Will the first half of 2012 season be repeated?

[FishFood]

Does anyone know if the first half season will be repeated before
the closing half. It would make sense to do this and claim an even
larger audience in preparation for the second half. There would
also be a kind of rational for a season of two halves, besides
budget and production issues..

[Stephen Wilson]

"FishFood" <do...@home.com> wrote in message
news:k4sitd$d46$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

I'm not aware of any plans to repeat the show. Although they may pop up on
one of the digital channels (eg BBC3).

Apart from anything else, the new companion will be introduced in the
Christmas special and the 2nd half of the season follows on from that.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"FishFood" <do...@home.com> wrote in message
news:k4sitd$d46$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

I've been having fun researching law and academic papers, and discovered
that a rational decision in law isn't what most people think it is.

A rational decision is that the names of policy documents and how they fit
together is rational. The policy documents can be completely wrong and based
on bad or out of date science, and they would still be rational in the eyes
of the law. Something to bear in mind if you ever sue based on an irrational
decision.

Then there is the 'reasonable' test. What would the layman think when
presented with the evidence under their nose? This excludes counter
intuitive decisions and lack of complete information and context.

Expert testimony can also be disallowed in a judicial review unless there
are exceptional reasons for its consideration. Exactly what the test for
exceptional reasons is nobody knows.

Production and budget issues can also be waved away. Production can suffer
from wilful blindness where if nobody can cite local practice or conclusive
research the production is "experimental", thus, there is no duty to observe
best practice even if the rest of the world is making out like gangbusters.
Finance? Local cost savings can always be justified on budget constraints
even if they are a bad investment and deliver poor value for the wider
market.

Well, that's fun for someone. Mostly lawyers (and Moffat).

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[FishFood]

This take on rational reads like magic, superstition, or religion.
Rational, in that it extends out of the available knowledge. Truthful
or deceptive, it follows the rules as we've now come to expect them.

[The Doctor]

Logic please.
--
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

[Brian]

I second that.

--
Regards Brian

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"FishFood" <do...@home.com> wrote in message

news:k4ve8n$3j1$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> This take on rational reads like magic, superstition, or religion.
> Rational, in that it extends out of the available knowledge. Truthful
> or deceptive, it follows the rules as we've now come to expect them.

The English legal system is deeply entwined with psychology, history, and
culture. I've written before that the problems with British economics can be
tracked back to Saxon times. Catching up with the media today I noticed
George Monbiot's essay on the toxic effects of empire on coloniser and the
colonised.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/08/empire-torture-kenya-catastrophe-europe

Looking through the comments: one person asks whether this is about an
apology or financial reparations. English law was originally a compensatory
law (and in theory still is). The Americans lifted this along with a lot of
other things at the time of separation.

If you really want to navel gaze look up "essentialism" as it relates to
feminism and race politics.

On the issue of Moffat's gender bending: The history of non-conformative
gender expression dates back a while and bears a strong similarity to early
Jewish integration. (I've consulted with a Jewish PhD and a feminist who has
just completed her MPhil in British Jewish history). Then there's the
British Empire's ruthless enforcement of the caste system and systemic
wiping out of the Hijra population. Moffat hasn't made the best job of
everything but his mainstreaming of these issues is cutting edge, uses
Doctor Who as a moral force, and may ultimately contribute to law and
practice aligning in better ways.

Sorry. Mind in a million different places all at the same time.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[FishFood]

Sorry that last post should read:

This take on rational reads like magic, superstition, or religion.

Rational, in that it extends out of the prevailing knowledge.
Truthful or deceptive, its rational would follow rules as we've

now come to expect them.

o00o

In other words, rational isn't necessarily logical. It is an
association to rules, or a pattern. It is what we learn, then
expect. A computer would be rational even when it followed
rubbish logic.

Magic judged on appearance would appear rational, even when
it defied sense - disappearing elephants and all. Ditto our
many fashionable superstitions, vague vogues of thought, with
their basis in rationals which are not to be understood, just
accepted.

Rationals based on founding designs which, either through force,
or tacit agreement, are not to be questioned. Rationals which
over time were elaborated upon with bodies of thought created
by its many vested interests, each looking to curry favor in
that determined way which add soundness to the rational.

Given Time, the history of that rational becomes its own truth,
so that there is no undoing what we depend upon. At which point
one has belief with no place for reason.

Rational it may be, but is it logical?

[FishFood]

I like ;)

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"FishFood" <do...@home.com> wrote in message

news:hz5ds.1470$h%5....@newsfe08.iad...

I thought it was lazy blustering!

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"FishFood" <do...@home.com> wrote in message

news:ix5ds.1469$h%5....@newsfe08.iad...

I downloaded a guide to preparing a legal case and the quote in the first
chapter heading was a dead giveaway. "It is not wisdom but Authority that
makes a law." -- Thomas Hobbes.

I read through a 50,000+ word judgement earlier this week looking for legal
strategies. The judgement highlighted many of the issues you've raised and
was problematic but... did drill home the value of research. It's no
guarantee but the best prepared case is often the one that wins.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[The Doctor]

got you.

--
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

[Raymond Daley]

"FishFood" <do...@home.com> wrote in message
news:k4sitd$d46$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

BBC3 generally re-run the previous season or 2 before a new season starts.
So the odds are very high on yes being the answer.

[FishFood]

Trust me, i know lazy blustering when i see it. God knows i've cook
a few of those stews myself. Nop, you've set me on a train of thought
which i might not have considered on my own, and i thank you for that.

I'd like to explore the "essentialism" angle you've hinted at, but
i wouldn't know where to start. Have you any bread crumbs to share?

[FishFood]

So how do you prepare? Is it simple about precedence, eg a history
of decisions which are accepted as sound and therefore rational?

On another flight of fancy...

Imagine if we had programs to explore the true nature of what we
take to be rational. Sure we have courses, and study but wheres the
example in a form we can all learn from? It seems to me, we have
programs which act to bolster an idea of the infallible system.
We have genres of tv, part of a formula which reinforce that idea
of a super efficient system.

Our movie culture has the system made up of perfect people, characters
who in those grand institutions always make the right decisions with
the best of motives. It rare to see the bodgers, or 'the experts'
getting it wrong as they muddle on. Nothing on the hive intelligence,
with its alligences to wasteful procedures, or the malformed cog
doing its bit to not be noticed, as it tries to keep sync.

I'd like to see something pitched as a comedy, as if to say these
people can't really exist can they?, yet based on reality. A comedy
of manners a bit like 'yes minister' was back in the day, but applied
to other institutions besides government, so that we have a reality,
albeit in a comedic form, as a guide to our true natures. There
again anything like this might be considered risky, undermining
confidence, when so much of our system depends on this confidence.

What's the reality like in a system of poorly understood rationals.

[FishFood]

I hope we get enough forewarning, its just i'm a little ashamed to
say i missed the opening episode of this season DW. And these days
p2p isn't what it use to be.

[The Doctor]

Imagine fiber internet?

--
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

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"FishFood" <do...@home.com> wrote in message

news:H9kds.7685$mt1....@newsfe21.iad...

I'm doing research ahead of discussing the issue with a lawyer so I can
better understand the system and know what questions to raise. That involves
knowing what's important, how judges react, what weight is attached to
authorities and what types of authorities exist, and so on. Precedent is
complicated as law, science, and politics change but essentially, yes, is a
history of judgements accepted as sound and rational.

Judges loath overturning precedent which is why the system has a nasty habit
of stalling. The system is so resistant to change this is why measures like
new (and technically unnecessary) primary legislation is required.

I met a previous Lord Chancellor during a lunch while their brief included
regulation. At the time incomes and affordable housing were an issue and I
had spotted that although it wasn't explicitly stated in his brief nothing
said he couldn't tweak a regulation. I suggested a minor tweak that had the
effect of subsidising low income social housing occupiers home purchase by
thousands of pounds. In effect I was turning the, then, Tory governments
system against itself. I had actually forgotten about this until three years
later read that the regulation had indeed gone through. This is greased
lightening in government terms.

Alas, we are back where we started...

I do get the strong impression at times that law as implemented is merely a
veneer of confidence applied to a messy and broken reality. There's an
influential view that we're all psychotic in a psychotic world. I think this
is why qualitative issues, essence, or intuitive understanding of the world
is a helpful companion to logic. Good comedy, like good art, help us
sidestep the illusory certainty of logic and help us become more in touch
with reality and ourselves.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"FishFood" <do...@home.com> wrote in message

news:iOjds.2657$%E4....@newsfe01.iad...

> Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
>>
> Trust me, i know lazy blustering when i see it. God knows i've cook
> a few of those stews myself. Nop, you've set me on a train of thought
> which i might not have considered on my own, and i thank you for that.
>
> I'd like to explore the "essentialism" angle you've hinted at, but
> i wouldn't know where to start. Have you any bread crumbs to share?

I'm a little stuck with preparing the case and throwing some intellectual
spaghetti around might be a little fun. While it may not be of value in
itself the sound and rational and good intent is a mental break and good for
morale. I'm rather grateful myself for that so thank *you*.

I don't know too much about essentialism. It's defined adequately on wiki,
and there's a handful of essays kicking around that can be searched. Beyond
that things get complicated as essentialism is a political and psychological
view. It's core is founded on opposing the oppression of authority and
arguments follow an extremely female gendered psychological process. Set
theory, distribution curves, and homeostasis are other layers of
complication because you can't separate people from the system.

Another key word to look out for is "intersectionality".

Not to trivialise its value you could get lost in that naval gaze forever.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[FishFood]

> Not to trivialize its value you could get lost in that naval gaze forever.
>

I recognize some of your points, ie Homeostasis, where stability
or equilibrium of a dynamic system, has any action bound to its
opposing reaction. Pain, bound to the ways one release ourselves
of pain, as one example. Yin and Yang as as opposing elements of
an organic system, if you like. Trouble occurs when the system as
devised and peopled, can't see the value or consequences of these
opposing reactions.

Now throw in our technologies and our increasing connectedness, and
one wonders if there is still room in our thinking for this natural
dynamic. Would the opposite be part of the same formula, or subject
to approval by committee?

Digital now defines our explanation of the system. Digital as oppose
to the quirks and 'predictable irrationalities' of an analog machine.
Based on the digital model, we think of ourselves as discrete
functions, because digital is clean like that. We as flesh and blood
organic machines, are more akin to analog machines, where influences
between functions goes beyond what might be designed on paper.

I wonder if we see this? Any divergence between theory and practice,
would only be noted where it allowed feedback on the practice, in the
manner of Cybernetics. The same might be true for our legislation and
its ramification. The system needs an element of wisdom, which you
won't necessarily find if you simply go by the rule book.

As tie-in, I wonder what are the natural limits of a selfish system?
ie the smallest element of the system, how would it fit in with the
whole. Imagine DW in such a world, taken to its ninth degree? That's
the kind of drama or comedy i'd like to see more of. The alternative
is drama designed on a theme to force our unwitting compliance. Does
one simply force the system to work by complying with whatever agenda
is foisted upon us. Or is the system robust enough to accept contrary
thought, wherever it might be found?

[FishFood]

>> people can't really exist can they?', yet based on reality. A comedy

>> of manners a bit like 'yes minister' was back in the day, but applied
>> to other institutions besides government, so that we have a reality,
>> albeit in a comedic form, as a guide to our true natures. There
>> again anything like this might be considered risky, undermining
>> confidence, when so much of our system depends on this confidence.
>>
>> What's the reality like in a system of poorly understood rationals.
>
> I'm doing research ahead of discussing the issue with a lawyer so I can
> better understand the system and know what questions to raise. That
> involves knowing what's important, how judges react, what weight is
> attached to authorities and what types of authorities exist, and so
> on. Precedent is complicated as law, science, and politics change but
> essentially, yes, is a history of judgements accepted as sound and rational.
>
> Judges loath overturning precedent which is why the system has a nasty
> habit of stalling. The system is so resistant to change this is why
> measures like new (and technically unnecessary) primary legislation is
> required.
>
> I met a previous Lord Chancellor during a lunch while their brief included
> regulation. At the time incomes and affordable housing were an issue and I
> had spotted that although it wasn't explicitly stated in his brief nothing
> said he couldn't tweak a regulation. I suggested a minor tweak that had the

> effect of subsidizing low income social housing occupiers home purchase by

> thousands of pounds. In effect I was turning the, then, Tory governments
> system against itself. I had actually forgotten about this until three
> years later read that the regulation had indeed gone through. This is
> greased lightening in government terms.
>
> Alas, we are back where we started...
>
> I do get the strong impression at times that law as implemented is merely
> a veneer of confidence applied to a messy and broken reality. There's an
> influential view that we're all psychotic in a psychotic world. I think
> this is why qualitative issues, essence, or intuitive understanding of
> the world is a helpful companion to logic. Good comedy, like good art,
> help us sidestep the illusory certainty of logic and help us become more
> in touch with reality and ourselves.
>

In one sense i can see how the system, wanting to appear fair and even
handed, might want the same judgment for all similar cases. This might
though, mean equally unfair for all similar cases, simple because that
was the precedence.

We might as well do away with judges and have computers as judges ;).
Imagine that world, where lawyers were employed to feed case notes in,
as computers did all the research to arrive at a standardized judgment.
It would follow naturally as a consequence of our rationalised system.

Now for the fun bit.

Imagine deviations in the punishment based upon supply and demand, so
that the program was 'tunned' according to the demands of the penal
system. Call this the bias variable. A work generation program, with
its parallel headline generation program, where computers were 'used'
to manage this element of supply and demand. No one would be in any
position to question the computer, or it programmer, unless it supplied
reasons which could be further investigated. In this way, the computer
would produce answers to manage appearance. judicial magic. Not that
i'm suggesting that course for the future, but forewarned is forearmed,
as we use to say.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"FishFood" <do...@home.com> wrote in message

news:k56bh2$686$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

I think reality can handle whatever we throw at it.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"FishFood" <do...@home.com> wrote in message

news:k56crm$9jm$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

My mum used to say the Tories never change. I can be a bit thick at times
but even I got that one eventually.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[The Doctor]

In article <k56eo4$dhp$1...@dont-email.me>,

Tories rarely changes and Labour are a disaster.

[FishFood]

yeah, you could say we are adaptable and so we will adapt to anything
reality throws at us. see history.

[FishFood]

The Doctor wrote:
> In article <wdkds.7686$mt1....@newsfe21.iad>, FishFood <do...@home.com> wrote:
>> Raymond Daley wrote:
>>> "FishFood" <do...@home.com> wrote in message
>>> news:k4sitd$d46$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> Does anyone know if the first half season will be repeated before
>>>> the closing half. It would make sense to do this and claim an even
>>>> larger audience in preparation for the second half. There would
>>>> also be a kind of rational for a season of two halves, besides
>>>> budget and production issues..
>>> BBC3 generally re-run the previous season or 2 before a new season starts.
>>> So the odds are very high on yes being the answer.
>>>
>> I hope we get enough forewarning, its just i'm a little ashamed to
>> say i missed the opening episode of this season DW. And these days
>> p2p isn't what it use to be.
>
> Imagine fiber internet?

Just caught up... and i have to say that opening episode was bloody
marvelous. Its lead me on, right up to the last act and then..
wham bam, i didn't see that one coming.

There was room for subtext which wasn't elaborated up, such as the
way the conscientious objector might be viewed by their own countrymen.
I wonder if we'll see that brave trooper again....

"run, and remember"


Is it possible for our master of time, to occupy the same time
stream, ie to both flee the planet in the teleport, and rescue that
defiant foe from that impending explosion?