Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Angels take Manhattan REview with Spoilers
47 views
Skip to first unread message
The Doctor
Sep 29, 2012, 10:21:53 PM9/29/12
to
This one is 9/10 .
The audience was getting set up for the Death of either Amy or Rory.
We also knew Stone Angels were invovle.
River is back.
Major twists and turn.
The Angles invade 1938 Manhattan.
And the Doctor is reading a novel that turns out to
be a River Song Biography.
Modern Manhattan 1938 Manhattan.
Get ready!!
Angels are not friendly.
Also the Doctor hates endings. Big time clue!!!
Who likes an Angel clutching River Song's wrist .
She get s her 'husband' involved.
All right.
1) Who expected Rory and Amy dropping off Winter Quay would defeat
most of the Angles?
2) Who expected a surviving Angel to send Amy and Rory back in time?
3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
Moffat I see that Rory and Amy can return
from 1888 to 1938 so one will have to wait.
--
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
The audience was getting set up for the Death of either Amy or Rory.
We also knew Stone Angels were invovle.
River is back.
Major twists and turn.
The Angles invade 1938 Manhattan.
And the Doctor is reading a novel that turns out to
be a River Song Biography.
Modern Manhattan 1938 Manhattan.
Get ready!!
Angels are not friendly.
Also the Doctor hates endings. Big time clue!!!
Who likes an Angel clutching River Song's wrist .
She get s her 'husband' involved.
All right.
1) Who expected Rory and Amy dropping off Winter Quay would defeat
most of the Angles?
2) Who expected a surviving Angel to send Amy and Rory back in time?
3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
Moffat I see that Rory and Amy can return
from 1888 to 1938 so one will have to wait.
--
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
Agamemnon
Sep 29, 2012, 10:42:20 PM9/29/12
to
"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:k48ac1$qfe$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> This one is 9/10 .
>
> The audience was getting set up for the Death of either Amy or Rory.
Don't think so. There were Weeping Angels involved. It was obvious that they
>
> The audience was getting set up for the Death of either Amy or Rory.
were going to be split up from either each other or the Doctor or both.
>
> We also knew Stone Angels were invovle.
>
> River is back.
>
> Major twists and turn.
>
> The Angles invade 1938 Manhattan.
>
> And the Doctor is reading a novel that turns out to
> be a River Song Biography.
>
> Modern Manhattan 1938 Manhattan.
>
> Get ready!!
>
> Angels are not friendly.
>
>
> Also the Doctor hates endings. Big time clue!!!
>
> Who likes an Angel clutching River Song's wrist .
>
> She get s her 'husband' involved.
>
>
> All right.
>
> 1) Who expected Rory and Amy dropping off Winter Quay would defeat
> most of the Angles?
>
> 2) Who expected a surviving Angel to send Amy and Rory back in time?
>
> 3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
>
It's Rory's dad I'm worried about.
Charles E. Hardwidge
Sep 29, 2012, 10:54:08 PM9/29/12
to
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrN...@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> The Stature of Liberty is made of bronze.
"Upgrades".
> The Stature of Liberty is made of bronze.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
anim8rFSK
Sep 29, 2012, 11:18:41 PM9/29/12
to
In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrN...@eclipse.net.uk>,
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> "The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
> news:k48ac1$qfe$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> > This one is 9/10 .
> >
> > The audience was getting set up for the Death of either Amy or Rory.
>
> Don't think so. There were Weeping Angels involved. It was obvious that they
> were going to be split up from either each other or the Doctor or both.
>
> >
> > We also knew Stone Angels were invovle.
>
> The Stature of Liberty is made of bronze.
What? No it's not. It's copper clad iron.
>
> "The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
> news:k48ac1$qfe$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> > This one is 9/10 .
> >
> > The audience was getting set up for the Death of either Amy or Rory.
>
> Don't think so. There were Weeping Angels involved. It was obvious that they
> were going to be split up from either each other or the Doctor or both.
>
> >
> > We also knew Stone Angels were invovle.
>
> The Stature of Liberty is made of bronze.
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
anim8rFSK
Sep 29, 2012, 11:19:46 PM9/29/12
to
> > 3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
> >
>
> What else was she supposed to do?
>
> It's Rory's dad I'm worried about.
Yeah, no mention or thought of him was annoying.
> >
>
> What else was she supposed to do?
>
> It's Rory's dad I'm worried about.
Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case, twice)
when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
Agamemnon
Sep 29, 2012, 11:30:43 PM9/29/12
to
"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:anim8rfsk-E1404...@news.easynews.com...
Arthur Lipscomb
Sep 29, 2012, 11:52:42 PM9/29/12
to
I don't recall the original explanation but I thought the weeping angels
simply looked like statutes. Now they are saying the angels are taking
over existing statutes. Is that a retcon or was that how they
originally described them?
Charles E. Hardwidge
Sep 29, 2012, 11:59:32 PM9/29/12
to
"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:anim8rfsk-C8CF0...@news.easynews.com...
> In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrN...@eclipse.net.uk>,
> Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case, twice)
> when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Ian B
Sep 30, 2012, 12:22:12 AM9/30/12
to
anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrN...@eclipse.net.uk>,
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>>> 3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
>>>
>>
>> What else was she supposed to do?
>>
>> It's Rory's dad I'm worried about.
>
> Yeah, no mention or thought of him was annoying.
>
> Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case,
> twice) when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
Ah yes, that reminds me of the other thing that suddenly appeared out of the
> In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrN...@eclipse.net.uk>,
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>>> 3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
>>>
>>
>> What else was she supposed to do?
>>
>> It's Rory's dad I'm worried about.
>
> Yeah, no mention or thought of him was annoying.
>
> Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case,
> twice) when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
Doctor's ass. The speech about how if Rory tried to run away, the Angels
would follow him everywhere, presenting us with the image of Rory tanking
along with a huddle of Angels after him like the Keystone Kops. Since when
could the Angels do that? Anywhere? If he zaps off to Metebelis 3 with the
Doctor, will the Angels appear there too? And why would they anyway? What's
so special about Rory? It can't be becasue he's the one who changed the
timeline, because simply by changing the timeline- which he achieves by
running away rather than staying in the hotel bedroom in his jim-jams- "none
of it will have ever happened".
None of the plot held together at all. Fookin' awful, this one.
Ian
Rich
Sep 30, 2012, 2:26:24 AM9/30/12
to
doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote in news:k48ac1$qfe$1
@gallifrey.nk.ca:
> This one is 9/10 .
>
> The audience was getting set up for the Death of either Amy or Rory.
>
> We also knew Stone Angels were invovle.
>
> River is back.
>
> Major twists and turn.
>
> The Angles invade 1938 Manhattan.
>
> And the Doctor is reading a novel that turns out to
> be a River Song Biography.
>
> Modern Manhattan 1938 Manhattan.
>
> Get ready!!
>
> Angels are not friendly.
>
>
> Also the Doctor hates endings. Big time clue!!!
>
> Who likes an Angel clutching River Song's wrist .
>
> She get s her 'husband' involved.
>
>
> All right.
>
> 1) Who expected Rory and Amy dropping off Winter Quay would defeat
> most of the Angles?
>
> 2) Who expected a surviving Angel to send Amy and Rory back in time?
>
> 3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
>
> Moffat I see that Rory and Amy can return
>
> from 1888 to 1938 so one will have to wait.
Unlikely. The Brits, unlike American TV producers sometimes kill
off/delete major characters from highly-rated shows. Witness MI-5
(Spooks).
@gallifrey.nk.ca:
> This one is 9/10 .
>
> The audience was getting set up for the Death of either Amy or Rory.
>
> We also knew Stone Angels were invovle.
>
> River is back.
>
> Major twists and turn.
>
> The Angles invade 1938 Manhattan.
>
> And the Doctor is reading a novel that turns out to
> be a River Song Biography.
>
> Modern Manhattan 1938 Manhattan.
>
> Get ready!!
>
> Angels are not friendly.
>
>
> Also the Doctor hates endings. Big time clue!!!
>
> Who likes an Angel clutching River Song's wrist .
>
> She get s her 'husband' involved.
>
>
> All right.
>
> 1) Who expected Rory and Amy dropping off Winter Quay would defeat
> most of the Angles?
>
> 2) Who expected a surviving Angel to send Amy and Rory back in time?
>
> 3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
>
> Moffat I see that Rory and Amy can return
>
> from 1888 to 1938 so one will have to wait.
off/delete major characters from highly-rated shows. Witness MI-5
(Spooks).
Mike Hall
Sep 30, 2012, 5:25:53 AM9/30/12
to
On 30/09/2012 04:52, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
> I don't recall the original explanation but I thought the weeping angels
> simply looked like statutes. Now they are saying the angels are taking
> over existing statutes. Is that a retcon or was that how they
> originally described them?
I'm guessing that it is pretty obvious that the angels replace existing
> I don't recall the original explanation but I thought the weeping angels
> simply looked like statutes. Now they are saying the angels are taking
> over existing statutes. Is that a retcon or was that how they
> originally described them?
statues. It is not confirmed whether they actually take over the statue
itself. The powers of the weeping angels are vast.
Mike Hall
Adam H. Kerman
Sep 30, 2012, 5:31:14 AM9/30/12
to
anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>>3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
>>What else was she supposed to do?
>>It's Rory's dad I'm worried about.
>Yeah, no mention or thought of him was annoying.
>Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case, twice)
>when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
It's like several scenes were missing.
>"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>>3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
>>What else was she supposed to do?
>>It's Rory's dad I'm worried about.
>Yeah, no mention or thought of him was annoying.
>Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case, twice)
>when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
The Doctor's "fixed point in time" concept is a floating target. If you
read about your future, that's what makes it fixed?
What would have happened to New York if there had been a second paradox?
Boston would have won all those World Series that the Yankees won?
Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
All that being said, the Angels are creepy as hell, one of the few
decent villains this revived show has created.
solar penguin
Sep 30, 2012, 5:37:48 AM9/30/12
to
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>
MDS
Sep 30, 2012, 5:53:19 AM9/30/12
to
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> >>>3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
>
> >>What else was she supposed to do?
>
> >>It's Rory's dad I'm worried about.
>
> >Yeah, no mention or thought of him was annoying.
>
> >Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case, twice)
> >when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
>
> It's like several scenes were missing.
>
> The Doctor's "fixed point in time" concept is a floating target. If you
> read about your future, that's what makes it fixed?
>
> What would have happened to New York if there had been a second paradox?
> Boston would have won all those World Series that the Yankees won?
>
> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
This was established in the first angels story, Blink
>
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> >>>3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
>
> >>What else was she supposed to do?
>
> >>It's Rory's dad I'm worried about.
>
> >Yeah, no mention or thought of him was annoying.
>
> >Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case, twice)
> >when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
>
> It's like several scenes were missing.
>
> The Doctor's "fixed point in time" concept is a floating target. If you
> read about your future, that's what makes it fixed?
>
> What would have happened to New York if there had been a second paradox?
> Boston would have won all those World Series that the Yankees won?
>
> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>
> All that being said, the Angels are creepy as hell, one of the few
> decent villains this revived show has created.
MDS (Mister Doctor Sir)
Adam H. Kerman
Sep 30, 2012, 5:53:29 AM9/30/12
to
Jerry Brown
Sep 30, 2012, 5:55:08 AM9/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 09:31:14 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>>>>3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
>
>>>What else was she supposed to do?
>
>>>It's Rory's dad I'm worried about.
>
>>Yeah, no mention or thought of him was annoying.
>
>>Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case, twice)
>>when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
>
>It's like several scenes were missing.
>
>The Doctor's "fixed point in time" concept is a floating target. If you
>read about your future, that's what makes it fixed?
This contradicts the classic series story Pyramids of Mars when the
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>>>>3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
>
>>>What else was she supposed to do?
>
>>>It's Rory's dad I'm worried about.
>
>>Yeah, no mention or thought of him was annoying.
>
>>Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case, twice)
>>when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
>
>It's like several scenes were missing.
>
>The Doctor's "fixed point in time" concept is a floating target. If you
>read about your future, that's what makes it fixed?
Doctor took Sarah Jane forward to their own time and actually _showed_
her the lifeless Earth that would result if they just departed without
finishing the job of defeating Sutekh.
--
Jerry Brown
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
solar penguin
Sep 30, 2012, 6:09:41 AM9/30/12
to
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> solar penguin <solar....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
> >>Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>
> >Since Blink.
>
> Oh, yeah, Kathy. I'd forgotten.
> But were they eating? That seemed new.
time energy in Blink. But it was just throwaway line, easy to miss
i..
And that was probably why they were after time energy from the crack
in the Flesh And Stone two-parter too.
Adam H. Kerman
Sep 30, 2012, 7:23:35 AM9/30/12
to
expend more energy than it creates? I'm thinking about that ship powered
by wave energy on Dinosaurs on a Spaceship.
cloud dreamer
Sep 30, 2012, 8:13:31 AM9/30/12
to
On 30/09/2012 12:12 AM, Agamemnon wrote:
> "The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
> news:k48ac1$qfe$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>> This one is 9/10 .
>>
>> The audience was getting set up for the Death of either Amy or Rory.
>
> Don't think so. There were Weeping Angels involved. It was obvious that they
> were going to be split up from either each other or the Doctor or both.
>
>>
>> We also knew Stone Angels were invovle.
>
> The Stature of Liberty is made of bronze.
>
>>
>> River is back.
>>
>> Major twists and turn.
>>
>> The Angles invade 1938 Manhattan.
Oh no! A typo!! Careful, Doctor, you'll be labelled a troll.
> "The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
> news:k48ac1$qfe$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>> This one is 9/10 .
>>
>> The audience was getting set up for the Death of either Amy or Rory.
>
> Don't think so. There were Weeping Angels involved. It was obvious that they
> were going to be split up from either each other or the Doctor or both.
>
>>
>> We also knew Stone Angels were invovle.
>
> The Stature of Liberty is made of bronze.
>
>>
>> River is back.
>>
>> Major twists and turn.
>>
>> The Angles invade 1938 Manhattan.
..
The Doctor
Sep 30, 2012, 8:30:40 AM9/30/12
to
>"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
>news:k48ac1$qfe$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>> This one is 9/10 .
>>
>> The audience was getting set up for the Death of either Amy or Rory.
>
>Don't think so. There were Weeping Angels involved. It was obvious that they
>were going to be split up from either each other or the Doctor or both.
>
We got the Sorry but you died Commerical here as well.
>news:k48ac1$qfe$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>> This one is 9/10 .
>>
>> The audience was getting set up for the Death of either Amy or Rory.
>
>Don't think so. There were Weeping Angels involved. It was obvious that they
>were going to be split up from either each other or the Doctor or both.
>
>>
>> We also knew Stone Angels were invovle.
>
>The Stature of Liberty is made of bronze.
>
>>
>> River is back.
>>
>> Major twists and turn.
>>
>> The Angles invade 1938 Manhattan.
>>
>> And the Doctor is reading a novel that turns out to
>> be a River Song Biography.
>>
>> Modern Manhattan 1938 Manhattan.
>>
>> Get ready!!
>>
>> Angels are not friendly.
>>
>>
>> Also the Doctor hates endings. Big time clue!!!
>>
>> Who likes an Angel clutching River Song's wrist .
>>
>> She get s her 'husband' involved.
>>
>>
>> All right.
>>
>> 1) Who expected Rory and Amy dropping off Winter Quay would defeat
>> most of the Angles?
>
>Everyone.
>
>>
>> 2) Who expected a surviving Angel to send Amy and Rory back in time?
>>
>
>Everyone.
>
>> 3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
>>
>
>What else was she supposed to do?
>
>It's Rory's dad I'm worried about.
>
The Doctor
Sep 30, 2012, 8:35:16 AM9/30/12
to
The Doctor
Sep 30, 2012, 8:36:29 AM9/30/12
to
In article <anim8rfsk-C8CF0...@news.easynews.com>,
The second is to join Rory.
After all Rory fell into the trap.
anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrN...@eclipse.net.uk>,
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>> > 3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
>> >
>>
>> What else was she supposed to do?
>>
>> It's Rory's dad I'm worried about.
>
>Yeah, no mention or thought of him was annoying.
>
>Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case, twice)
>when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
>
The first is to destory the Winter Quay.
>In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrN...@eclipse.net.uk>,
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>> > 3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
>> >
>>
>> What else was she supposed to do?
>>
>> It's Rory's dad I'm worried about.
>
>Yeah, no mention or thought of him was annoying.
>
>Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case, twice)
>when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
>
The second is to join Rory.
After all Rory fell into the trap.
>--
>"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
>"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
The Doctor
Sep 30, 2012, 8:37:12 AM9/30/12
to
In article <k48g3j$cl9$1...@dont-email.me>,
They were really in love which each other.
>--
>Charles E. Hardwidge
Charles E. Hardwidge <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>--
>Charles E. Hardwidge
The Doctor
Sep 30, 2012, 8:38:04 AM9/30/12
to
In article <5067c8ef$0$7317$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>,
>None of the plot held together at all. awful, this one.
>
>
>Ian
>
>
What about a non-survive paradox?
>
>
>Ian
>
>
What about a non-survive paradox?
The Doctor
Sep 30, 2012, 8:41:38 AM9/30/12
to
In article <BeU9s.131892$pO4....@fx17.am4>,
Going back to Blink they are a quantum life form.
The Doctor
Sep 30, 2012, 8:42:20 AM9/30/12
to
The Doctor
Sep 30, 2012, 8:45:44 AM9/30/12
to
anim8rFSK
Sep 30, 2012, 10:51:45 AM9/30/12
to
In article <k493h2$grq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> The Doctor's "fixed point in time" concept is a floating target. If you
> read about your future, that's what makes it fixed?
Sooo stupid. What if he reads it but Amy doesn't? I mean, somebody's
had to read it sometime before then. Same notation for Rory's tombstone.
> What would have happened to New York if there had been a second paradox?
> Boston would have won all those World Series that the Yankees won?
Maybe that's what he meant by 'torn apart' - fans rioting in the streets?
> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
I wondered if that was new to this episode or if I'd missed a memo.
> All that being said, the Angels are creepy as hell, one of the few
> decent villains this revived show has created.
Only thing creepier was Donna.
And why do you have to break the Angel's WRIST to free River? How about
a thumb? Why does the Doctor assume the Angel's wrist was broken when
he sees River? All that would do would leave the Angel's hand still
clamped to River's!
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> >>>3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
>
> >>What else was she supposed to do?
>
> >>It's Rory's dad I'm worried about.
>
> >Yeah, no mention or thought of him was annoying.
>
> >Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case, twice)
> >when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
>
> It's like several scenes were missing.
yep
> >"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> >>>3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
>
> >>What else was she supposed to do?
>
> >>It's Rory's dad I'm worried about.
>
> >Yeah, no mention or thought of him was annoying.
>
> >Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case, twice)
> >when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
>
> It's like several scenes were missing.
> The Doctor's "fixed point in time" concept is a floating target. If you
> read about your future, that's what makes it fixed?
had to read it sometime before then. Same notation for Rory's tombstone.
> What would have happened to New York if there had been a second paradox?
> Boston would have won all those World Series that the Yankees won?
> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
> All that being said, the Angels are creepy as hell, one of the few
> decent villains this revived show has created.
And why do you have to break the Angel's WRIST to free River? How about
a thumb? Why does the Doctor assume the Angel's wrist was broken when
he sees River? All that would do would leave the Angel's hand still
clamped to River's!
anim8rFSK
Sep 30, 2012, 10:54:46 AM9/30/12
to
all the Angels, after which they'd hunt him forever? What?
>
> None of the plot held together at all. Fookin' awful, this one.
+1
> None of the plot held together at all. Fookin' awful, this one.
solar penguin
Sep 30, 2012, 1:26:09 PM9/30/12
to
anim8rFSK wrote:
>
> "Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
them. ;)
Adam H. Kerman
Sep 30, 2012, 1:56:02 PM9/30/12
to
The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>solar penguin <solar....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>>Since Blink.
>Blink discusses the concept well.
The concept of constantly posting followups imparting no new information
>solar penguin <solar....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>>Since Blink.
>Blink discusses the concept well.
whatsoever? Damn, the Weeping Angels are hideously evil.
Mike Hall
Sep 30, 2012, 2:59:24 PM9/30/12
to
life. Now we have Google.
Mike Hall
The Doctor
Sep 30, 2012, 4:17:18 PM9/30/12
to
The Doctor
Sep 30, 2012, 4:17:44 PM9/30/12
to
In article <k4a13i$mhh$3...@news.albasani.net>,
The concept of touch you are back in time.
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
The Doctor
Sep 30, 2012, 4:19:02 PM9/30/12
to
In article <gE0as.115366$F52.1...@fx22.am4>,
Read the Manual.
Dimensional Traveler
Sep 30, 2012, 5:31:31 PM9/30/12
to
On 9/30/2012 7:51 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <k493h2$grq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>
> I wondered if that was new to this episode or if I'd missed a memo.
>
The very first episode that introduced them, 'Blink', had Carey
> In article <k493h2$grq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>
> I wondered if that was new to this episode or if I'd missed a memo.
>
Mulligan's friend sent back in time by a Weeping Angel.
--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with caffeine
pills, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate wouldn't
tolerate.
The Doctor
Sep 30, 2012, 7:35:45 PM9/30/12
to
In article <5068ba32$0$71186$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>
>--
>The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
>hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with caffeine
>pills, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate wouldn't
>tolerate.
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 9/30/2012 7:51 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>> In article <k493h2$grq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>>
>> I wondered if that was new to this episode or if I'd missed a memo.
>>
>The very first episode that introduced them, 'Blink', had Carey
>Mulligan's friend sent back in time by a Weeping Angel.
>
>
Try and linearise Blink.
>On 9/30/2012 7:51 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>> In article <k493h2$grq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>>
>> I wondered if that was new to this episode or if I'd missed a memo.
>>
>The very first episode that introduced them, 'Blink', had Carey
>Mulligan's friend sent back in time by a Weeping Angel.
>
>
>
>--
>The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
>hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with caffeine
>pills, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate wouldn't
>tolerate.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Ross
Oct 1, 2012, 7:50:52 AM10/1/12
to
On Sep 29, 11:52 pm, Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org>
wrote:
> On 9/29/2012 8:30 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "anim8rFSK" <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:anim8rfsk-E1404...@news.easynews.com...
> >> In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrNnZ2dnUVZ7vidn...@eclipse.net.uk>,
>
> > Either way it's not made of stone.
>
> And no one saw it moving?!?
>
I was *really* underwhelmed by Lady Liberty in this. If you're going
to have the statue of liberty get up and move around, I expect you to
actually *do* something with it.;
I also expect someone to make a reference to Ghostbusters 2.
> I don't recall the original explanation but I thought the weeping angels
> simply looked like statutes. Now they are saying the angels are taking
> over existing statutes. Is that a retcon or was that how they
> originally described them?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is definately the first they've mentioned it. At least they had
the foresight to have River explicitly *say* they were "taking over"
statues.
wrote:
> On 9/29/2012 8:30 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "anim8rFSK" <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:anim8rfsk-E1404...@news.easynews.com...
> >> In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrNnZ2dnUVZ7vidn...@eclipse.net.uk>,
> >> "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> >>> "The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
> >>>news:k48ac1$qfe$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> >>>> This one is 9/10 .
>
> >>>> The audience was getting set up for the Death of either Amy or Rory.
>
> >>> Don't think so. There were Weeping Angels involved. It was obvious that
> >>> they
> >>> were going to be split up from either each other or the Doctor or both.
>
> >>>> We also knew Stone Angels were invovle.
>
> >>> The Stature of Liberty is made of bronze.
>
> >> What? No it's not. It's copper clad iron.
>
> >>> "The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
> >>>news:k48ac1$qfe$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> >>>> This one is 9/10 .
>
> >>>> The audience was getting set up for the Death of either Amy or Rory.
>
> >>> Don't think so. There were Weeping Angels involved. It was obvious that
> >>> they
> >>> were going to be split up from either each other or the Doctor or both.
>
> >>>> We also knew Stone Angels were invovle.
>
> >>> The Stature of Liberty is made of bronze.
>
>
> > Either way it's not made of stone.
>
> And no one saw it moving?!?
>
I was *really* underwhelmed by Lady Liberty in this. If you're going
to have the statue of liberty get up and move around, I expect you to
actually *do* something with it.;
I also expect someone to make a reference to Ghostbusters 2.
> I don't recall the original explanation but I thought the weeping angels
> simply looked like statutes. Now they are saying the angels are taking
> over existing statutes. Is that a retcon or was that how they
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is definately the first they've mentioned it. At least they had
the foresight to have River explicitly *say* they were "taking over"
statues.
Ross
Oct 1, 2012, 7:52:31 AM10/1/12
to
On Sep 30, 12:22 am, "Ian B" <noem...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
If he just runs away, the Angels can always find him later and bring
him back, and then there's no paradox.
> anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrNnZ2dnUVZ7vidn...@eclipse.net.uk>,
> > "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> > In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrNnZ2dnUVZ7vidn...@eclipse.net.uk>,
> > "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> >>> 3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
>
> >> What else was she supposed to do?
>
> >> It's Rory's dad I'm worried about.
>
> > Yeah, no mention or thought of him was annoying.
>
> > Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case,
> > twice) when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
>
> Ah yes, that reminds me of the other thing that suddenly appeared out of the
> Doctor's ass. The speech about how if Rory tried to run away, the Angels
> would follow him everywhere, presenting us with the image of Rory tanking
> along with a huddle of Angels after him like the Keystone Kops. Since when
> could the Angels do that? Anywhere? If he zaps off to Metebelis 3 with the
> Doctor, will the Angels appear there too? And why would they anyway? What's
> so special about Rory? It can't be becasue he's the one who changed the
> timeline, because simply by changing the timeline- which he achieves by
> running away rather than staying in the hotel bedroom in his jim-jams- "none
> of it will have ever happened".
>
No, it's only when he kills himself that the timeline changes.
>
> >> What else was she supposed to do?
>
> >> It's Rory's dad I'm worried about.
>
> > Yeah, no mention or thought of him was annoying.
>
> > Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case,
> > twice) when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
>
> Ah yes, that reminds me of the other thing that suddenly appeared out of the
> Doctor's ass. The speech about how if Rory tried to run away, the Angels
> would follow him everywhere, presenting us with the image of Rory tanking
> along with a huddle of Angels after him like the Keystone Kops. Since when
> could the Angels do that? Anywhere? If he zaps off to Metebelis 3 with the
> Doctor, will the Angels appear there too? And why would they anyway? What's
> so special about Rory? It can't be becasue he's the one who changed the
> timeline, because simply by changing the timeline- which he achieves by
> running away rather than staying in the hotel bedroom in his jim-jams- "none
> of it will have ever happened".
>
If he just runs away, the Angels can always find him later and bring
him back, and then there's no paradox.
The Doctor
Oct 1, 2012, 10:10:17 AM10/1/12
to
In article <chine.bleu-37AED...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
>--
>My name Indigo Montoya. \\ Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
>You flamed my father. \' At least I can stay in character.
>Prepare to be spanked. // When you look into the void,
>Stop posting that! `/ the void looks into you, and fulfills you.
Celestial is my guess.
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> "Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
>
>A celestial angel or a weeping angel?
>
>> "Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
>
>
>--
>My name Indigo Montoya. \\ Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
>You flamed my father. \' At least I can stay in character.
>Prepare to be spanked. // When you look into the void,
>Stop posting that! `/ the void looks into you, and fulfills you.
Celestial is my guess.
The Doctor
Oct 1, 2012, 10:10:40 AM10/1/12
to
In article <chine.bleu-E913D...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>Why? Is there some fine manual that explains how to use Google?
An tSin Gorm <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>--
>My name Indigo Montoya. \\ Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
>You flamed my father. \' At least I can stay in character.
>Prepare to be spanked. // When you look into the void,
>Stop posting that! `/ the void looks into you, and fulfills you.
Very good question.
>--
>My name Indigo Montoya. \\ Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
>You flamed my father. \' At least I can stay in character.
>Prepare to be spanked. // When you look into the void,
>Stop posting that! `/ the void looks into you, and fulfills you.
The Doctor
Oct 1, 2012, 10:11:45 AM10/1/12
to
In article <9719de1f-6b2e-4ea0...@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Ross <rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>On Sep 29, 11:52=A0pm, Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org>
>at
>> >>> they
>> >>> were going to be split up from either each other or the Doctor or bot=
back in time.
>> I don't recall the original explanation but I thought the weeping angels
>> simply looked like statutes. =A0Now they are saying the angels are taking
>> over existing statutes. =A0Is that a retcon or was that how they
Ross <rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>On Sep 29, 11:52=A0pm, Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org>
>wrote:
>> On 9/29/2012 8:30 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "anim8rFSK" <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> >news:anim8rfsk-E1404...@news.easynews.com...
>> >> In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrNnZ2dnUVZ7vidn...@eclipse.net.uk>,
>> >> "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>
>> >>> "The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
>> >>>news:k48ac1$qfe$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>> >>>> This one is 9/10 .
>>
>> >>>> The audience was getting set up for the Death of either Amy or Rory.
>>
>> >>> Don't think so. There were Weeping Angels involved. It was obvious th=
>> On 9/29/2012 8:30 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "anim8rFSK" <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> >news:anim8rfsk-E1404...@news.easynews.com...
>> >> In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrNnZ2dnUVZ7vidn...@eclipse.net.uk>,
>> >> "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>
>> >>> "The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
>> >>>news:k48ac1$qfe$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>> >>>> This one is 9/10 .
>>
>> >>>> The audience was getting set up for the Death of either Amy or Rory.
>>
>at
>> >>> they
>> >>> were going to be split up from either each other or the Doctor or bot=
>h.
>>
>> >>>> We also knew Stone Angels were invovle.
>>
>> >>> The Stature of Liberty is made of bronze.
>>
>> >> What? =A0No it's not. =A0It's copper clad iron.
>>
>> >>>> We also knew Stone Angels were invovle.
>>
>> >>> The Stature of Liberty is made of bronze.
>>
>>
>> > Either way it's not made of stone.
>>
>> And no one saw it moving?!?
>>
>
>I was *really* underwhelmed by Lady Liberty in this. If you're going
>to have the statue of liberty get up and move around, I expect you to
>actually *do* something with it.;
>
>I also expect someone to make a reference to Ghostbusters 2.
>
The Angles move so quickly if you blink, you will find yourself
>> > Either way it's not made of stone.
>>
>> And no one saw it moving?!?
>>
>
>I was *really* underwhelmed by Lady Liberty in this. If you're going
>to have the statue of liberty get up and move around, I expect you to
>actually *do* something with it.;
>
>I also expect someone to make a reference to Ghostbusters 2.
>
back in time.
>> I don't recall the original explanation but I thought the weeping angels
>> over existing statutes. =A0Is that a retcon or was that how they
>> originally described them?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>This is definately the first they've mentioned it. At least they had
>the foresight to have River explicitly *say* they were "taking over"
>statues.
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>This is definately the first they've mentioned it. At least they had
>the foresight to have River explicitly *say* they were "taking over"
>statues.
The Doctor
Oct 1, 2012, 10:13:38 AM10/1/12
to
In article <1b3b6bbd-9777-4c3f...@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Ross <rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>n
>> could the Angels do that? Anywhere? If he zaps off to Metebelis 3 with th=
>e
>> Doctor, will the Angels appear there too? And why would they anyway? What=
Once that happens most of disappear in a paradox.
Ross <rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>On Sep 30, 12:22=A0am, "Ian B" <noem...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> anim8rFSK wrote:
>> > In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrNnZ2dnUVZ7vidn...@eclipse.net.uk>,
>> > "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>
>> >>> 3) =A0Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
>> anim8rFSK wrote:
>> > In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrNnZ2dnUVZ7vidn...@eclipse.net.uk>,
>> > "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> What else was she supposed to do?
>>
>> >> It's Rory's dad I'm worried about.
>>
>> > Yeah, no mention or thought of him was annoying.
>>
>> > Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case,
>> > twice) when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
>>
>> Ah yes, that reminds me of the other thing that suddenly appeared out of =
>> >> What else was she supposed to do?
>>
>> >> It's Rory's dad I'm worried about.
>>
>> > Yeah, no mention or thought of him was annoying.
>>
>> > Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case,
>> > twice) when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
>>
>the
>> Doctor's ass. The speech about how if Rory tried to run away, the Angels
>> would follow him everywhere, presenting us with the image of Rory tanking
>> along with a huddle of Angels after him like the Keystone Kops. Since whe=
>> Doctor's ass. The speech about how if Rory tried to run away, the Angels
>> would follow him everywhere, presenting us with the image of Rory tanking
>n
>> could the Angels do that? Anywhere? If he zaps off to Metebelis 3 with th=
>e
>> Doctor, will the Angels appear there too? And why would they anyway? What=
>'s
>> so special about Rory? It can't be becasue he's the one who changed the
>> timeline, because simply by changing the timeline- which he achieves by
>> running away rather than staying in the hotel bedroom in his jim-jams- "n=
>> so special about Rory? It can't be becasue he's the one who changed the
>> timeline, because simply by changing the timeline- which he achieves by
>one
>> of it will have ever happened".
>>
>
>No, it's only when he kills himself that the timeline changes.
>
>If he just runs away, the Angels can always find him later and bring
>him back, and then there's no paradox.
Well the angels are not expecting someone to jump from the Winter Quay.
>> of it will have ever happened".
>>
>
>No, it's only when he kills himself that the timeline changes.
>
>If he just runs away, the Angels can always find him later and bring
>him back, and then there's no paradox.
Once that happens most of disappear in a paradox.
~consul
Oct 1, 2012, 2:54:56 PM10/1/12
to
'tis on this 9/30/2012 5:25 AM, wrote Mike Hall thus to say:
> On 30/09/2012 04:52, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
> On 30/09/2012 04:52, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
>> I don't recall the original explanation but I thought the weeping angels
>> simply looked like statutes. Now they are saying the angels are taking
>> over existing statutes. Is that a retcon or was that how they
>> originally described them?
> I'm guessing that it is pretty obvious that the angels replace existing statues. It is not confirmed whether they actually take over the statue itself. The powers of the weeping angels are vast.
I maybe mistaken, but weren't the weeping angels first from off-world? Where would all those human angel statues come from?
>> over existing statutes. Is that a retcon or was that how they
>> originally described them?
> I'm guessing that it is pretty obvious that the angels replace existing statues. It is not confirmed whether they actually take over the statue itself. The powers of the weeping angels are vast.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
The Doctor
Oct 1, 2012, 3:44:45 PM10/1/12
to
In article <k4couo$nqv$1...@dont-email.me>,
Early in the universe.
~consul <con...@dolphinsTAKEAWAY-cove.com> wrote:
>'tis on this 9/30/2012 5:25 AM, wrote Mike Hall thus to say:
>> On 30/09/2012 04:52, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
>>> I don't recall the original explanation but I thought the weeping angels
>>> simply looked like statutes. Now they are saying the angels are taking
>>> over existing statutes. Is that a retcon or was that how they
>>> originally described them?
>> I'm guessing that it is pretty obvious that the angels replace existing statues. It is not confirmed whether they actually take over the statue itself. The powers of the weeping angels are vast.
>
>I maybe mistaken, but weren't the weeping angels first from off-world? Where would all those human angel statues come from?
>--
Blink is when the Weeping Angels are introduced.
>'tis on this 9/30/2012 5:25 AM, wrote Mike Hall thus to say:
>> On 30/09/2012 04:52, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
>>> I don't recall the original explanation but I thought the weeping angels
>>> simply looked like statutes. Now they are saying the angels are taking
>>> over existing statutes. Is that a retcon or was that how they
>>> originally described them?
>> I'm guessing that it is pretty obvious that the angels replace existing statues. It is not confirmed whether they actually take over the statue itself. The powers of the weeping angels are vast.
>
>I maybe mistaken, but weren't the weeping angels first from off-world? Where would all those human angel statues come from?
>--
Early in the universe.
~consul
Oct 1, 2012, 4:17:50 PM10/1/12
to
'tis on this 10/1/2012 3:44 PM, wrote The Doctor thus to say:
> In article <k4couo$nqv$1...@dont-email.me>,
> ~consul <con...@dolphinsTAKEAWAY-cove.com> wrote:
>> 'tis on this 9/30/2012 5:25 AM, wrote Mike Hall thus to say:
>>> On 30/09/2012 04:52, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
>>>> I don't recall the original explanation but I thought the weeping angels
>>>> simply looked like statutes. Now they are saying the angels are taking
>>>> over existing statutes. Is that a retcon or was that how they
>>>> originally described them?
>>> I'm guessing that it is pretty obvious that the angels replace existing statues. It is not confirmed whether they actually take over the statue itself. The powers of the weeping angels are vast.
>>
>> I maybe mistaken, but weren't the weeping angels first from off-world? Where would all those human angel statues come from?
> In article <k4couo$nqv$1...@dont-email.me>,
> ~consul <con...@dolphinsTAKEAWAY-cove.com> wrote:
>> 'tis on this 9/30/2012 5:25 AM, wrote Mike Hall thus to say:
>>> On 30/09/2012 04:52, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
>>>> I don't recall the original explanation but I thought the weeping angels
>>>> simply looked like statutes. Now they are saying the angels are taking
>>>> over existing statutes. Is that a retcon or was that how they
>>>> originally described them?
>>> I'm guessing that it is pretty obvious that the angels replace existing statues. It is not confirmed whether they actually take over the statue itself. The powers of the weeping angels are vast.
>>
>> I maybe mistaken, but weren't the weeping angels first from off-world? Where would all those human angel statues come from?
> Blink is when the Weeping Angels are introduced.
> Early in the universe.
Ah, I had only seen them first in 2010. But still, if they inhabit other statues as opposed to being humanoid statues, why did that starship have so many of them?
> Early in the universe.
anim8rFSK
Oct 1, 2012, 4:55:08 PM10/1/12
to
> 'tis on this 9/30/2012 5:25 AM, wrote Mike Hall thus to say:
> > On 30/09/2012 04:52, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
> >> I don't recall the original explanation but I thought the weeping angels
> >> simply looked like statutes. Now they are saying the angels are taking
> >> over existing statutes. Is that a retcon or was that how they
> >> originally described them?
> > I'm guessing that it is pretty obvious that the angels replace existing
> > statues. It is not confirmed whether they actually take over the statue
> > itself. The powers of the weeping angels are vast.
>
> I maybe mistaken, but weren't the weeping angels first from off-world? Where
> would all those human angel statues come from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping_Angel
> > On 30/09/2012 04:52, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
> >> I don't recall the original explanation but I thought the weeping angels
> >> simply looked like statutes. Now they are saying the angels are taking
> >> over existing statutes. Is that a retcon or was that how they
> >> originally described them?
> > I'm guessing that it is pretty obvious that the angels replace existing
> > statues. It is not confirmed whether they actually take over the statue
> > itself. The powers of the weeping angels are vast.
>
> I maybe mistaken, but weren't the weeping angels first from off-world? Where
> would all those human angel statues come from?
According to the Doctor, the Weeping Angels "are as old as the universe
(or very nearly), but no one really knows where they come from."
--
Mike Hall
Oct 1, 2012, 5:26:38 PM10/1/12
to
On 01/10/2012 15:10, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <chine.bleu-E913D...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> An tSin Gorm <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article <gE0as.115366$F52.1...@fx22.am4>,
>> Mike Hall <tar...@spam3spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/09/2012 18:56, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> solar penguin <solar....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>>>>
>>>>>> Since Blink.
>>>>
>>>>> Blink discusses the concept well.
>>>>
>>>> The concept of constantly posting followups imparting no new information
>>>> whatsoever? Damn, the Weeping Angels are hideously evil.
>>>>
>>> In the heyday of Usenet, people used to reply RTF and get on with their
>>> life. Now we have Google.
>>
>> Why? Is there some fine manual that explains how to use Google?
> Very good question.
> In article <chine.bleu-E913D...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> An tSin Gorm <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article <gE0as.115366$F52.1...@fx22.am4>,
>> Mike Hall <tar...@spam3spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/09/2012 18:56, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> solar penguin <solar....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>>>>
>>>>>> Since Blink.
>>>>
>>>>> Blink discusses the concept well.
>>>>
>>>> The concept of constantly posting followups imparting no new information
>>>> whatsoever? Damn, the Weeping Angels are hideously evil.
>>>>
>>> In the heyday of Usenet, people used to reply RTF and get on with their
>>> life. Now we have Google.
>>
>> Why? Is there some fine manual that explains how to use Google?
Yes. Most beautiful troll reply that I've ever seen! I'm going to make
a cool Dr Who-themed pic out of it when I get the chance!
Mike Hall
The Doctor
Oct 1, 2012, 5:50:24 PM10/1/12
to
In article <iUnas.114824$Kc7....@fx20.am4>,
Mike Hall <tar...@spam3spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 01/10/2012 15:10, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <chine.bleu-E913D...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> An tSin Gorm <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> In article <gE0as.115366$F52.1...@fx22.am4>,
>>> Mike Hall <tar...@spam3spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 30/09/2012 18:56, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> solar penguin <solar....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since Blink.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Blink discusses the concept well.
>>>>>
>>>>> The concept of constantly posting followups imparting no new information
>>>>> whatsoever? Damn, the Weeping Angels are hideously evil.
>>>>>
>>>> In the heyday of Usenet, people used to reply RTF and get on with their
>>>> life. Now we have Google.
>>>
>>> Why? Is there some fine manual that explains how to use Google?
>> Very good question.
>
>Yes. Most beautiful troll reply that I've ever seen! I'm going to make
>a cool Dr Who-themed pic out of it when I get the chance!
>
>
>Mike Hall
>
>
No trolls here.
>On 01/10/2012 15:10, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <chine.bleu-E913D...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> An tSin Gorm <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> In article <gE0as.115366$F52.1...@fx22.am4>,
>>> Mike Hall <tar...@spam3spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 30/09/2012 18:56, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> solar penguin <solar....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since Blink.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Blink discusses the concept well.
>>>>>
>>>>> The concept of constantly posting followups imparting no new information
>>>>> whatsoever? Damn, the Weeping Angels are hideously evil.
>>>>>
>>>> In the heyday of Usenet, people used to reply RTF and get on with their
>>>> life. Now we have Google.
>>>
>>> Why? Is there some fine manual that explains how to use Google?
>> Very good question.
>
>Yes. Most beautiful troll reply that I've ever seen! I'm going to make
>a cool Dr Who-themed pic out of it when I get the chance!
>
>
>Mike Hall
>
>
Dimensional Traveler
Oct 1, 2012, 9:51:57 PM10/1/12
to
On 9/30/2012 4:35 PM, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <5068ba32$0$71186$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 9/30/2012 7:51 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>> In article <k493h2$grq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>>>
>>> I wondered if that was new to this episode or if I'd missed a memo.
>>>
>> The very first episode that introduced them, 'Blink', had Carey
>> Mulligan's friend sent back in time by a Weeping Angel.
>>
>
> Try and linearise Blink.
>
No. Its too timey-whimey.
> In article <5068ba32$0$71186$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 9/30/2012 7:51 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>> In article <k493h2$grq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>>>
>>> I wondered if that was new to this episode or if I'd missed a memo.
>>>
>> The very first episode that introduced them, 'Blink', had Carey
>> Mulligan's friend sent back in time by a Weeping Angel.
>>
>
> Try and linearise Blink.
>
The Doctor
Oct 2, 2012, 10:55:40 AM10/2/12
to
In article <506a48bb$0$71219$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 9/30/2012 4:35 PM, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <5068ba32$0$71186$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> On 9/30/2012 7:51 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>> In article <k493h2$grq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>>>>
>>>> I wondered if that was new to this episode or if I'd missed a memo.
>>>>
>>> The very first episode that introduced them, 'Blink', had Carey
>>> Mulligan's friend sent back in time by a Weeping Angel.
>>>
>>
>> Try and linearise Blink.
>>
>No. Its too timey-whimey.
>
It is a task, I agree but the end is the beginning.
>On 9/30/2012 4:35 PM, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <5068ba32$0$71186$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> On 9/30/2012 7:51 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>> In article <k493h2$grq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>>>>
>>>> I wondered if that was new to this episode or if I'd missed a memo.
>>>>
>>> The very first episode that introduced them, 'Blink', had Carey
>>> Mulligan's friend sent back in time by a Weeping Angel.
>>>
>>
>> Try and linearise Blink.
>>
>No. Its too timey-whimey.
>
Dimensional Traveler
Oct 2, 2012, 10:34:03 PM10/2/12
to
On 10/2/2012 7:55 AM, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <506a48bb$0$71219$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 9/30/2012 4:35 PM, The Doctor wrote:
>>> In article <5068ba32$0$71186$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> On 9/30/2012 7:51 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>> In article <k493h2$grq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>>>>>
>>>>> I wondered if that was new to this episode or if I'd missed a memo.
>>>>>
>>>> The very first episode that introduced them, 'Blink', had Carey
>>>> Mulligan's friend sent back in time by a Weeping Angel.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Try and linearise Blink.
>>>
>> No. Its too timey-whimey.
>>
>
> It is a task, I agree but the end is the beginning.
>
Okay. I just started so I'm done.
> In article <506a48bb$0$71219$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 9/30/2012 4:35 PM, The Doctor wrote:
>>> In article <5068ba32$0$71186$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> On 9/30/2012 7:51 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>> In article <k493h2$grq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>>>>>
>>>>> I wondered if that was new to this episode or if I'd missed a memo.
>>>>>
>>>> The very first episode that introduced them, 'Blink', had Carey
>>>> Mulligan's friend sent back in time by a Weeping Angel.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Try and linearise Blink.
>>>
>> No. Its too timey-whimey.
>>
>
> It is a task, I agree but the end is the beginning.
>
The Doctor
Oct 3, 2012, 7:29:44 AM10/3/12
to
In article <506ba419$0$71182$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>--
>The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
>hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with caffeine
>pills, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate wouldn't
>tolerate.
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 10/2/2012 7:55 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <506a48bb$0$71219$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> On 9/30/2012 4:35 PM, The Doctor wrote:
>>>> In article <5068ba32$0$71186$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/30/2012 7:51 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>>> In article <k493h2$grq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>>>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wondered if that was new to this episode or if I'd missed a memo.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The very first episode that introduced them, 'Blink', had Carey
>>>>> Mulligan's friend sent back in time by a Weeping Angel.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Try and linearise Blink.
>>>>
>>> No. Its too timey-whimey.
>>>
>>
>> It is a task, I agree but the end is the beginning.
>>
>Okay. I just started so I'm done.
>
Sort it out!
>On 10/2/2012 7:55 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <506a48bb$0$71219$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> On 9/30/2012 4:35 PM, The Doctor wrote:
>>>> In article <5068ba32$0$71186$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/30/2012 7:51 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>>> In article <k493h2$grq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>>>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wondered if that was new to this episode or if I'd missed a memo.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The very first episode that introduced them, 'Blink', had Carey
>>>>> Mulligan's friend sent back in time by a Weeping Angel.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Try and linearise Blink.
>>>>
>>> No. Its too timey-whimey.
>>>
>>
>> It is a task, I agree but the end is the beginning.
>>
>Okay. I just started so I'm done.
>
>--
>The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
>hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with caffeine
>pills, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate wouldn't
>tolerate.
Jim G.
Oct 3, 2012, 3:43:29 PM10/3/12
to
The Doctor sent the following on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 12:30:40 +0000 (UTC):
> In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrN...@eclipse.net.uk>,
> >were going to be split up from either each other or the Doctor or both.
> >
>
> We got the Sorry but you died Commerical here as well.
Okay, even my translation dictionary isn't helping me out here. Can
anyone help me out, in English?
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Get down off the cross. We need the wood." -- Pete Lattimer, WAREHOUSE 13
> In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrN...@eclipse.net.uk>,
> Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> >
> >"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
> >news:k48ac1$qfe$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> >> This one is 9/10 .
> >>
> >> The audience was getting set up for the Death of either Amy or Rory.
> >
> >Don't think so. There were Weeping Angels involved. It was obvious that they
> >
> >"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
> >news:k48ac1$qfe$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> >> This one is 9/10 .
> >>
> >> The audience was getting set up for the Death of either Amy or Rory.
> >
> >were going to be split up from either each other or the Doctor or both.
> >
>
> We got the Sorry but you died Commerical here as well.
Okay, even my translation dictionary isn't helping me out here. Can
anyone help me out, in English?
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Get down off the cross. We need the wood." -- Pete Lattimer, WAREHOUSE 13
Jim G.
Oct 3, 2012, 3:43:29 PM10/3/12
to
The Doctor sent the following on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 12:37:12 +0000 (UTC):
> In article <k48g3j$cl9$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Charles E. Hardwidge <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:anim8rfsk-C8CF0...@news.easynews.com...
> >> In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrN...@eclipse.net.uk>,
> >
> They were really in love which each other.
Someone's been reading too much Shakespeare.
> In article <k48g3j$cl9$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Charles E. Hardwidge <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:anim8rfsk-C8CF0...@news.easynews.com...
> >> In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrN...@eclipse.net.uk>,
> >
> >> Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case, twice)
> >> when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
> >
> >They certainly had issues.
> >> Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case, twice)
> >> when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
> >
> >
> They were really in love which each other.
Someone's been reading too much Shakespeare.
Jim G.
Oct 3, 2012, 3:43:29 PM10/3/12
to
Ross sent the following on Mon, 1 Oct 2012 04:52:31 -0700 (PDT):
Right. I didn't have a problem with this at all. Basically, he's screwed
either way. "Die" now or avoid death and have a 'roided up Lady Liberty
stalking you across the universe. And that would really suck.
either way. "Die" now or avoid death and have a 'roided up Lady Liberty
stalking you across the universe. And that would really suck.
Jim G.
Oct 3, 2012, 3:43:29 PM10/3/12
to
The Doctor sent the following on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 23:35:45 +0000 (UTC):
> In article <5068ba32$0$71186$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >On 9/30/2012 7:51 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> >> In article <k493h2$grq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> >> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
> >>
> >> I wondered if that was new to this episode or if I'd missed a memo.
> >>
> >The very first episode that introduced them, 'Blink', had Carey
> >Mulligan's friend sent back in time by a Weeping Angel.
> >
> Try and linearise Blink.
I'll try sometime last week.
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >On 9/30/2012 7:51 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> >> In article <k493h2$grq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> >> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
> >>
> >> I wondered if that was new to this episode or if I'd missed a memo.
> >>
> >The very first episode that introduced them, 'Blink', had Carey
> >Mulligan's friend sent back in time by a Weeping Angel.
> >
> Try and linearise Blink.
anim8rFSK
Oct 3, 2012, 4:44:30 PM10/3/12
to
In article <kgvo68p0ajhegrhh7...@4ax.com>,
We got the ""Sorry but you died" Commerical" here, as well.
Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> The Doctor sent the following on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 12:30:40 +0000 (UTC):
> > In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrN...@eclipse.net.uk>,
> > Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> > >
> > >"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
> > >news:k48ac1$qfe$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> > >> This one is 9/10 .
> > >>
> > >> The audience was getting set up for the Death of either Amy or Rory.
> > >
> > >Don't think so. There were Weeping Angels involved. It was obvious that
> > >they
> > >were going to be split up from either each other or the Doctor or both.
> > >
> >
> > We got the Sorry but you died Commerical here as well.
>
> Okay, even my translation dictionary isn't helping me out here. Can
> anyone help me out, in English?
Try some punctuation:
> The Doctor sent the following on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 12:30:40 +0000 (UTC):
> > In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrN...@eclipse.net.uk>,
> > Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> > >
> > >"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
> > >news:k48ac1$qfe$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> > >> This one is 9/10 .
> > >>
> > >> The audience was getting set up for the Death of either Amy or Rory.
> > >
> > >Don't think so. There were Weeping Angels involved. It was obvious that
> > >they
> > >were going to be split up from either each other or the Doctor or both.
> > >
> >
> > We got the Sorry but you died Commerical here as well.
>
> Okay, even my translation dictionary isn't helping me out here. Can
> anyone help me out, in English?
We got the ""Sorry but you died" Commerical" here, as well.
The Doctor
Oct 3, 2012, 5:25:19 PM10/3/12
to
The Doctor
Oct 3, 2012, 5:25:51 PM10/3/12
to
In article <tmvo68la89166j8hl...@4ax.com>,
>--
>Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
>"Get down off the cross. We need the wood." -- Pete Lattimer, WAREHOUSE 13
Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>The Doctor sent the following on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 12:37:12 +0000 (UTC):
>> In article <k48g3j$cl9$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Charles E. Hardwidge <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> >news:anim8rfsk-C8CF0...@news.easynews.com...
>> >> In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrN...@eclipse.net.uk>,
>> >
>> >> Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case, twice)
>> >> when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
>> >
>> >They certainly had issues.
>> >
>> They were really in love which each other.
>
>Someone's been reading too much Shakespeare.
>
Thou sayest.
>The Doctor sent the following on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 12:37:12 +0000 (UTC):
>> In article <k48g3j$cl9$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Charles E. Hardwidge <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> >news:anim8rfsk-C8CF0...@news.easynews.com...
>> >> In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrN...@eclipse.net.uk>,
>> >
>> >> Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case, twice)
>> >> when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
>> >
>> >They certainly had issues.
>> >
>> They were really in love which each other.
>
>Someone's been reading too much Shakespeare.
>
>--
>Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
>"Get down off the cross. We need the wood." -- Pete Lattimer, WAREHOUSE 13
The Doctor
Oct 3, 2012, 5:26:22 PM10/3/12
to
The Doctor
Oct 3, 2012, 5:26:48 PM10/3/12
to
jack...@bright.net
Oct 4, 2012, 10:42:20 AM10/4/12
to
~consul wrote:
>'tis on this 10/1/2012 3:44 PM, wrote The Doctor thus to say:
>> In article <k4couo$nqv$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> ~consul <con...@dolphinsTAKEAWAY-cove.com> wrote:
>>> 'tis on this 9/30/2012 5:25 AM, wrote Mike Hall thus to say:
>>>> On 30/09/2012 04:52, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
>>>>> I don't recall the original explanation but I thought the weeping angels
>>>>> simply looked like statutes. Now they are saying the angels are taking
>>>>> over existing statutes. Is that a retcon or was that how they
>>>>> originally described them?
>>>> I'm guessing that it is pretty obvious that the angels replace existing statues. It is not confirmed whether they actually take over the statue itself. The powers of the weeping angels are vast.
>>>
>>> I maybe mistaken, but weren't the weeping angels first from off-world? Where would all those human angel statues come from?
>> Blink is when the Weeping Angels are introduced.
>> Early in the universe.
>
>Ah, I had only seen them first in 2010. But still, if they inhabit other statues as opposed to being humanoid statues, why did that starship have so many of them?
The starship had only the one. That one crashed the starship on an
>'tis on this 10/1/2012 3:44 PM, wrote The Doctor thus to say:
>> In article <k4couo$nqv$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> ~consul <con...@dolphinsTAKEAWAY-cove.com> wrote:
>>> 'tis on this 9/30/2012 5:25 AM, wrote Mike Hall thus to say:
>>>> On 30/09/2012 04:52, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
>>>>> I don't recall the original explanation but I thought the weeping angels
>>>>> simply looked like statutes. Now they are saying the angels are taking
>>>>> over existing statutes. Is that a retcon or was that how they
>>>>> originally described them?
>>>> I'm guessing that it is pretty obvious that the angels replace existing statues. It is not confirmed whether they actually take over the statue itself. The powers of the weeping angels are vast.
>>>
>>> I maybe mistaken, but weren't the weeping angels first from off-world? Where would all those human angel statues come from?
>> Blink is when the Weeping Angels are introduced.
>> Early in the universe.
>
>Ah, I had only seen them first in 2010. But still, if they inhabit other statues as opposed to being humanoid statues, why did that starship have so many of them?
alien mound where the rest were. In that story, the others were only
_thought_ to be funeral statues of the aliens, at first.
--
-Jack
Jim G.
Oct 4, 2012, 3:22:41 PM10/4/12
to
anim8rFSK sent the following on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 13:44:30 -0700:
I'd also throw in a comma after "sorry." And I had already realized that
"Commerical" was really "commercial." He does like to make things a
challenge for the reader, doesn't he?
"Commerical" was really "commercial." He does like to make things a
challenge for the reader, doesn't he?
The Doctor
Oct 4, 2012, 3:28:27 PM10/4/12
to
Dimensional Traveler
Oct 4, 2012, 11:20:38 PM10/4/12
to
On 10/3/2012 4:29 AM, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <506ba419$0$71182$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 10/2/2012 7:55 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>>> In article <506a48bb$0$71219$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> On 9/30/2012 4:35 PM, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>> In article <5068ba32$0$71186$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/30/2012 7:51 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <k493h2$grq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>>>>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wondered if that was new to this episode or if I'd missed a memo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The very first episode that introduced them, 'Blink', had Carey
>>>>>> Mulligan's friend sent back in time by a Weeping Angel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try and linearise Blink.
>>>>>
>>>> No. Its too timey-whimey.
>>>
>>> It is a task, I agree but the end is the beginning.
>>>
>> Okay. I just started so I'm done.
>
> Sort it out!
>
Isn't this where you came in the first time?
> In article <506ba419$0$71182$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 10/2/2012 7:55 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>>> In article <506a48bb$0$71219$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> On 9/30/2012 4:35 PM, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>> In article <5068ba32$0$71186$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/30/2012 7:51 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <k493h2$grq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>>>>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wondered if that was new to this episode or if I'd missed a memo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The very first episode that introduced them, 'Blink', had Carey
>>>>>> Mulligan's friend sent back in time by a Weeping Angel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try and linearise Blink.
>>>>>
>>>> No. Its too timey-whimey.
>>>
>>> It is a task, I agree but the end is the beginning.
>>>
>> Okay. I just started so I'm done.
>
> Sort it out!
>
The Doctor
Oct 5, 2012, 9:24:43 AM10/5/12
to
In article <506e5206$0$71201$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>
>--
>The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
>hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with caffeine
>pills, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate wouldn't
>tolerate.
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 10/3/2012 4:29 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <506ba419$0$71182$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> On 10/2/2012 7:55 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>>>> In article <506a48bb$0$71219$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/30/2012 4:35 PM, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>> In article <5068ba32$0$71186$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/30/2012 7:51 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <k493h2$grq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>>>>>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wondered if that was new to this episode or if I'd missed a memo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The very first episode that introduced them, 'Blink', had Carey
>>>>>>> Mulligan's friend sent back in time by a Weeping Angel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try and linearise Blink.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No. Its too timey-whimey.
>>>>
>>>> It is a task, I agree but the end is the beginning.
>>>>
>>> Okay. I just started so I'm done.
>>
>> Sort it out!
>>
>Isn't this where you came in the first time?
>
Where is the starting point?
>On 10/3/2012 4:29 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <506ba419$0$71182$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> On 10/2/2012 7:55 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>>>> In article <506a48bb$0$71219$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/30/2012 4:35 PM, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>> In article <5068ba32$0$71186$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/30/2012 7:51 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <k493h2$grq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>>>>>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since when did the Angels send you back in time?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wondered if that was new to this episode or if I'd missed a memo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The very first episode that introduced them, 'Blink', had Carey
>>>>>>> Mulligan's friend sent back in time by a Weeping Angel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try and linearise Blink.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No. Its too timey-whimey.
>>>>
>>>> It is a task, I agree but the end is the beginning.
>>>>
>>> Okay. I just started so I'm done.
>>
>> Sort it out!
>>
>Isn't this where you came in the first time?
>
>
>--
>The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
>hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with caffeine
>pills, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate wouldn't
>tolerate.
sumaiya memon
Oct 5, 2012, 9:57:07 AM10/5/12
to
On Sunday, September 30, 2012 7:51:54 AM UTC+5:30, The Doctor wrote:
> This one is 9/10 .
>
>
>
> The audience was getting set up for the Death of either Amy or Rory.
>
>
>
> We also knew Stone Angels were invovle.
> This one is 9/10 .
>
>
>
> The audience was getting set up for the Death of either Amy or Rory.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> River is back.
>
>
>
> Major twists and turn.
>
>
>
> The Angles invade 1938 Manhattan.
>
>
>
> And the Doctor is reading a novel that turns out to
>
> be a River Song Biography.
>
>
>
> Modern Manhattan 1938 Manhattan.
>
>
>
> Get ready!!
>
>
>
> Angels are not friendly.
>
>
>
>
>
> Also the Doctor hates endings. Big time clue!!!
>
>
>
> Who likes an Angel clutching River Song's wrist .
>
>
>
> She get s her 'husband' involved.
>
>
>
>
>
> All right.
>
>
>
> 1) Who expected Rory and Amy dropping off Winter Quay would defeat
>
> most of the Angles?
>
>
>
> 2) Who expected a surviving Angel to send Amy and Rory back in time?
>
>
>
> 3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
>
>
>
> Moffat I see that Rory and Amy can return
>
>
> 3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> from 1888 to 1938 so one will have to wait.
David Barnett
Oct 6, 2012, 5:44:49 PM10/6/12
to
In article <k48ac1$qfe$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
<snip>
Debatable as to whether it is worth that grade, but I
liked the episode, which was only aired in Australia last
night.
--
David Barnett
doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
<snip>
> This one is 9/10 .
As usual!
Debatable as to whether it is worth that grade, but I
liked the episode, which was only aired in Australia last
night.
--
David Barnett
The Doctor
Oct 6, 2012, 5:49:01 PM10/6/12
to
Edward McArdle
Oct 6, 2012, 8:53:13 PM10/6/12
to
In article <k4q90d$g5n$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
rubbish, because I find the concept of the weeping angels complete
nonsense. (I know, it's Doctor Who...)
But generally I really like the newest innovations on the show, his wife
River, Amy and Rory are his parents-in-law,...
One of the baffling things is how a race which existed *throughout time*
(The Timelords) could be made to not exist!
--
Edward McArdle
Doctor) wrote:
>In article <MPG.2adb515b2...@news.bigpond.com>,
>David Barnett <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>In article <k48ac1$qfe$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
>>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
>><snip>
>>> This one is 9/10 .
>>
>>As usual!
>>Debatable as to whether it is worth that grade, but I
>>liked the episode, which was only aired in Australia last
>>night.
>>--
>>David Barnett
>
>Debate it!
Well, I watched it with my sister, who enjoyed it. I thought it was
>In article <MPG.2adb515b2...@news.bigpond.com>,
>David Barnett <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>In article <k48ac1$qfe$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
>>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
>><snip>
>>> This one is 9/10 .
>>
>>As usual!
>>Debatable as to whether it is worth that grade, but I
>>liked the episode, which was only aired in Australia last
>>night.
>>--
>>David Barnett
>
>Debate it!
rubbish, because I find the concept of the weeping angels complete
nonsense. (I know, it's Doctor Who...)
But generally I really like the newest innovations on the show, his wife
River, Amy and Rory are his parents-in-law,...
One of the baffling things is how a race which existed *throughout time*
(The Timelords) could be made to not exist!
--
Edward McArdle
The Doctor
Oct 7, 2012, 8:11:03 AM10/7/12
to
David Barnett
Oct 7, 2012, 2:50:04 PM10/7/12
to
In article <k4rrgn$18m$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
rubbishy aliens.
> >But generally I really like the newest innovations on the show, his wife
> >River, Amy and Rory are his parents-in-law,...
I like that also.
> >One of the baffling things is how a race which existed *throughout time*
> >(The Timelords) could be made to not exist!
Exterminated?
--
David Barnett
doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
>
> In article <mcardle-0710...@10.1.1.3>,
> Edward McArdle <mca...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >In article <k4q90d$g5n$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
> >Doctor) wrote:
> >
> >>In article <MPG.2adb515b2...@news.bigpond.com>,
> >>David Barnett <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >>>In article <k48ac1$qfe$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> >>>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
> >>><snip>
> >>>> This one is 9/10 .
> >>>
> >>>As usual!
> >>>Debatable as to whether it is worth that grade, but I
> >>>liked the episode, which was only aired in Australia last
> >>>night.
> >>>--
> >>>David Barnett
> >>
> >>Debate it!
> >
> >Well, I watched it with my sister, who enjoyed it. I thought it was
> >rubbish, because I find the concept of the weeping angels complete
> >nonsense. (I know, it's Doctor Who...)
I agree that it is rubbish, but other stories have equally
> In article <mcardle-0710...@10.1.1.3>,
> Edward McArdle <mca...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >In article <k4q90d$g5n$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
> >Doctor) wrote:
> >
> >>In article <MPG.2adb515b2...@news.bigpond.com>,
> >>David Barnett <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >>>In article <k48ac1$qfe$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> >>>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
> >>><snip>
> >>>> This one is 9/10 .
> >>>
> >>>As usual!
> >>>Debatable as to whether it is worth that grade, but I
> >>>liked the episode, which was only aired in Australia last
> >>>night.
> >>>--
> >>>David Barnett
> >>
> >>Debate it!
> >
> >Well, I watched it with my sister, who enjoyed it. I thought it was
> >rubbish, because I find the concept of the weeping angels complete
> >nonsense. (I know, it's Doctor Who...)
rubbishy aliens.
> >But generally I really like the newest innovations on the show, his wife
> >River, Amy and Rory are his parents-in-law,...
> >One of the baffling things is how a race which existed *throughout time*
> >(The Timelords) could be made to not exist!
--
David Barnett
Your Name
Oct 7, 2012, 3:55:35 PM10/7/12
to
In article <MPG.2adc79e63...@news.bigpond.com>, David Barnett
ever to appear in Doctor Who ... yet something else to "thank" Christopher
Eccleston's garbage episodes for.
<dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> In article <k4rrgn$18m$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
> > In article <mcardle-0710...@10.1.1.3>,
> > Edward McArdle <mca...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > >In article <k4q90d$g5n$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
> > >Doctor) wrote:
> > >>In article <MPG.2adb515b2...@news.bigpond.com>,
> > >>David Barnett <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > >>>In article <k48ac1$qfe$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> > >>>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
> > >>><snip>
> > >>>> This one is 9/10 .
> > >>>
> > >>>As usual!
> > >>>Debatable as to whether it is worth that grade, but I
> > >>>liked the episode, which was only aired in Australia last
> > >>>night.
> > >>
> In article <k4rrgn$18m$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
> > In article <mcardle-0710...@10.1.1.3>,
> > Edward McArdle <mca...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > >In article <k4q90d$g5n$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
> > >Doctor) wrote:
> > >>In article <MPG.2adb515b2...@news.bigpond.com>,
> > >>David Barnett <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > >>>In article <k48ac1$qfe$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> > >>>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
> > >>><snip>
> > >>>> This one is 9/10 .
> > >>>
> > >>>As usual!
> > >>>Debatable as to whether it is worth that grade, but I
> > >>>liked the episode, which was only aired in Australia last
> > >>>night.
> > >>
> > >>Debate it!
> > >
> > >Well, I watched it with my sister, who enjoyed it. I thought it was
> > >rubbish, because I find the concept of the weeping angels complete
> > >nonsense. (I know, it's Doctor Who...)
>
> I agree that it is rubbish, but other stories have equally
> rubbishy aliens.
The man-eating wheelie rubbish bins are probably THE most rubbish baddies
> > >
> > >Well, I watched it with my sister, who enjoyed it. I thought it was
> > >rubbish, because I find the concept of the weeping angels complete
> > >nonsense. (I know, it's Doctor Who...)
>
> I agree that it is rubbish, but other stories have equally
> rubbishy aliens.
ever to appear in Doctor Who ... yet something else to "thank" Christopher
Eccleston's garbage episodes for.
Ross
Oct 7, 2012, 7:42:48 PM10/7/12
to
On Oct 7, 3:55 pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article <MPG.2adc79e638ae8cc7989...@news.bigpond.com>, David Barnett
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > In article <k4rrgn$18...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> > doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
> > > In article <mcardle-0710121153230...@10.1.1.3>,
> > > Edward McArdle <mcar...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > >In article <k4q90d$g5...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
> > > >Doctor) wrote:
> > > >>In article <MPG.2adb515b256abcaa989...@news.bigpond.com>,
> > > >>David Barnett <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > > >>>In article <k48ac1$qf...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
the assassin telephone cord from one of Pertwee's Auton stories.
> In article <MPG.2adc79e638ae8cc7989...@news.bigpond.com>, David Barnett
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > In article <k4rrgn$18...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> > doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
> > > In article <mcardle-0710121153230...@10.1.1.3>,
> > > Edward McArdle <mcar...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > >In article <k4q90d$g5...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
> > > >Doctor) wrote:
> > > >>In article <MPG.2adb515b256abcaa989...@news.bigpond.com>,
> > > >>David Barnett <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > > >>>In article <k48ac1$qf...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> > > >>>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
> > > >>><snip>
> > > >>>> This one is 9/10 .
>
> > > >>>As usual!
> > > >>>Debatable as to whether it is worth that grade, but I
> > > >>>liked the episode, which was only aired in Australia last
> > > >>>night.
>
> > > >>Debate it!
>
> > > >Well, I watched it with my sister, who enjoyed it. I thought it was
> > > >rubbish, because I find the concept of the weeping angels complete
> > > >nonsense. (I know, it's Doctor Who...)
>
> > I agree that it is rubbish, but other stories have equally
> > rubbishy aliens.
>
> The man-eating wheelie rubbish bins are probably THE most rubbish baddies
> ever to appear in Doctor Who ... yet something else to "thank" Christopher
> Eccleston's garbage episodes for.
I don't think that a man-eating trash bin is really any sillier than
> > > >>><snip>
> > > >>>> This one is 9/10 .
>
> > > >>>As usual!
> > > >>>Debatable as to whether it is worth that grade, but I
> > > >>>liked the episode, which was only aired in Australia last
> > > >>>night.
>
> > > >>Debate it!
>
> > > >Well, I watched it with my sister, who enjoyed it. I thought it was
> > > >rubbish, because I find the concept of the weeping angels complete
> > > >nonsense. (I know, it's Doctor Who...)
>
> > I agree that it is rubbish, but other stories have equally
> > rubbishy aliens.
>
> The man-eating wheelie rubbish bins are probably THE most rubbish baddies
> ever to appear in Doctor Who ... yet something else to "thank" Christopher
> Eccleston's garbage episodes for.
the assassin telephone cord from one of Pertwee's Auton stories.
The Doctor
Oct 7, 2012, 9:17:20 PM10/7/12
to
In article <6e121cc5-6a0a-4cf4...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Ross <rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
Ross <rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>On Oct 7, 3:55=A0pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>> In article <MPG.2adc79e638ae8cc7989...@news.bigpond.com>, David Barnett
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> > In article <k4rrgn$18...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
>> > doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
>> > > In article <mcardle-0710121153230...@10.1.1.3>,
>> > > Edward McArdle <mcar...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> > > >In article <k4q90d$g5...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca =
>> In article <MPG.2adc79e638ae8cc7989...@news.bigpond.com>, David Barnett
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> > In article <k4rrgn$18...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
>> > doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
>> > > In article <mcardle-0710121153230...@10.1.1.3>,
>> > > Edward McArdle <mcar...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> > > >>David Barnett =A0<dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> > > >>>In article <k48ac1$qf...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
>> > > >>>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
>> > > >>><snip>
>> > > >>>> This one is 9/10 .
>>
>> > > >>>As usual!
>> > > >>>Debatable as to whether it is worth that grade, but I
>> > > >>>liked the episode, which was only aired in Australia last
>> > > >>>night.
>>
>> > > >>Debate it!
>>
>> > > >Well, I watched it with my sister, who enjoyed it. I thought it was
>> > > >rubbish, because I find the concept of the weeping angels complete
>> > > >nonsense. (I know, it's Doctor Who...)
>>
>> > I agree that it is rubbish, but other stories have equally
>> > rubbishy aliens.
>>
>> The man-eating wheelie rubbish bins are probably THE most rubbish baddies
>> ever to appear in Doctor Who ... yet something else to "thank" Christophe=
>> > > >>>In article <k48ac1$qf...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
>> > > >>>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
>> > > >>><snip>
>> > > >>>> This one is 9/10 .
>>
>> > > >>>As usual!
>> > > >>>Debatable as to whether it is worth that grade, but I
>> > > >>>liked the episode, which was only aired in Australia last
>> > > >>>night.
>>
>> > > >>Debate it!
>>
>> > > >Well, I watched it with my sister, who enjoyed it. I thought it was
>> > > >rubbish, because I find the concept of the weeping angels complete
>> > > >nonsense. (I know, it's Doctor Who...)
>>
>> > I agree that it is rubbish, but other stories have equally
>> > rubbishy aliens.
>>
>> The man-eating wheelie rubbish bins are probably THE most rubbish baddies
>r
>> Eccleston's garbage episodes for.
>
>I don't think that a man-eating trash bin is really any sillier than
>the assassin telephone cord from one of Pertwee's Auton stories.
Autons for you.
>> Eccleston's garbage episodes for.
>
>I don't think that a man-eating trash bin is really any sillier than
>the assassin telephone cord from one of Pertwee's Auton stories.
Daniel60
Apr 15, 2019, 8:23:25 AM4/15/19
to
anim8rFSK wrote on 30/09/2012 1:19 PM:
> In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrN...@eclipse.net.uk>,
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> In article <3oKdnXCpKM4QLPrN...@eclipse.net.uk>,
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>>> 3) Who would expect River Song to cheer the Doctor up in the end.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>> What else was she supposed to do?
>>
>> It's Rory's dad I'm worried about.
>
> Yeah, no mention or thought of him was annoying.
>
>>
>> It's Rory's dad I'm worried about.
>
> Yeah, no mention or thought of him was annoying.
>
> Amy and Rory were WAY too eager to commit suicide (in Amy's case, twice)
> when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
>
(Still reading & catching up on old threads ...)
> when it wasn't actually urgent that they do so.
>
(It's been a very long time since I went to see RSC, but ...) Is this
some sort of homage to Shakespeare's "Romeo & Juliet" where, if memory
serves me right, Juliet fains her suicide so when Romeo finds her 'dead'
body, thinking she is dead, he commits suicide .... then, when Juliet
regains conscienceness, she find Romeo's dead body so she actually
commits suicide herself!!
--
Daniel
anim8rfsk
Apr 15, 2019, 9:11:23 AM4/15/19
to
Mon, 15 Apr 2019 05:23:17 -0700 Daniel60<dani...@eternal-september.org>
wrote:
No.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
wrote:
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
The Doctor
Apr 15, 2019, 10:43:38 AM4/15/19
to
In article <q91t3p$cvj$1...@dont-email.me>,
False suicides leads to real suicides.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Alberta on 16 April 2019, do not vote UCP, FCP nor NDP!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Alberta on 16 April 2019, do not vote UCP, FCP nor NDP!
Daniel60
Apr 19, 2019, 3:29:40 AM4/19/19
to
--
Daniel
The Doctor
Apr 19, 2019, 12:41:45 PM4/19/19
to
In article <q9btd0$udb$4...@dont-email.me>,
Bad chain reaction.
>--
>Daniel
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
PEI on 23 April 2019, do not vote PC nor NDP!
>--
>Daniel
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Timothy Bruening
Dec 29, 2019, 2:40:54 PM12/29/19
to
Great moments: The Statue of Liberty as a Weeping Angel!
Rory getting zapped back in time over and over (2012 to 1938, 1938 to several decades earlier, 2012 to several decades earlier)!
If you read a book about the whole Angel caper, you freeze what you read in stone! (i.e., River Song's wrist having to be broken because Amy had read about it).
The TARDIS being bounced by temporal anomalies.
River Song guiding the TARDIS in.
The Doctor freaking out when he reads the title "Amelia's Final Farewell", or is it Goodbye?
Rory generating a paradox to kill most of the Angels, by jumping to his death (with Amy) in 1938 before the Angels can zap him further back in time, so he dies twice in one night!
Rory and Amy seeing Rory's tombstone back in 2012.
Rory getting zapped back AGAIN, so he dies 3 times in this episode!
Amy following Rory back in time via the Angel Express. This results in Amy's name appearing on the tombstone. But why no death date on the tombstone?
The Doctor finding the final page of that book, and reading Amy's afterword.
Rory getting zapped back in time over and over (2012 to 1938, 1938 to several decades earlier, 2012 to several decades earlier)!
If you read a book about the whole Angel caper, you freeze what you read in stone! (i.e., River Song's wrist having to be broken because Amy had read about it).
The TARDIS being bounced by temporal anomalies.
River Song guiding the TARDIS in.
The Doctor freaking out when he reads the title "Amelia's Final Farewell", or is it Goodbye?
Rory generating a paradox to kill most of the Angels, by jumping to his death (with Amy) in 1938 before the Angels can zap him further back in time, so he dies twice in one night!
Rory and Amy seeing Rory's tombstone back in 2012.
Rory getting zapped back AGAIN, so he dies 3 times in this episode!
Amy following Rory back in time via the Angel Express. This results in Amy's name appearing on the tombstone. But why no death date on the tombstone?
The Doctor finding the final page of that book, and reading Amy's afterword.
0 new messages