> >> >clip too?
> >> >> >> >> >> I can do that.
> >> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> >And how long will it take you?
> >> >> >> >> I am video mix.
> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >Are you? Any relation to Tom Mix?
> >> >> >> LOL!
> >> >> >> DVD is much better.
> >> >> >> Found the scene where Susan is able to communicate with the Sensorites.
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >Good, and about time too. Now have you uploaded it?
> >> >> Not the one I am looking for.
> >> >> My goodness the orignal stuff is very neato!
> >> >> --
> >> >You're not watching 'The Sensorites' all the way through to find the
> >> >scene, are you? I gave you a tip the other week about doing a text
> >> >search on the script to find the scene, then you can find it quickly
> >> >on the DVD.
> >> YEs I am and did find Susan was communicating with the Sensorites.
> >Like I keep telling you, use a text search on the script to find the
> >precise scene you want, then you can locate it on the DVD much
> >quicker.
> Prefer to select from video.
Why? It's taken you two weeks to get nowhere doing it your way.
Don't you think that implies its not very efficient?
> >> >But that's no excuse for not getting the clip up in time.
> >> Desk is busy around here. Public and customer relations comes first.
> >> --
> >Too many people complaining that your dial-up ISP is crap and you need
> >to offer full broadband?
> Not that.
> --
Ah, they're all just insulting you for being a useless cunt in
general. Can't say I blame them.
>> > But that's no excuse for not getting the clip up in time.
>> Standard Yads' tactic. Make a wild claim, make a wilder claim that he can
>> provide evidence, fail to find said evidence and then come up with excuses
>> until you get bored with the topic and move on.
>True. Remember that time he insisted the original Biblical census was
>preserved in a museum in Italy, but couldn't recall which museum or
>even which town it was in, let alone how he'd heard about it in the
>first place! That was classic Yads.
>But this time I'm not going to let him get away with it. I'll keep on
>at him until he uploads the clip, or admits that he can't find it.
Good job.
-- Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising! http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k USA petition to dissolve the Republic and vote to disoolve it in November 2012
