> >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.

> >> >> >> >> >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?

> >> >> >> >> >> 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.
> --