Ping Jonathan Blum
Peter J Ross
and Aldred would be in the cast, so you presumably wrote dialogue
appropriate for them. But did you know that Jacqueline Pierce would be
the "villain", and if so did you write dialogue with her voice in mind?
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader (v0.9.9): http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
jblu...@gmail.com
> When you wrote "The Fearmonger", you were presumably aware that McCoy
> and Aldred would be in the cast, so you presumably wrote dialogue
> appropriate for them. But did you know that Jacqueline Pierce would be
> the "villain", and if so did you write dialogue with her voice in mind?
Nope! I had no idea about the casting. Don't remember if I had
anyone particular in mind for Sherilyn Harper, but I do remember I
pictured Milton Johns (Castellan Kelner) as her offsider Roderick!
(ISTR Gary asked him, but he turned them down.)
I was very impressed with Jacqueline's performance -- I was expecting
her to go over-the-top into full "MAXIMUM POWER!!" mode, but between
her choices and Gary's direction, she kept it nicely under control...
Cheers,
Jon Blum
Peter J Ross
jblu...@gmail.com <jblu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for the information. So the combination of good script, good
acting and good direction was serendipitious, not planned. A lot of
classics probably originate that way.
I have "Doctor Who and the Zarbi", read by William Russell, to listen
to, and I'm not expecting to enjoy it much, so after that I may treat
myself to a repeat hearing of The Fearmonger. In my sad little
fanwanky notebook of Doctor Who ratings, it's the only McCoy story
that scores above 7/10.
hulahoop
>
> Thank you for the information. So the combination of good script, good
> acting and good direction was serendipitious, not planned. A lot of
> classics probably originate that way.
>
Maybe it's just me, but talk about damning with faint praise!
Regards
Ged
Peter J Ross
<sween...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It's my favourite 7th Doctor story. I hope JB didn't get the
impression that I was damning him with or without faint praise. I
merely asked a question, which he kindly answered.
I wish more DW authors were willing to post here. JB is the only one
I've noticed, unfortunately.
Soze
> In rec.arts.drwho on Mon, 1 Sep 2008 16:07:13 -0700 (PDT), hulahoop
> <sween...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 1, 8:52 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you for the information. So the combination of good script, good
>>> acting and good direction was serendipitious, not planned. A lot of
>>> classics probably originate that way.
>>>
>> Maybe it's just me, but talk about damning with faint praise!
>
> It's my favourite 7th Doctor story. I hope JB didn't get the
> impression that I was damning him with or without faint praise. I
> merely asked a question, which he kindly answered.
>
> I wish more DW authors were willing to post here. JB is the only one
> I've noticed, unfortunately.
They`d be mad to! Rob Shearman used to post here but lost his patience
with Yads once. Apparently some of the older NA writers used to before
my time.
Moffat has posted on the OG forums on several occasions...although I
suspect he`ll stop now!
Stephen O'Connell
> In rec.arts.drwho on Mon, 1 Sep 2008 16:07:13 -0700 (PDT), hulahoop
> <sween...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for the information. So the combination of good script,
>>> good acting and good direction was serendipitious, not planned. A
>>> lot of classics probably originate that way.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe it's just me, but talk about damning with faint praise!
>
> It's my favourite 7th Doctor story. I hope JB didn't get the
> impression that I was damning him with or without faint praise. I
> merely asked a question, which he kindly answered.
>
> I wish more DW authors were willing to post here. JB is the only one
> I've noticed, unfortunately.
They probably were willing once!
Poor ol' JB gets some stick at times, I'm actually surprised he still
bothers.
Peter J Ross
<I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>> In rec.arts.drwho on Mon, 1 Sep 2008 16:07:13 -0700 (PDT), hulahoop
>> <sween...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 1, 8:52 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you for the information. So the combination of good script, good
>>>> acting and good direction was serendipitious, not planned. A lot of
>>>> classics probably originate that way.
>>>>
>>> Maybe it's just me, but talk about damning with faint praise!
>>
>> It's my favourite 7th Doctor story. I hope JB didn't get the
>> impression that I was damning him with or without faint praise. I
>> merely asked a question, which he kindly answered.
>>
>> I wish more DW authors were willing to post here. JB is the only one
>> I've noticed, unfortunately.
>
> They`d be mad to!
You and I are presumably mad too. Madness is underrated.
The worst that can happen on Usenet is that some knuckle-dragger will
type some misspelt flames, which can be ignored.
> Rob Shearman used to post here but lost his patience
> with Yads once. Apparently some of the older NA writers used to before
> my time.
They used to post here or they used to lose their patience with Yads?
:-)
> Moffat has posted on the OG forums on several occasions...although I
> suspect he`ll stop now!
Quite a few famous names appear occasionally in OG, but surely the
clumsiness of the interface and the huge number of separate subforums
that need to be monitored would give Usenet *some* advantage?
The Face of Po
Peter J Ross got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
> In rec.arts.drwho on Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:31:25 +0100, Soze
> <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > Moffat has posted on the OG forums on several occasions...although I
> > suspect he`ll stop now!
>
> Quite a few famous names appear occasionally in OG, but surely the
> clumsiness of the interface and the huge number of separate subforums
> that need to be monitored would give Usenet *some* advantage?
Not many people think that way, though. It's all part of the apparent
movement towards the browser being the single application that anyone
ever uses.
It makes sense to *me* to have native applications for the different
things one might to do with the internet, but the masses like to have
their email accounts, discussion groups, video sites, news pages and
everything else running in browser tabs.
Having the option to monitor all the subforums (in which the user is
interested) in one view shouldn't be so difficult to code, but there may
not be much demand for it.
--
Remove caps to communicate more easily.
"[Worshipping the Holy Trinity is] polytheism. When I worship Zeus or
Jehovah, I worship them by their own names as individuals. That's
monotheism. One God at a time." - Agamemnon
<JrqdnWstX8T...@eclipse.net.uk>
Peter J Ross
<gkenn...@claIrVOYaNT.coLD.DuCk> wrote:
> I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.arts.drwho when
> Peter J Ross got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
>> In rec.arts.drwho on Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:31:25 +0100, Soze
>> <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> [...]
>> > Moffat has posted on the OG forums on several occasions...although I
>> > suspect he`ll stop now!
>>
>> Quite a few famous names appear occasionally in OG, but surely the
>> clumsiness of the interface and the huge number of separate subforums
>> that need to be monitored would give Usenet *some* advantage?
>
> Not many people think that way, though. It's all part of the apparent
> movement towards the browser being the single application that anyone
> ever uses.
At present I have three instances of slrn running (connected to
different servers), a mail client, a torrent client (downloading the
Slackware 12.1 DVD), a text editor (Kate) with three documents open,
and a browser with five open tabs, one of which gives the listing of
files available on an FTP site.
My way of using the computer is a lot more *fun* than theirs!
> It makes sense to *me* to have native applications for the different
> things one might to do with the internet, but the masses like to have
> their email accounts, discussion groups, video sites, news pages and
> everything else running in browser tabs.
More than a hundred years ago there was a movement to educate the
"masses". Perhaps another such movement is needed.
Did you see this, by the way?
It's almost on-topic, since Stephen Fry almost wrote a DW story.
> Having the option to monitor all the subforums (in which the user is
> interested) in one view shouldn't be so difficult to code, but there may
> not be much demand for it.
Another advantage of RADW over OG that's just occurred to me is that
RADW doesn't become unavailable whenever new DW episodes cause a surge
of interest.
peachy ashie passion
> In rec.arts.drwho on Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:31:25 +0100, Soze
> <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>> In rec.arts.drwho on Mon, 1 Sep 2008 16:07:13 -0700 (PDT), hulahoop
>>> <sween...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 1, 8:52 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for the information. So the combination of good script, good
>>>>> acting and good direction was serendipitious, not planned. A lot of
>>>>> classics probably originate that way.
>>>>>
>>>> Maybe it's just me, but talk about damning with faint praise!
>>> It's my favourite 7th Doctor story. I hope JB didn't get the
>>> impression that I was damning him with or without faint praise. I
>>> merely asked a question, which he kindly answered.
>>>
>>> I wish more DW authors were willing to post here. JB is the only one
>>> I've noticed, unfortunately.
>> They`d be mad to!
>
> You and I are presumably mad too. Madness is underrated.
>
> The worst that can happen on Usenet is that some knuckle-dragger will
> type some misspelt flames, which can be ignored.
I beg to differ.
The _worst_ that can happen is that someone with actual brains can
type well thought out, properly spelled and punctuated flames.
That's loads worse!
Peter J Ross
passion <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>> In rec.arts.drwho on Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:31:25 +0100, Soze
>> <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>>> In rec.arts.drwho on Mon, 1 Sep 2008 16:07:13 -0700 (PDT), hulahoop
>>>> <sween...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's my favourite 7th Doctor story. I hope JB didn't get the
>>>> impression that I was damning him with or without faint praise. I
>>>> merely asked a question, which he kindly answered.
>>>>
>>>> I wish more DW authors were willing to post here. JB is the only one
>>>> I've noticed, unfortunately.
>>> They`d be mad to!
>>
>> You and I are presumably mad too. Madness is underrated.
>>
>> The worst that can happen on Usenet is that some knuckle-dragger will
>> type some misspelt flames, which can be ignored.
>
> I beg to differ.
>
> The _worst_ that can happen is that someone with actual brains can
> type well thought out, properly spelled and punctuated flames.
Fcuk, off paechie;£ó,
> That's loads worse!
I agree. The illiterate garbage that predominates in OG is far better
than what we RADW loonies post.
peachy ashie passion
> In rec.arts.drwho on Thu, 04 Sep 2008 20:06:59 GMT, peachy ashie
> passion <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>> In rec.arts.drwho on Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:31:25 +0100, Soze
>>> <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>>>> In rec.arts.drwho on Mon, 1 Sep 2008 16:07:13 -0700 (PDT), hulahoop
>>>>> <sween...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's my favourite 7th Doctor story. I hope JB didn't get the
>>>>> impression that I was damning him with or without faint praise. I
>>>>> merely asked a question, which he kindly answered.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wish more DW authors were willing to post here. JB is the only one
>>>>> I've noticed, unfortunately.
>>>> They`d be mad to!
>>> You and I are presumably mad too. Madness is underrated.
>>>
>>> The worst that can happen on Usenet is that some knuckle-dragger will
>>> type some misspelt flames, which can be ignored.
>> I beg to differ.
>>
>> The _worst_ that can happen is that someone with actual brains can
>> type well thought out, properly spelled and punctuated flames.
>
> Fcuk, off paechie;£ó,
>
Bite me!
The Face of Po
Peter J Ross got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
> In rec.arts.drwho on Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:04:00 +0100, The Face of Po
> <gkenn...@claIrVOYaNT.coLD.DuCk> wrote:
> > I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.arts.drwho when
> > Peter J Ross got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
> >> In rec.arts.drwho on Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:31:25 +0100, Soze
> >> <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > Moffat has posted on the OG forums on several occasions...although I
> >> > suspect he`ll stop now!
> >>
> >> Quite a few famous names appear occasionally in OG, but surely the
> >> clumsiness of the interface and the huge number of separate subforums
> >> that need to be monitored would give Usenet *some* advantage?
> >
> > Not many people think that way, though. It's all part of the apparent
> > movement towards the browser being the single application that anyone
> > ever uses.
>
> At present I have three instances of slrn running (connected to
> different servers), a mail client, a torrent client (downloading the
> Slackware 12.1 DVD), a text editor (Kate) with three documents open,
> and a browser with five open tabs, one of which gives the listing of
> files available on an FTP site.
I tend to run everything in its own x terminal (or a screen while
connecting remotely) - slrn, mutt, vim, elinks - with occasional
instances of Firefox for shopping.
> My way of using the computer is a lot more *fun* than theirs!
The best bit is when someone reasonably computer literate looking over
your shoulder hasn't a clue what you're doing.
> > It makes sense to *me* to have native applications for the different
> > things one might to do with the internet, but the masses like to have
> > their email accounts, discussion groups, video sites, news pages and
> > everything else running in browser tabs.
>
> More than a hundred years ago there was a movement to educate the
> "masses". Perhaps another such movement is needed.
>
> Did you see this, by the way?
>
> <http://www.gnu.org/fry/>
Yes - I like the way that it appears to be targetting the aging
connoisseur, rather than the usual "freaks and geeks" userbase. Though
I'm still disappointed that it wasn't just him performing "I'm a gnu".
> It's almost on-topic, since Stephen Fry almost wrote a DW story.
He had a part (as a Time Lord, no less) in "Death Comes to Time", too.
> > Having the option to monitor all the subforums (in which the user is
> > interested) in one view shouldn't be so difficult to code, but there may
> > not be much demand for it.
>
> Another advantage of RADW over OG that's just occurred to me is that
> RADW doesn't become unavailable whenever new DW episodes cause a surge
> of interest.
I often go round a friend's house to watch the new episodes, so this
isn't so much of a problem for me, but on more than one occasion the
host has gone to check OG straight afterwards and confirmed that it's
not responding. Waiting for RADW to propagate to all servers means
that's not up-to-the-second either, but at least it doesn't fall over.
--
Peter J Ross
<gkenn...@claIrVOYaNT.coLD.DuCk> wrote:
> I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.arts.drwho when
> Peter J Ross got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
>
>> It's almost on-topic, since Stephen Fry almost wrote a DW story.
>
> He had a part (as a Time Lord, no less) in "Death Comes to Time", too.
He was the best thing in it too, if one doesn't count Anton Bruckner.
spin-off "Minister of Chance" series might have been a lot of fun.