> >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?

> >> >> >> >> >> 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.

> >> 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?

> >> >> >> >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!

> >Anyway, you said you'd already converted it to DVD, on 2nd Oct:
> ><news:k4fdv4$jel$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
> >https://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.drwho/msg/355ff0cd36e44ac5?h...
> > or http://tinyurl.com/YadsSensoritesDVD

> >Were you lying when you said that?  Or are you lying now when you say
> >you haven't converted it yet?

> I have converted it.