Received: by 10.66.81.98 with SMTP id z2mr4489527pax.19.1349792074869;
        Tue, 09 Oct 2012 07:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: t10ni23658843pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.hub.org!news.nk.ca!.POSTED.doctor.nl2k.ab.ca!not-for-mail
From: doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,alt.usenet.kooks,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho,rec.arts.sf.tv
Subject: Re: Amy and Rory Williams
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:14:33 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: NetKnow News
Message-ID: <k51bg7$9p4$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
References: <k48aea$qht$1@gallifrey.nk.ca> <9d2715c2-c1d8-4094-9772-0d2564c59d43@n16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> <k4unp4$9en$1@gallifrey.nk.ca> <b18c4cde-c6ae-4878-893e-d6427e28249b@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:14:33 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: gallifrey.nk.ca; posting-host="doctor.nl2k.ab.ca:204.209.81.1";
	logging-data="10020"; mail-complaints-to="use...@gallifrey.nk.ca"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor)

In article <b18c4cde-c6ae-4878-893e-d6427e282...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>The Douchebag wrote:
>
>> In article <9d2715c2-c1d8-4094-9772-0d2564c59...@n16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >The Douchebag wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <ba755bee-336e-4478-b396-e25b399e4...@a6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> In article <0e5db797-d5d7-4b73-8de9-8bd312398...@r10g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> >> In article <99e8efc1-8df0-44e3-86ff-c1ebf58c6...@y6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> In article <5e4766ef-834b-4e16-b8f5-859c9eaff...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> In article <8004c435-5cc2-4f4c-8290-85fece750...@j12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> In article <3b01cf71-5a9f-402c-860a-c831063a5...@c20g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In article <7a6896db-2cf9-4c34-8c73-3cc6ff3f2...@g4g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In article <f9d223df-a1f0-45d4-90db-0ec1358a4...@h16g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In article <a3429c7d-d3da-47ac-ac39-ed28ed3ac...@r10g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> solar penguin  <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Such is dumbing down.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >No, it isn't.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> then unexplained 'unwanted pregnancies'.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >They've occurred in all eras of history, not just the UK since the
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >1960s.  But they're not scandalous any more, which means we now have
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >organisations like abortion agencies to actively help deal with them.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Abortion agencies help?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Apparently, yes.  Obviously, I've never needed one myself, so I can't
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >speak from first hand experience, but I'm told they do help people to
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >get rid of their unwanted pregnancies.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>  That is a very bad use of words!
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Why?  Ok, so the whole idea of what they do is a bit icky, or even a
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >lot icky.  I'd hate to do a job like that.  But let's not let our
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >personal phobias get in the way of solid facts.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You chose the  words.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Yes, and I still don't see why you have a problem with them.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Abortion is another word for convenient murder.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Yes, convenient.  That's right.  And it's precisely because it's so
>> >> >> >> >> >> >convenient that makes it such a big help.  That's my point.  It helps
>> >> >> >> >> >> >because it's so convenient now.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >But what has this got to do with DW?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> You said abortion not me.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Only in response to your question about 'unwanted pregnancies'.  If
>> >> >> >> >> >that wasn't what you intended by the question, then what is?
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >>  Also it is unnatural termination.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Yes I know that.  What is your point?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Careful he words you choose.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >I was careful.  There was nothing wrong with the words I chose.  Why
>> >> >> >> >do you have a problem with them?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Abortion not a word for the carefully chosen.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >No, just the opposite.  It allows women to carefully choose whether to
>> >> >> >keep a child or not.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You have got to be joking!
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Why?  You should know my sense of humour by now: surreal ideas and
>> >> >corny wordplay.  That's neither, just a simple, undeniable statement
>> >> >of fact.
>> >> >
>> >> >But I still don't see what this 'unwanted pregnancies' bit of the
>> >> >discussion has to do with the first Doctor.  Are you going anywhere
>> >> >with it?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> As I said you choose the playng field and words.
>> >>
>> >
>> >No, Yads.  YOU brought up the subject of 'unwanted pregnancies'.  Not
>> >me.  Did you have a reason for doing so?
>> >
>
>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?

>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Pregnancy yes AND the Doctor loved his granddaughter.  Clue!
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Not much of a clue to anything really.  He could still have loved her
>> >> >> >> >> >even if he wasn't married to her grandmother.  After all, you don't
>> >> >> >> >> >have to marry someone's grandmother in order to love them, do you?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Say again?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >I said, the Doctor could still love his granddaughter even if he
>> >> >> >> >wasn't married to her grandmother.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >What's so odd about that?  I know a grandfather who loves his
>> >> >> >> >granddaughter even though he isn't married to her grandmother.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I would say the Doctor and Susan are blood related.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Yes, that's possible.  But even blood relations through "illegitimate"
>> >> >> >family lines are still blood related.  There's still nothing to say
>> >> >> >that we definitely know for certain that the first Doctor was married.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How would he get a granddaughter?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Don't you know the birds and the bees?  Well, the usual way is by
>> >> >getting a woman pregnant (whether or not she just happens to be his
>> >> >wife) and then when the child is grown up it has a daughter, and
>> >> >that's the granddaughter.  But there's no need for anyone to be
>> >> >married to do any of that.
>> >>
>> >> I know the Birds and the bees.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Then you know that people don't need to be married to have children or
>> >grandchildren.
>>
>> That immoral.
>>
>
>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.

>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well We know about the Doctor's mother.
>> >> >> --
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes, he's half human on his mother's side.
>> >>
>> >> She was on Gallifrey.
>> >> --
>> >
>> >Why?  What was she doing there, when she's not even Gallifreyan?
>>
>> 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 ?
-- 
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