The Endless Whining Is Pissing Me Off!

[MDS]

I just finished commenting on some website after reading another
person's comment blasting Moffat for 'ruining' Doctor Who. I had to be
a bit more polite there than I am going to be here. Fuck that bitch! I
seem to remember being in here years ago and reading all sorts of
comments by people regarding their fervant hope that Doctor Who would
one day return. Most fans probably shared that view. Well now it's
back, and some 'fans' can't stop moaning about how awful it was or has
become. Either is was RTD who was ruining the show, or it's Moffat who
is ruining it now. What the fuck?! If you don't like it, STOP
WATCHING! What a bunch of worthless pricks! When I came to the
conclusion that such shows as American Idol and House were no longer
interesting, I quit watching and didn't spend hours and hours bitching
about how bad the shows were. I feel these crybabies who complain
constantly about Doctor Who are just a bunch of loser wannabes who are
pimple-faced, friendless virgins who laugh themselves silly while
sniffing their farts at night, and real fans would be much better off if
they just found something else to whine and whine and whine about.


There. Rant over.


MDS

[The Doctor]

In article <502A2E...@Usenet.net>, MDS <M...@Usenet.net> wrote:
>I just finished commenting on some website after reading another
>person's comment blasting Moffat for 'ruining' Doctor Who. I had to be

>a bit more polite there than I am going to be here. Fex that bitch! I

>seem to remember being in here years ago and reading all sorts of
>comments by people regarding their fervant hope that Doctor Who would
>one day return. Most fans probably shared that view. Well now it's
>back, and some 'fans' can't stop moaning about how awful it was or has
>become. Either is was RTD who was ruining the show, or it's Moffat who

>is ruining it now. What the fex?! If you don't like it, STOP

>WATCHING! What a bunch of worthless pricks! When I came to the
>conclusion that such shows as American Idol and House were no longer
>interesting, I quit watching and didn't spend hours and hours bitching
>about how bad the shows were. I feel these crybabies who complain
>constantly about Doctor Who are just a bunch of loser wannabes who are
>pimple-faced, friendless virgins who laugh themselves silly while
>sniffing their farts at night, and real fans would be much better off if
>they just found something else to whine and whine and whine about.
>
>
>There. Rant over.
>
>
>MDS

Real fans looks to enjoy the show.

There is the odd turkey like Love and Monsters and Midnight.
--
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
Quebec le 4 Sept 2012 ne votez pas pour le PQ!

[Moogwizard]

Sorry to see that people expressing their opinion is 'pissing you off'
but they are entitled to their opinion wheter you like it or not.

Personally i love Dr Who and have always and will always be a fan, i
am enjoying the current series and really like matt smith as doctor
who, ut I have some sympathy for the 'whiners' in as much that the
current series of doctor who seem more like the armchair mysteries
series than aliens, planets, space and time that I always think doctor
who should be, that has to be down to moffat. Just my opionion, but
hey, long live Doctor Who!!!!!

[MDS]

Moogwizard wrote:
>
> Sorry to see that people expressing their opinion is 'pissing you off'
> but they are entitled to their opinion wheter you like it or not.
>
> Personally i love Dr Who and have always and will always be a fan, i
> am enjoying the current series and really like matt smith as doctor
> who, ut I have some sympathy for the 'whiners' in as much that the
> current series of doctor who seem more like the armchair mysteries
> series than aliens, planets, space and time that I always think doctor
> who should be, that has to be down to moffat. Just my opionion, but
> hey, long live Doctor Who!!!!!
>

Are we watching the same program? You didn't see any aliens, planets,
space and time? And I'm going to take it that you don't get pissed off
by other people's opinions. So if some guy in his forties says it is
his opinion that he be allowed to have sex with your underage daughter
(we'll just assume you have one), you're fine with that. Glad to know
it.


--
Mister Doctor Sir

[Moogwizard]

Point taken, I don't have an underage daughter but I wouldn't be
pissed off with the guy - more than likely just kill him!!

All I was saying is that I do prefer the season when Russel T Davis
was in charge, however - I love the river song character - Brilliant.

I hope I didn't rattlw you, wasn't the intention.

Regards

[The Doctor]

In article <kr8l28t72pd64uleu...@4ax.com>,

Let the whiners eat cake.

[The Doctor]

Hello again Ed.

[The Doctor]

In article <dsal28t3o0fdoiusv...@4ax.com>,

MDS is a bit pompous.

[Your Name]

In article <502A2E...@Usenet.net>, M...@Usenet.net wrote:
>
> I just finished commenting on some website after reading another
> person's comment blasting Moffat for 'ruining' Doctor Who. I had to be
> a bit more polite there than I am going to be here. Fuck that bitch! I
> seem to remember being in here years ago and reading all sorts of
> comments by people regarding their fervant hope that Doctor Who would
> one day return. Most fans probably shared that view.

<snip>

You're whining about the whining. ;-)

Unfortunately the problem is that shows which "come back" are (almost)
always stupidly changed and barely recognisable thanks to the current
idiotic fad of "rebooting" / "reimagining" them ... BUT thankfully with
Doctor Who is almost unique in that very little has actually been changed
(ignoring some of Quitopher Etchedinstone's sillier episodes).

[The Doctor]

In article <YourName-150...@203-118-187-148.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,

Too many quitting whiners for you!

[MDS]

I enjoy both producers' work and understand that with each new producer
the show will change in some way. The same is true when a new actor
plays the Doctor.

I've always liked River.

>
> I hope I didn't rattlw you, wasn't the intention.

Nope. :-)




--
Mister Doctor Sir

[MDS]

I know what you mean. Battlestar Galactica is the best example I can
offer, and I enjoyed both versions. However, I thought the original was
simpler and a bit more fun to watch.

I've never had a problem with Eccleston's episodes, though I will admit
that some are more light-hearted than others. And I'm still not clear
on why he quit. He mentioned the culture, and someone else told me that
he was not used to being idolized.


--
Mister Doctor Sir

[Your Name]

In article <502B01...@RADW.USENET>, M...@RADW.USENET wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
> > In article <502A2E...@Usenet.net>, M...@Usenet.net wrote:
> > >
> > > I just finished commenting on some website after reading another
> > > person's comment blasting Moffat for 'ruining' Doctor Who. I had to be
> > > a bit more polite there than I am going to be here. Fuck that bitch! I
> > > seem to remember being in here years ago and reading all sorts of
> > > comments by people regarding their fervant hope that Doctor Who would
> > > one day return. Most fans probably shared that view.
> > <snip>
> >
> > You're whining about the whining. ;-)
> >
> > Unfortunately the problem is that shows which "come back" are (almost)
> > always stupidly changed and barely recognisable thanks to the current
> > idiotic fad of "rebooting" / "reimagining" them ... BUT thankfully with
> > Doctor Who is almost unique in that very little has actually been changed
> > (ignoring some of Quitopher Etchedinstone's sillier episodes).
>
> I know what you mean. Battlestar Galactica is the best example I can
> offer, and I enjoyed both versions. However, I thought the original was
> simpler and a bit more fun to watch.

With the exception of Batman and Superman, Battlestar Galactica is
probably the best known "reboot", but there are literally hundreds of old
shows / movies that have been ruined by the idiocy or "rebooting" them,
and more in the planning. :-(

> I've never had a problem with Eccleston's episodes, though I will admit
> that some are more light-hearted than others. And I'm still not clear
> on why he quit. He mentioned the culture, and someone else told me that
> he was not used to being idolized.

He was pretty much a nobody before he got the role, so it's quite likely
that he simply wanted to put a big name on his resume. The problem is that
in leaving so quickly, he's made himself look incapable or unwilling to
play a long term role.

It's a bit like Shannen Doherty - she (reportedly) threw tamper trantrums
on the original Beverley Hills 90210 and left. She was given another
chance in Charmed, and again threw temper tantrums and left. Now her
"career" is basically non-existent (she was hosting garbage "reality" TV
shows and roles in minor telemovies, but even those seem to have dried
up).

[Ignis Fatuus]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 06:52:57 -0400, MDS <M...@Usenet.net> wrote:

Moff's failure with Who is all the more galling because he and Gatiss
made such a brilliant job of Sherlock. Part of it's down to casting a
waste of space nonentity as the Doctor... but it's not been helped by
a series of weak plotless static and inconsequential scripts.

Roll on the new management and a new Doctor.

[MDS]

This is, of course, your opinion, and I do not happen to share it. I've
watched Matt Smith's two seasons (so far) at least a half-dozen times,
and I think he is a superb Doctor; not the best, mind you, but superb.
He does a brilliant job of acting both like someone in his twenties and
someone who is 1000 years old, which not every actor may be able to pull
off. And plotless, static, inconsequential scripts? I have no idea
what you mean, apart from one or two duds. In the classic series the
Doctor was simply a curious, information and adventure-seeking alien
scientist with a machine that could take him anywhere in time and
space. In the new series, following the demise of the Time Lords, he
has at times behaved very much like a god. As I see it, everything
leading up to The Wedding of River Song was Moffat's way of returning
the Doctor to his roots. And what of The Question? After fifty years,
sooner or later it has to be asked, and answered. RTD teased us now and
then in episodes like The Girl in the Fireplace and The Shakespeare Code
about the Doctor's name, and by now it is, I think, established that the
Doctor's name is associated with something too awful or painful for it
to be revealed.

All in all, great storytelling.



--
Mister Doctor Sir

[MDS]

Your Name wrote:
>
> In article <502B01...@RADW.USENET>, M...@RADW.USENET wrote:
> > Your Name wrote:
> > > In article <502A2E...@Usenet.net>, M...@Usenet.net wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I just finished commenting on some website after reading another
> > > > person's comment blasting Moffat for 'ruining' Doctor Who. I had to be
> > > > a bit more polite there than I am going to be here. Fuck that bitch! I
> > > > seem to remember being in here years ago and reading all sorts of
> > > > comments by people regarding their fervant hope that Doctor Who would
> > > > one day return. Most fans probably shared that view.
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > You're whining about the whining. ;-)
> > >
> > > Unfortunately the problem is that shows which "come back" are (almost)
> > > always stupidly changed and barely recognisable thanks to the current
> > > idiotic fad of "rebooting" / "reimagining" them ... BUT thankfully with
> > > Doctor Who is almost unique in that very little has actually been changed
> > > (ignoring some of Quitopher Etchedinstone's sillier episodes).
> >
> > I know what you mean. Battlestar Galactica is the best example I can
> > offer, and I enjoyed both versions. However, I thought the original was
> > simpler and a bit more fun to watch.
>
> With the exception of Batman and Superman, Battlestar Galactica is
> probably the best known "reboot", but there are literally hundreds of old
> shows / movies that have been ruined by the idiocy or "rebooting" them,
> and more in the planning. :-(

Halloween, The Fog, A Nightmare On Elm Street and Friday the 13th come
to mind. I've seen the remakes of all except Elm Street, and then
watched the originals; in my opinion, the originals still rock. I've
heard they are going to remake Superman as though Chris Reeve's version
never happened. Sorry, but I love his version and will not be seeing
the new one. And don't get me started on them rebooting Spider Man
after so little time has passed.

>
> > I've never had a problem with Eccleston's episodes, though I will admit
> > that some are more light-hearted than others. And I'm still not clear
> > on why he quit. He mentioned the culture, and someone else told me that
> > he was not used to being idolized.
>
> He was pretty much a nobody before he got the role, so it's quite likely
> that he simply wanted to put a big name on his resume. The problem is that
> in leaving so quickly, he's made himself look incapable or unwilling to
> play a long term role.
>

I'll grant that his leaving after one season works against him. I had
seen him in 28 Days Later and knew who he was when it was announced that
he was going to play the Doctor. My first thought was that he didn't
look anything at all like the Doctor, but after his season was over I
can honestly say that I don't find any of his stories (all thirteen of
them) to be rubbish.

> It's a bit like Shannen Doherty - she (reportedly) threw tamper trantrums
> on the original Beverley Hills 90210 and left. She was given another
> chance in Charmed, and again threw temper tantrums and left. Now her
> "career" is basically non-existent (she was hosting garbage "reality" TV
> shows and roles in minor telemovies, but even those seem to have dried
> up).

That was too bad, as she was a pretty girl.

--
Mister Doctor Sir

[The Doctor]

And then there is Smit's new season.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"MDS" <M...@RADW.USENET> wrote in message news:502BE3...@RADW.USENET...

> That was too bad, as she was a pretty girl.

When you're done with objectifying women...

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"MDS" <M...@RADW.USENET> wrote in message news:502BE1...@RADW.USENET...

> This is, of course, your opinion, and I do not happen to share it.

This is your problem.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[MDS]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Come on out of the closet, you fag!



--
Mister Doctor Sir

[MDS]

What's wrong, Chuck? Hasn't your mother sucked your cock yet today?



--
Mister Doctor Sir

[Your Name]

The A-team, Knight Rider, 21 Jump Street, V, The Smurfs, Beverley Hills
90210, Bewitched, Get Smart, ... the list is near endless, and there's a
lot more still in the works or about to be released, including Robocop,
Total Recall, etc.

It's not just "rebooting" old shows either. The recent idiocy of the
Battleship movie supposedly based on the board game, but in reality
absolutely nothing like it proves that. Of course this kind of silliness
has been happening for decades with movies "based on" something like a
book. :-(

> I've seen the remakes of all except Elm Street, and then
> watched the originals; in my opinion, the originals still rock. I've
> heard they are going to remake Superman as though Chris Reeve's version
> never happened. Sorry, but I love his version and will not be seeing
> the new one. And don't get me started on them rebooting Spider Man
> after so little time has passed.

"Going to". They've already rebooted Superman at least once since
Christopher Reeves movies (and that's ignoring the garbage that the TV
show Smallville turned into) and are about to do it again.

Batman is on about it's third reboot. Spider Man on it's second. Even more
if you include the idiocy of the reboots within the comic book industry
too.

> > > I've never had a problem with Eccleston's episodes, though I will admit
> > > that some are more light-hearted than others. And I'm still not clear
> > > on why he quit. He mentioned the culture, and someone else told me that
> > > he was not used to being idolized.
> >
> > He was pretty much a nobody before he got the role, so it's quite likely
> > that he simply wanted to put a big name on his resume. The problem is that
> > in leaving so quickly, he's made himself look incapable or unwilling to
> > play a long term role.
>
> I'll grant that his leaving after one season works against him. I had
> seen him in 28 Days Later and knew who he was when it was announced that
> he was going to play the Doctor. My first thought was that he didn't
> look anything at all like the Doctor, but after his season was over I
> can honestly say that I don't find any of his stories (all thirteen of
> them) to be rubbish.

Man-eating wheelie bins?? Farting aliens?? Of course the storylines are
not Quiopher's fault, but combining the dumbed down storylines and his
grinning clown bad acting, the regeneration of the show started off badly.
In fact if he had stayed for another season, then I wouldn't be bothereing
to watch it now.

> > It's a bit like Shannen Doherty - she (reportedly) threw tamper trantrums
> > on the original Beverley Hills 90210 and left. She was given another
> > chance in Charmed, and again threw temper tantrums and left. Now her
> > "career" is basically non-existent (she was hosting garbage "reality" TV
> > shows and roles in minor telemovies, but even those seem to have dried
> > up).
>
> That was too bad, as she was a pretty girl.

Nope, not even remotely and especially not these days.

She THINKS she's a pretty girl ... that's half her problem (she also can't
act, has anger management issues, and has / had alcohol problems, and I
wouldn't be at all surprised by drug problems too). She can't stand not
being top of the cast and throws temper tantrums. In Beverly Hills 90210
she was overshadowed by Jennie Garth and in Charmed she was overshadowed
by both Alyssa Milano and Holly Marie Combs.

[Your Name]

In article <k0gpp3$bhu$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The

Doctor) wrote:
>
> And then there is Smit's new season.

The "problem" with the last season is that they're starting to get to
"niche" and are falling into the trap of many shows, especially American
ones. They're moving away from episodic storylines to stretched out
on-going storylines. That tends to push away the casual viewer who doesn't
want to have to watch every episode to understand whats going on.

[The Doctor]

In article <YourName-160...@203-118-187-67.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,

RTD started that.

[MDS]

Oh yeah, now that reminds me...I did not care for the remakes of A-Team,
Knight Rider or V, and V was especially disappointing because Elizabeth
Mitchell was in it. She is...here it comes, Chucky boy...HOT!

>
> It's not just "rebooting" old shows either. The recent idiocy of the
> Battleship movie supposedly based on the board game, but in reality
> absolutely nothing like it proves that. Of course this kind of silliness
> has been happening for decades with movies "based on" something like a
> book. :-(

Battleship was okay in the sense that I enjoyed watching the navy ships
firing their guns. Otherwise, I won't be watching it again.

The only thing I can point to in his acting that is cringeworthy for me
is his performance while the aliens are being introduced in The End of
the World. I know there's a lot of dislike for the Slitheen's farting;
however, it just never bothered me.

>
> > > It's a bit like Shannen Doherty - she (reportedly) threw tamper trantrums
> > > on the original Beverley Hills 90210 and left. She was given another
> > > chance in Charmed, and again threw temper tantrums and left. Now her
> > > "career" is basically non-existent (she was hosting garbage "reality" TV
> > > shows and roles in minor telemovies, but even those seem to have dried
> > > up).
> >
> > That was too bad, as she was a pretty girl.
>
> Nope, not even remotely and especially not these days.
>
> She THINKS she's a pretty girl ... that's half her problem (she also can't
> act, has anger management issues, and has / had alcohol problems, and I
> wouldn't be at all surprised by drug problems too). She can't stand not
> being top of the cast and throws temper tantrums. In Beverly Hills 90210
> she was overshadowed by Jennie Garth and in Charmed she was overshadowed
> by both Alyssa Milano and Holly Marie Combs.

I have to disagree. I thought she was very pretty- and yes, Chucky boy,
I am objectifying women.


--
Mister Doctor Sir

[The Doctor]

Nice to see you back Ed.

[The Doctor]

In article <slrnk2o8a...@pjr.no-ip.org>,
Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmx.com> wrote:
>In rec.arts.drwho on Tue, 14 Aug 2012 06:52:57 -0400, MDS

><M...@Usenet.net> wrote:
>
>> I just finished commenting on some website after reading another
>> person's comment blasting Moffat for 'ruining' Doctor Who. I had to be
>> a bit more polite there than I am going to be here. Fuck that bitch! I
>> seem to remember being in here years ago and reading all sorts of
>> comments by people regarding their fervant hope that Doctor Who would

>> one day return. Most fans probably shared that view. Well now it's
>> back, and some 'fans' can't stop moaning about how awful it was or has
>> become. Either is was RTD who was ruining the show, or it's Moffat who
>> is ruining it now. What the fuck?! If you don't like it, STOP
>> WATCHING! What a bunch of worthless pricks! When I came to the
>> conclusion that such shows as American Idol and House were no longer
>> interesting, I quit watching and didn't spend hours and hours bitching
>> about how bad the shows were. I feel these crybabies who complain
>> constantly about Doctor Who are just a bunch of loser wannabes who are
>> pimple-faced, friendless virgins who laugh themselves silly while
>> sniffing their farts at night, and real fans would be much better off if
>> they just found something else to whine and whine and whine about.
>>
>>
>> There. Rant over.
>

>Don't worry. The "endless whining" will stop when Moron Moffat's
>JNT-style self-admiring incompetence loses enough of the audience for
>the show to be cancelled.
>
>I'll give it two years. Meanwhile, I certainly won't be watching any
>more of Moffat's insult to the memory of a once-great TV series, and
>neither will millions of others.
>
>
>
>--
>PJR :-) | οἵη περ φύλλων γενεὴ, τοίη δὲ καὶ ἀνδρῶν.
> | φύλλα τὰ μέν τ' ἄνεμος χαμάδις χέει, ἄλλα δέ θ' ὕλη
> | τηλεθόωσα φύει, ἔαρος δ' ἐπιγίγνεται ὥρη·
> | ὣς ἀνδρῶν γενεὴ ἡ μὲν φύει ἡ δ' ἀπολήγει. (Homer)
>

I have my doubt of the word millions.

[The Doctor]

In article <slrnk2oa5...@pjr.no-ip.org>,

Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmx.com> wrote:

>In rec.arts.drwho on Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:37:10 +0000 (UTC), The Doctor

>> I have my doubt of the word millions.
>

>Moffat has already driven 2 million viewers away. I predict another 2
>million will follow within 2 years, leaving half RTD's audience.

>
>
>
>--
>PJR :-) | οἵη περ φύλλων γενεὴ, τοίη δὲ καὶ ἀνδρῶν.
> | φύλλα τὰ μέν τ' ἄνεμος χαμάδις χέει, ἄλλα δέ θ' ὕλη
> | τηλεθόωσα φύει, ἔαρος δ' ἐπιγίγνεται ὥρη·
> | ὣς ἀνδρῶν γενεὴ ἡ μὲν φύει ἡ δ' ἀπολήγει. (Homer)
>

RTD was very offensive. Moffat is qualities better than RTD.

[MDS]

Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> In rec.arts.drwho on Tue, 14 Aug 2012 06:52:57 -0400, MDS
> <M...@Usenet.net> wrote:
>
> > I just finished commenting on some website after reading another
> > person's comment blasting Moffat for 'ruining' Doctor Who. I had to be
> > a bit more polite there than I am going to be here. Fuck that bitch! I
> > seem to remember being in here years ago and reading all sorts of
> > comments by people regarding their fervant hope that Doctor Who would
> > one day return. Most fans probably shared that view. Well now it's
> > back, and some 'fans' can't stop moaning about how awful it was or has
> > become. Either is was RTD who was ruining the show, or it's Moffat who
> > is ruining it now. What the fuck?! If you don't like it, STOP
> > WATCHING! What a bunch of worthless pricks! When I came to the
> > conclusion that such shows as American Idol and House were no longer
> > interesting, I quit watching and didn't spend hours and hours bitching
> > about how bad the shows were. I feel these crybabies who complain
> > constantly about Doctor Who are just a bunch of loser wannabes who are
> > pimple-faced, friendless virgins who laugh themselves silly while
> > sniffing their farts at night, and real fans would be much better off if
> > they just found something else to whine and whine and whine about.
> >
> >
> > There. Rant over.
>
> Don't worry. The "endless whining" will stop when Moron Moffat's
> JNT-style self-admiring incompetence loses enough of the audience for
> the show to be cancelled.

Which isn't going to happen.

>
> I'll give it two years.

And in two years, you'll give it two more years.

Meanwhile, I certainly won't be watching any
> more of Moffat's insult to the memory of a once-great TV series, and
> neither will millions of others.

Well that's okay for you, but I agree with Yads; it is not millions.

The sad truth is that people like you have a my way or the highway
mentality. So, start using your thumb!




--
Mister Doctor Sir

[MDS]

Me too.


--
Mister Doctor Sir

[MDS]

Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> In rec.arts.drwho on Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:37:10 +0000 (UTC), The Doctor
> <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>

> > I have my doubt of the word millions.
>

> Moffat has already driven 2 million viewers away.

You have evidence of this, of course.

I predict another 2
> million will follow within 2 years, leaving half RTD's audience.
>

Or 2 million more will start watching.


--
Mister Doctor Sir

[MDS]

Thanks, Dave. It's nice to be back.


--
Mister Doctor Sir

[MDS]

Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> In rec.arts.drwho on Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:44:56 +0100, Ignis Fatuus

> <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
>
> > Moff's failure with Who is all the more galling because he and Gatiss
> > made such a brilliant job of Sherlock.
>

> I haven't watched Sherlock, mostly because Moffat was involved in it,
> so I assumed it would be shit.

>
> > Part of it's down to casting a
> > waste of space nonentity as the Doctor...
>

> Matt Smith tries hard, but as soon as he's required to go beyond his
> "eccentric alien" act, he's way out of his depth. But the same could
> be said of Doctors 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10.
>
> The actor and actresses who woodenly portray Matt Smith's companions
> are, of course, beneath contempt. Fortunately, at least two of them
> have been sacked and won't be seen next year.

>
> > but it's not been helped by
> > a series of weak plotless static and inconsequential scripts.
>

> Moffat wrote some of them, and commissioned the rest. What did you
> expect? Coherent plots? Emotional depth? Credible characters?

>
> > Roll on the new management and a new Doctor.
>

> It would be better to have a break of two or three years, IMO. Then
> get Terrance Dicks out of retirement.
>


Are you one of those nutjobs who thinks Doctor Who has become too
dramatic?


--
Mister Doctor Sir

[Ignis Fatuus]

So ignore it instead of whining (just a suggestion).

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnk2o99...@pjr.no-ip.org...

> I haven't watched Sherlock, mostly because Moffat was involved in it,
> so I assumed it would be shit.

Bling encrusted novelty milking a household name brand does attract them
which is the essence of Moffat's thinking, and makes both a fool of him and
demeans the audience.

Why did Danny Cohen (who is cut from similar cloth) axe the effortlessly
superior "Zen"?

Thank God Mark Thompson has been fired. Hopefully Moffat and Cohen et all
will get their marching orders in the near future although I do pity the
inevitable decline of the New York Times.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[Ignis Fatuus]

On 15 Aug 2012 22:39:33 GMT, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:

>In rec.arts.drwho on Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:44:56 +0100, Ignis Fatuus
><Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
>

>> Moff's failure with Who is all the more galling because he and Gatiss
>> made such a brilliant job of Sherlock.
>

>I haven't watched Sherlock, mostly because Moffat was involved in it,
>so I assumed it would be shit.
>

It's not. It's brilliant, inventive, mesmerising, and very true to the
spirit of the Conan Doyle stories (which were high-tec, not revered
history, to a contemporary audience). Everything Moff's Who should be
and isn't. He seems to be writing all the time for a 5 yr old
audience; when the original treated it's audience like adults.

>> Part of it's down to casting a
>> waste of space nonentity as the Doctor...
>

>Matt Smith tries hard, but as soon as he's required to go beyond his
>"eccentric alien" act, he's way out of his depth. But the same could
>be said of Doctors 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10.
>

I could never stomach Tom Baker. But looking back it was mostly down
to the dreadful scripts, the bimbos, the shoddy sets and the tin dog..
Equally, McCoy went up vastly in my estimation for his brilliantly
eccentric Doctor in an otherwise unspeakably bad production.

I was extremely critical of RTD when the new series launched; but
Eccleston was magic and there were some excellent stories in amongst
the dross. After hating Tennant I was amazed by the transformation in
the final series by his partnership with Catherine Tate.

Matt Smith has impressed me once, in The Doctor's Wife, when the
script added some much needed depth to his character.

>The actor and actresses who woodenly portray Matt Smith's companions
>are, of course, beneath contempt. Fortunately, at least two of them
>have been sacked and won't be seen next year.
>

>> but it's not been helped by
>> a series of weak plotless static and inconsequential scripts.
>

>Moffat wrote some of them, and commissioned the rest. What did you
>expect? Coherent plots? Emotional depth? Credible characters?
>

>> Roll on the new management and a new Doctor.
>

[MDS]

Ignis Fatuus wrote:
>
> On 15 Aug 2012 22:39:33 GMT, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In rec.arts.drwho on Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:44:56 +0100, Ignis Fatuus
> ><Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Moff's failure with Who is all the more galling because he and Gatiss
> >> made such a brilliant job of Sherlock.
> >
> >I haven't watched Sherlock, mostly because Moffat was involved in it,
> >so I assumed it would be shit.
> >
> It's not. It's brilliant, inventive, mesmerising, and very true to the
> spirit of the Conan Doyle stories (which were high-tec, not revered
> history, to a contemporary audience). Everything Moff's Who should be
> and isn't. He seems to be writing all the time for a 5 yr old
> audience; when the original treated it's audience like adults.

Hmmm...interesting, because there are other people out there who say
that Moffat's stories are too complicated for children to understand.

>
> >> Part of it's down to casting a
> >> waste of space nonentity as the Doctor...
> >
> >Matt Smith tries hard, but as soon as he's required to go beyond his
> >"eccentric alien" act, he's way out of his depth. But the same could
> >be said of Doctors 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10.
> >
> I could never stomach Tom Baker. But looking back it was mostly down
> to the dreadful scripts, the bimbos, the shoddy sets and the tin dog..
> Equally, McCoy went up vastly in my estimation for his brilliantly
> eccentric Doctor in an otherwise unspeakably bad production.

You couldn't stomach Tom Baker, but you really dug McCoy? You enjoy
sniffing glue, don't you?


And by the way, who exactly were the bimbos? Tegan? Yes. Nyssa?
Yes. But that's it.

>
> I was extremely critical of RTD when the new series launched; but
> Eccleston was magic and there were some excellent stories in amongst
> the dross. After hating Tennant I was amazed by the transformation in
> the final series by his partnership with Catherine Tate.
>
> Matt Smith has impressed me once, in The Doctor's Wife, when the
> script added some much needed depth to his character.
>
> >The actor and actresses who woodenly portray Matt Smith's companions
> >are, of course, beneath contempt. Fortunately, at least two of them
> >have been sacked and won't be seen next year.
> >
> >> but it's not been helped by
> >> a series of weak plotless static and inconsequential scripts.
> >
> >Moffat wrote some of them, and commissioned the rest. What did you
> >expect? Coherent plots? Emotional depth? Credible characters?
> >
> >> Roll on the new management and a new Doctor.
> >
> >It would be better to have a break of two or three years, IMO. Then
> >get Terrance Dicks out of retirement.

--
Mister Doctor Sir

[Ignis Fatuus]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:59:36 -0700, "China Blue [Tor], Meersburg"
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <slrnk2o99...@pjr.no-ip.org>,

> Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In rec.arts.drwho on Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:44:56 +0100, Ignis Fatuus
>> <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Moff's failure with Who is all the more galling because he and Gatiss
>> > made such a brilliant job of Sherlock.
>>
>> I haven't watched Sherlock, mostly because Moffat was involved in it,
>> so I assumed it would be shit.
>

>After Jeremy Brett everything else just seems so derivative. Even Basil Rathbone.
>
Unfortunately Brett was never a match for Douglas Wilmer. Sadly the
Beeb saw fit to release the surviving Wilmer episodes on DVD in the
USA only. I have my copy but I'm still enraged by the move. I just
hope they get round to releasing the Rupert Davies Maigrets bfore I'm
due for an appointment at the crematorium.

[Ignis Fatuus]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:26:45 -0400, MDS <M...@RADW.USENET> wrote:

>Ignis Fatuus wrote:
>>
>> On 15 Aug 2012 22:39:33 GMT, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >In rec.arts.drwho on Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:44:56 +0100, Ignis Fatuus
>> ><Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Moff's failure with Who is all the more galling because he and Gatiss
>> >> made such a brilliant job of Sherlock.
>> >
>> >I haven't watched Sherlock, mostly because Moffat was involved in it,
>> >so I assumed it would be shit.
>> >
>> It's not. It's brilliant, inventive, mesmerising, and very true to the
>> spirit of the Conan Doyle stories (which were high-tec, not revered
>> history, to a contemporary audience). Everything Moff's Who should be
>> and isn't. He seems to be writing all the time for a 5 yr old
>> audience; when the original treated it's audience like adults.
>
>
>Hmmm...interesting, because there are other people out there who say
>that Moffat's stories are too complicated for children to understand.
>

I bet they weren't children. Perhaps they should try The Dead Planet,
Marco Polo, The Aztecs, The French Revolution, The Dalek Invasion,
The Romans, The Web Planet, The Time Meddler, Galaxy 4, The Myth
makers, The Master Plan, or The Gunfighters (to name but a few). None
of the Moffat (or Baker) era stories come close to these for ideas,
detail, and sheer storytelling skill.

>
>
>>
>> >> Part of it's down to casting a
>> >> waste of space nonentity as the Doctor...
>> >
>> >Matt Smith tries hard, but as soon as he's required to go beyond his
>> >"eccentric alien" act, he's way out of his depth. But the same could
>> >be said of Doctors 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10.
>> >
>> I could never stomach Tom Baker. But looking back it was mostly down
>> to the dreadful scripts, the bimbos, the shoddy sets and the tin dog..
>> Equally, McCoy went up vastly in my estimation for his brilliantly
>> eccentric Doctor in an otherwise unspeakably bad production.
>
>
>You couldn't stomach Tom Baker, but you really dug McCoy? You enjoy
>sniffing glue, don't you?
>

You' re evidently not up to following the detail of my comment; so you
simplify it into something you can comprehend.

>
>And by the way, who exactly were the bimbos? Tegan? Yes. Nyssa?
>Yes. But that's it.

Sarah Jane, The Savage with the big tits (forget her name) and the 2
dreadful time-bint incarnations. And Sadprick.

[MDS]

Ignis Fatuus wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:26:45 -0400, MDS <M...@RADW.USENET> wrote:
>
> >Ignis Fatuus wrote:
> >>
> >> On 15 Aug 2012 22:39:33 GMT, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In rec.arts.drwho on Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:44:56 +0100, Ignis Fatuus
> >> ><Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Moff's failure with Who is all the more galling because he and Gatiss
> >> >> made such a brilliant job of Sherlock.
> >> >
> >> >I haven't watched Sherlock, mostly because Moffat was involved in it,
> >> >so I assumed it would be shit.
> >> >
> >> It's not. It's brilliant, inventive, mesmerising, and very true to the
> >> spirit of the Conan Doyle stories (which were high-tec, not revered
> >> history, to a contemporary audience). Everything Moff's Who should be
> >> and isn't. He seems to be writing all the time for a 5 yr old
> >> audience; when the original treated it's audience like adults.
> >
> >
> >Hmmm...interesting, because there are other people out there who say
> >that Moffat's stories are too complicated for children to understand.
> >
> I bet they weren't children. Perhaps they should try The Dead Planet,
> Marco Polo, The Aztecs, The French Revolution, The Dalek Invasion,
> The Romans, The Web Planet, The Time Meddler, Galaxy 4, The Myth
> makers, The Master Plan, or The Gunfighters (to name but a few). None
> of the Moffat (or Baker) era stories come close to these for ideas,
> detail, and sheer storytelling skill.

You are so full of shit. Whatever you're smoking, you need to share!


Seriously, the stories you mention, with the exception of The Web
Planet, are wonderful clearly, and I should note that Hartnell is my
favorite Doctor out of all eleven. With that said, your taking a jab at
both Moffat and Tom Baker speaks volumes of what kind of fan you are, a
very narrowly focused one who is doomed to bitch and moan until a clone
of Hartnell and Verity Lambert are brought back to pander to you.

> >
> >
> >>
> >> >> Part of it's down to casting a
> >> >> waste of space nonentity as the Doctor...
> >> >
> >> >Matt Smith tries hard, but as soon as he's required to go beyond his
> >> >"eccentric alien" act, he's way out of his depth. But the same could
> >> >be said of Doctors 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10.
> >> >
> >> I could never stomach Tom Baker. But looking back it was mostly down
> >> to the dreadful scripts, the bimbos, the shoddy sets and the tin dog..
> >> Equally, McCoy went up vastly in my estimation for his brilliantly
> >> eccentric Doctor in an otherwise unspeakably bad production.
> >
> >
> >You couldn't stomach Tom Baker, but you really dug McCoy? You enjoy
> >sniffing glue, don't you?
> >
> You' re evidently not up to following the detail of my comment; so you
> simplify it into something you can comprehend.
> >
> >And by the way, who exactly were the bimbos? Tegan? Yes. Nyssa?
> >Yes. But that's it.
> Sarah Jane, The Savage with the big tits (forget her name) and the 2
> dreadful time-bint incarnations. And Sadprick.

Adric I agree on. The others? You're clearly in need of a time machine
that can keep returning you to 1963 so you can watch Hartnell over and
over until you die. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, since then
you can see Marco Polo, The Myth Makers, The Massacre...

> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I was extremely critical of RTD when the new series launched; but
> >> Eccleston was magic and there were some excellent stories in amongst
> >> the dross. After hating Tennant I was amazed by the transformation in
> >> the final series by his partnership with Catherine Tate.
> >>
> >> Matt Smith has impressed me once, in The Doctor's Wife, when the
> >> script added some much needed depth to his character.
> >>
> >> >The actor and actresses who woodenly portray Matt Smith's companions
> >> >are, of course, beneath contempt. Fortunately, at least two of them
> >> >have been sacked and won't be seen next year.
> >> >
> >> >> but it's not been helped by
> >> >> a series of weak plotless static and inconsequential scripts.
> >> >
> >> >Moffat wrote some of them, and commissioned the rest. What did you
> >> >expect? Coherent plots? Emotional depth? Credible characters?
> >> >
> >> >> Roll on the new management and a new Doctor.
> >> >
> >> >It would be better to have a break of two or three years, IMO. Then
> >> >get Terrance Dicks out of retirement.

--
Mister Doctor Sir

[Ignis Fatuus]

I didn't take a jab at Baker. And if you read my comments about Moffat
you'll find them full of praise for the work that's impressed me.

As for being a 'fan'... I judge the product on my perception of it's
merits, not some clannish allegiance. Hartnell's success was based on
the skills of a whole team, including writers directors, and
production designers, who pushed the limits of what could be imagined
and visualised on a miniscule budget in a tiny hot uncomfortable
studio; Without the Luxuries of Editing or Retakes.

The Baker era in contrast was formulaic, lazily written, and for the
most part shoddily designed and produced. But in real terms it had the
benefit of a much larger 'per episode' budget than the original. The
result was dull repetitive and the antithesis of it's predecessor in
terms of breaking new ground.

But although the McCoy era was unspeakably bad; his Doctor in the
Movie was a breath of fresh air, and one that I would like to have
seen more of. I concede that the same might have been said of Baker,
if he'd been supplied with any half decent material, and a more
impressive setting.

[Your Name]

In article <chine.bleu-FC552...@news.eternal-september.org>,

"China Blue [Tor], Meersburg" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnk2o99...@pjr.no-ip.org>,

> Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
> > In rec.arts.drwho on Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:44:56 +0100, Ignis Fatuus
> > <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Moff's failure with Who is all the more galling because he and Gatiss
> > > made such a brilliant job of Sherlock.
> >
> > I haven't watched Sherlock, mostly because Moffat was involved in it,
> > so I assumed it would be shit.
>

> After Jeremy Brett everything else just seems so derivative. Even Basil
> Rathbone.
>

> I saw the end of I think the first episode with Moriarty, a pool, and a
> bomb. I really don't like the recurring villian nonsense like Moriarty
> became, so that was a immediate turn off for me.

From memory that was the final episode of the first "season" (if you can
call so few episodes an actual season). It was the only episode Moriarty
was in and he was only in the final episode of "season" two as well, so
not really "recurring villain" as such, more of a "guest star villain".

[Your Name]

In article <502C18...@RADW.USENET>, M...@RADW.USENET wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
> >
> > It's not just "rebooting" old shows either. The recent idiocy of the
> > Battleship movie supposedly based on the board game, but in reality
> > absolutely nothing like it proves that. Of course this kind of silliness
> > has been happening for decades with movies "based on" something like a
> > book. :-(
>
> Battleship was okay in the sense that I enjoyed watching the navy ships
> firing their guns. Otherwise, I won't be watching it again.

It had absolutely nothing to do with the Battleship board game though
(other than probably allowing Hasbro to sell an new "rebooted" version
with aliens in it). :-(

> > Man-eating wheelie bins?? Farting aliens?? Of course the storylines are
> > not Quiopher's fault, but combining the dumbed down storylines and his
> > grinning clown bad acting, the regeneration of the show started off badly.
> > In fact if he had stayed for another season, then I wouldn't be bothereing
> > to watch it now.
>
> The only thing I can point to in his acting that is cringeworthy for me
> is his performance while the aliens are being introduced in The End of
> the World. I know there's a lot of dislike for the Slitheen's farting;
> however, it just never bothered me.

It was just far too childish. Technically Doctor Who is a kids' show, but
not one aimed at five year olds giggling at fart jokes. :-(

> > She THINKS she's a pretty girl ... that's half her problem (she also can't
> > act, has anger management issues, and has / had alcohol problems, and I
> > wouldn't be at all surprised by drug problems too). She can't stand not
> > being top of the cast and throws temper tantrums. In Beverly Hills 90210
> > she was overshadowed by Jennie Garth and in Charmed she was overshadowed
> > by both Alyssa Milano and Holly Marie Combs.
>
> I have to disagree. I thought she was very pretty- and yes, Chucky boy,
> I am objectifying women.

Shannen Doherty was and is pretty ugly, if that counts. ;-)
Sour old face that could turn milk at 500 feet, and a personality to match.

Even back in the old days when she was about 7 on the TV show "Our House"
(or something like that) she was an obnoxious little brat, and she simply
never grew out of it. No doubt gorwing up in Hollyweird surrounded by
"yes" men telling her how great she was didn't help.

[MDS]

Your Name wrote:
>
> In article <502C18...@RADW.USENET>, M...@RADW.USENET wrote:
> > Your Name wrote:
> > >
> > > It's not just "rebooting" old shows either. The recent idiocy of the
> > > Battleship movie supposedly based on the board game, but in reality
> > > absolutely nothing like it proves that. Of course this kind of silliness
> > > has been happening for decades with movies "based on" something like a
> > > book. :-(
> >
> > Battleship was okay in the sense that I enjoyed watching the navy ships
> > firing their guns. Otherwise, I won't be watching it again.
>
> It had absolutely nothing to do with the Battleship board game though
> (other than probably allowing Hasbro to sell an new "rebooted" version
> with aliens in it). :-(
>
> > > Man-eating wheelie bins?? Farting aliens?? Of course the storylines are
> > > not Quiopher's fault, but combining the dumbed down storylines and his
> > > grinning clown bad acting, the regeneration of the show started off badly.
> > > In fact if he had stayed for another season, then I wouldn't be bothereing
> > > to watch it now.
> >
> > The only thing I can point to in his acting that is cringeworthy for me
> > is his performance while the aliens are being introduced in The End of
> > the World. I know there's a lot of dislike for the Slitheen's farting;
> > however, it just never bothered me.
>
> It was just far too childish. Technically Doctor Who is a kids' show, but
> not one aimed at five year olds giggling at fart jokes. :-(

Why do you say that it is a kids' show technically? Seasame Street is a
kids' show.

>
> > > She THINKS she's a pretty girl ... that's half her problem (she also can't
> > > act, has anger management issues, and has / had alcohol problems, and I
> > > wouldn't be at all surprised by drug problems too). She can't stand not
> > > being top of the cast and throws temper tantrums. In Beverly Hills 90210
> > > she was overshadowed by Jennie Garth and in Charmed she was overshadowed
> > > by both Alyssa Milano and Holly Marie Combs.
> >
> > I have to disagree. I thought she was very pretty- and yes, Chucky boy,
> > I am objectifying women.
>
> Shannen Doherty was and is pretty ugly, if that counts. ;-)
> Sour old face that could turn milk at 500 feet, and a personality to match.

I disagree, and if I wasn't married I'd plug that pussy of hers real
good!

>
> Even back in the old days when she was about 7 on the TV show "Our House"
> (or something like that) she was an obnoxious little brat, and she simply
> never grew out of it. No doubt gorwing up in Hollyweird surrounded by
> "yes" men telling her how great she was didn't help.

Sounds like Britney Spears.


--
Mister Doctor Sir

[MDS]

I heartily disagree. Obviously there were lesser episodes, but on the
whole there is a reason why Tom Baker was the most popular Doctor for a
very long time, and the only classic Doctor to score above 10% in the
Entertainment Weekly poll. Genesis of the Daleks, Pyramids of Mars, The
Talons of Weng-Chiang and City of Death are properly among the best of
the classic series; in addition, there are many others that I enjoy
watching repeatedly. I find your criticism of his time as the Doctor to
be as unpersuasive as the criticism I have seen at times of Pertwee's
era. Being a devoted fan is one thing, but being a nitpicker of every
little thing is simply being unreasonable. The show enjoys enormous
popularity and has lasted for fifty years, I think, because most fans
are not so narrow in how they see it. If I was inclined to savage the
new series as some people do, I would simply stop watching and move
on.

--
Mister Doctor Sir

[The Doctor]

Or index finger.

>
>
>--
>Mister Doctor Sir

[The Doctor]

In article <502C2E...@RADW.USENET>, MDS <M...@RADW.USENET> wrote:

Thank you Ed.

[The Doctor]

In article <502C2E...@RADW.USENET>, MDS <M...@RADW.USENET> wrote:

Percentage wise DW gets better ratings.

>
>
> I predict another 2
>> million will follow within 2 years, leaving half RTD's audience.
>>
>
>
>Or 2 million more will start watching.
>

10/10 !

>
>--
>Mister Doctor Sir

[The Doctor]

In article <502C2E...@RADW.USENET>, MDS <M...@RADW.USENET> wrote:

Now to get a few more back.

[The Doctor]

Or melancholy.

[The Doctor]

In article <4rdo285q32s30n03n...@4ax.com>,

New Doctor cannot take place until Gallifrey is restored,
otherwise the TARDIS could end up blackholing.

[The Doctor]

In article <c8eo28hcd0qfqptb2...@4ax.com>,

I liked the Christmas with Smith!

[The Doctor]

In article <502C48...@RADW.USENET>, MDS <M...@RADW.USENET> wrote:
>Ignis Fatuus wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:26:45 -0400, MDS <M...@RADW.USENET> wrote:
>>
>> >Ignis Fatuus wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 15 Aug 2012 22:39:33 GMT, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In rec.arts.drwho on Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:44:56 +0100, Ignis Fatuus
>> >> ><Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Moff's failure with Who is all the more galling because he and Gatiss
>> >> >> made such a brilliant job of Sherlock.
>> >> >
>> >> >I haven't watched Sherlock, mostly because Moffat was involved in it,
>> >> >so I assumed it would be shit.
>> >> >
>> >> It's not. It's brilliant, inventive, mesmerising, and very true to the
>> >> spirit of the Conan Doyle stories (which were high-tec, not revered
>> >> history, to a contemporary audience). Everything Moff's Who should be
>> >> and isn't. He seems to be writing all the time for a 5 yr old
>> >> audience; when the original treated it's audience like adults.
>> >
>> >
>> >Hmmm...interesting, because there are other people out there who say
>> >that Moffat's stories are too complicated for children to understand.
>> >
>> I bet they weren't children. Perhaps they should try The Dead Planet,
>> Marco Polo, The Aztecs, The French Revolution, The Dalek Invasion,
>> The Romans, The Web Planet, The Time Meddler, Galaxy 4, The Myth
>> makers, The Master Plan, or The Gunfighters (to name but a few). None
>> of the Moffat (or Baker) era stories come close to these for ideas,
>> detail, and sheer storytelling skill.
>
>

>You are so full of it. Whatever you're smoking, you need to share!

The good old days are back.

[The Doctor]

Just the way it was classified in the 1960s.

>
>>
>> > > She THINKS she's a pretty girl ... that's half her problem (she also can't
>> > > act, has anger management issues, and has / had alcohol problems, and I
>> > > wouldn't be at all surprised by drug problems too). She can't stand not
>> > > being top of the cast and throws temper tantrums. In Beverly Hills 90210
>> > > she was overshadowed by Jennie Garth and in Charmed she was overshadowed
>> > > by both Alyssa Milano and Holly Marie Combs.
>> >
>> > I have to disagree. I thought she was very pretty- and yes, Chucky boy,
>> > I am objectifying women.
>>
>> Shannen Doherty was and is pretty ugly, if that counts. ;-)
>> Sour old face that could turn milk at 500 feet, and a personality to match.
>
>
>I disagree, and if I wasn't married I'd plug that pussy of hers real
>good!
>
>
>
>>
>> Even back in the old days when she was about 7 on the TV show "Our House"
>> (or something like that) she was an obnoxious little brat, and she simply
>> never grew out of it. No doubt gorwing up in Hollyweird surrounded by
>> "yes" men telling her how great she was didn't help.
>
>
>Sounds like Britney Spears.
>

That TITtany Spears.

>
>--
>Mister Doctor Sir

[MDS]

That would be nice!


--
Mister Doctor Sir

[MDS]

The key word being 1960s.

>
> >
> >>
> >> > > She THINKS she's a pretty girl ... that's half her problem (she also can't
> >> > > act, has anger management issues, and has / had alcohol problems, and I
> >> > > wouldn't be at all surprised by drug problems too). She can't stand not
> >> > > being top of the cast and throws temper tantrums. In Beverly Hills 90210
> >> > > she was overshadowed by Jennie Garth and in Charmed she was overshadowed
> >> > > by both Alyssa Milano and Holly Marie Combs.
> >> >
> >> > I have to disagree. I thought she was very pretty- and yes, Chucky boy,
> >> > I am objectifying women.
> >>
> >> Shannen Doherty was and is pretty ugly, if that counts. ;-)
> >> Sour old face that could turn milk at 500 feet, and a personality to match.
> >
> >
> >I disagree, and if I wasn't married I'd plug that pussy of hers real
> >good!
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Even back in the old days when she was about 7 on the TV show "Our House"
> >> (or something like that) she was an obnoxious little brat, and she simply
> >> never grew out of it. No doubt gorwing up in Hollyweird surrounded by
> >> "yes" men telling her how great she was didn't help.
> >
> >
> >Sounds like Britney Spears.
> >
>
> That TITtany Spears.
>

Wow, you've come a long way since I was last here!



--
Mister Doctor Sir

[The Doctor]

With the exception of John Long and D Flaming Burns.

[The Doctor]

As we were saying.

>
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > > She THINKS she's a pretty girl ... that's half her problem (she also can't
>> >> > > act, has anger management issues, and has / had alcohol problems, and I
>> >> > > wouldn't be at all surprised by drug problems too). She can't stand not
>> >> > > being top of the cast and throws temper tantrums. In Beverly Hills 90210
>> >> > > she was overshadowed by Jennie Garth and in Charmed she was overshadowed
>> >> > > by both Alyssa Milano and Holly Marie Combs.
>> >> >
>> >> > I have to disagree. I thought she was very pretty- and yes, Chucky boy,
>> >> > I am objectifying women.
>> >>
>> >> Shannen Doherty was and is pretty ugly, if that counts. ;-)
>> >> Sour old face that could turn milk at 500 feet, and a personality to match.
>> >
>> >
>> >I disagree, and if I wasn't married I'd plug that pussy of hers real
>> >good!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Even back in the old days when she was about 7 on the TV show "Our House"
>> >> (or something like that) she was an obnoxious little brat, and she simply
>> >> never grew out of it. No doubt gorwing up in Hollyweird surrounded by
>> >> "yes" men telling her how great she was didn't help.
>> >
>> >
>> >Sounds like Britney Spears.
>> >
>>
>> That TITtany Spears.
>>
>
>
>Wow, you've come a long way since I was last here!
>
>

I always regarded her as a Tit up!

[MDS]

Actually, they are who I want back most of all.

--
Mister Doctor Sir

[The Doctor]

I prefer discussion and avoiding flame wars Thank you.

[Ignis Fatuus]

It never fails to astonish me that Baker 'fans' list Pyramids and
Talons as 'brilliant' stories without noticing that Talons is a
transparent rehash of Pyramids with a slight 'genre' shift. Do you
people ever watch these stories or do you just cull your opinions from
blogs.

BTW Pyramids has the virtue of being two episodes shorter... but most
of it consists of Doc and Bimbo wandering round a derelict country
estate wondering what the hell's happening. The scene where a poacher
discharges a shotgun through a window of the house for no better
reason than he thinks he sees something move (and after all He's the
one trespassing) is indicative of the lazy careless writing that's
evident throughout.

Genesis is a lazy rehash of the Dead Planet which drops story in
favour two opposing sides issuing dire threats and sticking tongues
out at each other. For die hard worshipers only.

[MDS]

Ignis Fatuus wrote:
>

> >
> It never fails to astonish me that Baker 'fans' list Pyramids and
> Talons as 'brilliant' stories without noticing that Talons is a
> transparent rehash of Pyramids with a slight 'genre' shift. Do you
> people ever watch these stories or do you just cull your opinions from
> blogs.
>

You really are smoking something. Talons and Pyramids are not even
close to being the same. I think you must have damaged some of your
little gray cells somewhere along the way.

> BTW Pyramids has the virtue of being two episodes shorter... but most
> of it consists of Doc and Bimbo wandering round a derelict country
> estate wondering what the hell's happening.

Really? The last time I watched it, the Doctor seemed to know exactly
what was happening once he realized that Sutek was trying to free
himself.

The scene where a poacher
> discharges a shotgun through a window of the house for no better
> reason than he thinks he sees something move (and after all He's the
> one trespassing) is indicative of the lazy careless writing that's
> evident throughout.

Do you really expect to be taken seriously with this kind of rubbish
argument? Have you even watched Pyramids of Mars, or are you just
pretending that you have and hoping the rest of us don't figure out that
you haven't?

>
> Genesis is a lazy rehash of the Dead Planet which drops story in
> favour two opposing sides issuing dire threats and sticking tongues
> out at each other. For die hard worshipers only.

The only thing lazy here is you. You obviously have a chip on your
shoulder for some reason.


--
MDS (Mister Doctor Sir)

[Your Name]

Doctor Who is and always has been a kids' show. The more recent Doctor Who
spin-off shows "The Adventures of Sarah Jane" and "K-9" were aimed at even
younger kids, but obviously still not for youngsters like Sesame Street,
Barney, nor fart jokes.

Of course, the "adult" version of Doctor Who was Torchwood (which of
course to lazy writers / producers simply means adding sex to it).

>
> >
> > Even back in the old days when she was about 7 on the TV show "Our House"
> > (or something like that) she was an obnoxious little brat, and she simply
> > never grew out of it. No doubt gorwing up in Hollyweird surrounded by
> > "yes" men telling her how great she was didn't help.
>
> Sounds like Britney Spears.

And MANY others child actors. Few child actors make it into an adult
entertainment career with their sanity intact, and some kill themselves
with drugs, alcohol or simply suicide. Alyssa Milano went a bit crazy, but
seems to have regained some sense these days.

[MDS]

No. Doctor Who was originally intended to be a kids' show, but at some
point it became more of a family show. It's hardly kid-friendly to say
that death and destruction follow the lead character of a kids' program
wherever he goes.

The more recent Doctor Who
> spin-off shows "The Adventures of Sarah Jane" and "K-9" were aimed at even
> younger kids, but obviously still not for youngsters like Sesame Street,
> Barney, nor fart jokes.
>
> Of course, the "adult" version of Doctor Who was Torchwood (which of
> course to lazy writers / producers simply means adding sex to it).

The only things that separate Doctor Who from Torchwood are the sex and
some profanity, and the fact that the Torchwood team is stuck on Earth.

>
> >
> > >
> > > Even back in the old days when she was about 7 on the TV show "Our House"
> > > (or something like that) she was an obnoxious little brat, and she simply
> > > never grew out of it. No doubt gorwing up in Hollyweird surrounded by
> > > "yes" men telling her how great she was didn't help.
> >
> > Sounds like Britney Spears.
>
> And MANY others child actors. Few child actors make it into an adult
> entertainment career with their sanity intact, and some kill themselves
> with drugs, alcohol or simply suicide. Alyssa Milano went a bit crazy, but
> seems to have regained some sense these days.

[powrwrap]

> On Thursday, August 16, 2012 9:09:30 AM UTC-5, MDS wrote:

> > The Doctor wrote:
>
>
> > With the exception of John Long and D Flaming Burns.
>
> > --
>

>
> Actually, they are who I want back most of all.

It is within my power to bring back DBurns6554. Bwa-ha-ha-ha!!

[MDS]

Dude, go for it!

[Immortal@earth.com The Immortal]

"MDS" <M...@RADW.USENET> wrote in message news:502CFF...@RADW.USENET...

>
>
> Actually, they are who I want back most of all.
>
> --
> Mister Doctor Sir

MDS, use the AIM just like the old days...If you still have the same call
sign, I'll see you there.

[Your Name]

It was, is and always will be primarily a kids' show ... you're just
taking "kids" to mean 5 year olds when in reality it's aimed at older
kids. That doesn't mean that adults can't like it too.

The Star Wars movies are kids' movies, but many adults like those too.
There are many other examples.

Despite what some morons like to believe, a TV show / movie / etc. can't
and shouldn't "grow up" ... that leads to dismal, ill-fitting rubbish like
the Ron Moore's so-called "Battlestar Galactica", which in reality is a
totally different show to the real "Battlestar Galactica".

> > The more recent Doctor Who
> > spin-off shows "The Adventures of Sarah Jane" and "K-9" were aimed at even
> > younger kids, but obviously still not for youngsters like Sesame Street,
> > Barney, nor fart jokes.
> >
> > Of course, the "adult" version of Doctor Who was Torchwood (which of
> > course to lazy writers / producers simply means adding sex to it).
>
> The only things that separate Doctor Who from Torchwood are the sex and
> some profanity, and the fact that the Torchwood team is stuck on Earth.

That's because sex and swearing is what most of the talentless morons in
Hollyweird think "adult" means.

[MDS]

Is this Burns? It's been a long time since I've used AIM, and I don't
remember what my screen name was. If you want, send an email to
misterd...@gmail.com. If this is Burns, I still have what you sent
me.

[MDS]

I think you're confusing kids shows with light-hearted viewing.

>
> Despite what some morons like to believe, a TV show / movie / etc. can't
> and shouldn't "grow up" ... that leads to dismal, ill-fitting rubbish like
> the Ron Moore's so-called "Battlestar Galactica", which in reality is a
> totally different show to the real "Battlestar Galactica".

I wouldn't say the Battlestar remake was rubbish entirely. I did enjoy
it for awhile, but the whole cylons as living people who could get
pregnant finally did me in. The original was better, IMHO.

>
> > > The more recent Doctor Who
> > > spin-off shows "The Adventures of Sarah Jane" and "K-9" were aimed at even
> > > younger kids, but obviously still not for youngsters like Sesame Street,
> > > Barney, nor fart jokes.
> > >
> > > Of course, the "adult" version of Doctor Who was Torchwood (which of
> > > course to lazy writers / producers simply means adding sex to it).
> >
> > The only things that separate Doctor Who from Torchwood are the sex and
> > some profanity, and the fact that the Torchwood team is stuck on Earth.
>
> That's because sex and swearing is what most of the talentless morons in
> Hollyweird think "adult" means.

Very true

[The Doctor]

In article <d4e91288-3437-4ec5...@googlegroups.com>,

I doubt DFLames would ever come back.

[The Doctor]

In article <5sh9hf....@news.alt.net>,

Who is this?

[The Doctor]

Google for your ISP stuff? Check the ISP you are with.

[MDS]

The Doctor wrote:
>
> In article <d4e91288-3437-4ec5...@googlegroups.com>,
> powrwrap <powr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Thursday, August 16, 2012 9:09:30 AM UTC-5, MDS wrote:
> >
> >> > The Doctor wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > With the exception of John Long and D Flaming Burns.
> >>
> >> > --
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> Actually, they are who I want back most of all.
> >
> >
> >It is within my power to bring back DBurns6554. Bwa-ha-ha-ha!!
>
> I doubt DFLames would ever come back.

Why?

[The Doctor]

He would get roasted!

[MDS]

The Doctor wrote:
>
> In article <502E66...@RADW.USENET>, MDS <M...@RADW.USENET> wrote:
> >The Doctor wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <d4e91288-3437-4ec5...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> powrwrap <powr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Thursday, August 16, 2012 9:09:30 AM UTC-5, MDS wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > The Doctor wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > With the exception of John Long and D Flaming Burns.
> >> >>
> >> >> > --
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually, they are who I want back most of all.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >It is within my power to bring back DBurns6554. Bwa-ha-ha-ha!!
> >>
> >> I doubt DFLames would ever come back.
> >
> >
> >Why?
> >
> >
>
> He would get roasted!

I doubt that.

[The Doctor]

MDS <M...@radw.usenet> wrote:
: The Doctor wrote:
: >
: > In article <502E66...@RADW.USENET>, MDS <M...@RADW.USENET> wrote:
: > >The Doctor wrote:
: > >>
: > >> In article <d4e91288-3437-4ec5...@googlegroups.com>,
: > >> powrwrap <powr...@aol.com> wrote:
: > >> >> On Thursday, August 16, 2012 9:09:30 AM UTC-5, MDS wrote:
: > >> >
: > >> >> > The Doctor wrote:
: > >> >>
: > >> >>
: > >> >> > With the exception of John Long and D Flaming Burns.
: > >> >>
: > >> >> > --
: > >> >>
: > >> >
: > >> >>
: > >> >> Actually, they are who I want back most of all.
: > >> >
: > >> >
: > >> >It is within my power to bring back DBurns6554. Bwa-ha-ha-ha!!
: > >>
: > >> I doubt DFLames would ever come back.
: > >
: > >
: > >Why?
: > >
: > >
: >
: > He would get roasted!


: I doubt that.

SP is still here and so am I his 2 biggest enemies.

[MDS]

The Doctor wrote:
>
> MDS <M...@radw.usenet> wrote:
> : The Doctor wrote:
> : >
> : > In article <502E66...@RADW.USENET>, MDS <M...@RADW.USENET> wrote:
> : > >The Doctor wrote:
> : > >>
> : > >> In article <d4e91288-3437-4ec5...@googlegroups.com>,
> : > >> powrwrap <powr...@aol.com> wrote:
> : > >> >> On Thursday, August 16, 2012 9:09:30 AM UTC-5, MDS wrote:
> : > >> >
> : > >> >> > The Doctor wrote:
> : > >> >>
> : > >> >>
> : > >> >> > With the exception of John Long and D Flaming Burns.
> : > >> >>
> : > >> >> > --
> : > >> >>
> : > >> >
> : > >> >>
> : > >> >> Actually, they are who I want back most of all.
> : > >> >
> : > >> >
> : > >> >It is within my power to bring back DBurns6554. Bwa-ha-ha-ha!!
> : > >>
> : > >> I doubt DFLames would ever come back.
> : > >
> : > >
> : > >Why?
> : > >
> : > >
> : >
> : > He would get roasted!
>
> : I doubt that.
>
> SP is still here and so am I his 2 biggest enemies.
>

I'm sure he's terrified...not.

[007]

"MDS" <M...@RADW.USENET> wrote in message news:502DF0...@RADW.USENET...

I'll be in touch.

[Your Name]

Nope. You're confusing "kids" with 5 year olds, when really it qualifies
anything up to about 15 to 18. Doctor Who has always been aimed at the
audience of boys aged roughly 8 to 15, just like Star Wars and many other
(older) kids' shows / movies.

> > Despite what some morons like to believe, a TV show / movie / etc. can't
> > and shouldn't "grow up" ... that leads to dismal, ill-fitting rubbish like
> > the Ron Moore's so-called "Battlestar Galactica", which in reality is a
> > totally different show to the real "Battlestar Galactica".
>
>
> I wouldn't say the Battlestar remake was rubbish entirely. I did enjoy
> it for awhile, but the whole cylons as living people who could get
> pregnant finally did me in. The original was better, IMHO.

Fact: It was rubbish as a "Battlestar Galactica" show. It was a
completely different show.

Opinion: Whether it was any good as a show in it's own right.

As a completely different show, it should have had it's own name and not
stolen the real "Battlestar Galactica" name or screwed up that franchise.
Calling Ron Moore's version by a different name ("Warship Gigantica -
loosely based on Battlestar Galactica") would have made no difference to
the quality, or lack of. It would also have given the new show a better
chance with people who disliked the real "Battlestar Galactica".

[MDS]

Sorry, but you're wrong. If every adult fan of Doctor Who stopped
watching and never tuned in to see it again, the ratings would plummet.
It is a family show. And I don't call 15-18-year-olds 'kids'. Just
because kids like a show, that does not make the show a kids show. Kids
like to watch slasher movies like Friday the 13th. I'd hardly call them
kids movies.

>
> > > Despite what some morons like to believe, a TV show / movie / etc. can't
> > > and shouldn't "grow up" ... that leads to dismal, ill-fitting rubbish like
> > > the Ron Moore's so-called "Battlestar Galactica", which in reality is a
> > > totally different show to the real "Battlestar Galactica".
> >
> >
> > I wouldn't say the Battlestar remake was rubbish entirely. I did enjoy
> > it for awhile, but the whole cylons as living people who could get
> > pregnant finally did me in. The original was better, IMHO.
>
> Fact: It was rubbish as a "Battlestar Galactica" show. It was a
> completely different show.

A fact is something so obvious that everyone agrees with it, like
gravity. So, again, you're wrong.

>
> Opinion: Whether it was any good as a show in it's own right.
>
> As a completely different show, it should have had it's own name and not
> stolen the real "Battlestar Galactica" name or screwed up that franchise.
> Calling Ron Moore's version by a different name ("Warship Gigantica -
> loosely based on Battlestar Galactica") would have made no difference to
> the quality, or lack of. It would also have given the new show a better
> chance with people who disliked the real "Battlestar Galactica".

This is all just your opinion. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with it,
mind you.

[MDS]

Doctor Who 1987-1989 was definitely a kids show. :-)

[The Doctor]

Queen's guard are you?

[The Doctor]

You misspelled 1963 .

[MDS]

Nope. I think you missed it, Dave. I was referring to the McCoy years.

[The Doctor]

You missed it; I was referring to the Whole Series.

[john smith]

"Your Name" wrote in message
news:YourName-150...@203-118-187-148.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...

In article <502A2E...@Usenet.net>, M...@Usenet.net wrote:
>
> I just finished commenting on some website after reading another
> person's comment blasting Moffat for 'ruining' Doctor Who. I had to be
> a bit more polite there than I am going to be here. Fuck that bitch! I
> seem to remember being in here years ago and reading all sorts of
> comments by people regarding their fervant hope that Doctor Who would
> one day return. Most fans probably shared that view.
<snip>

You're whining about the whining. ;-)

Unfortunately the problem is that shows which "come back" are (almost)
always stupidly changed and barely recognisable thanks to the current
idiotic fad of "rebooting" / "reimagining" them ... BUT thankfully with
Doctor Who is almost unique in that very little has actually been changed
(ignoring some of Quitopher Etchedinstone's sillier episodes).



What, do you think he wrote them himself?

[Your Name]

In article <502EEC...@RADW.USENET>, M...@RADW.USENET wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
> > In article <502DF2...@RADW.USENET>, M...@RADW.USENET wrote:
> > > Your Name wrote:
> >
> > Nope. You're confusing "kids" with 5 year olds, when really it qualifies
> > anything up to about 15 to 18. Doctor Who has always been aimed at the
> > audience of boys aged roughly 8 to 15, just like Star Wars and many other
> > (older) kids' shows / movies.
>
> Sorry, but you're wrong. If every adult fan of Doctor Who stopped
> watching and never tuned in to see it again, the ratings would plummet.

As I said, although it *IS* a kids' show, there's no reason adult's aren't
able to like it too. There are many shows / movies (as well as books)
aimed at kids that adults enjoy watching too, and there's no law that says
they're not allowed to.

> It is a family show. And I don't call 15-18-year-olds 'kids'.

Legally becoming an "adult" is usually when someone turns 16, 18 or 21
(depending on the circumstances), anything under that is still a child /
kid ... although people do try to label everything, so you also get terms
like teenager, tweenager, etc., but that's still under the definiteion of
a child / kid.

> Just because kids like a show, that does not make the show a kids show.

It has nothing to do with what age the person is who likes it (or doesn't
like it). The FACT remains that Doctor Who, and Star Wars, is targetted at
(older) kids - always has been, always will be. The fact that adults also
watch it doesn't suddenly change who the makers were / are aiming it at.

This is from the Tardis.wiki page (not that some people would believe it
even if the makers were telling them to their face):

"Moffat is married to his frequent production partner,
Sue Vertue ... They have two children who are, as of
2010, in the target audience age range of Doctor Who."

His children's ages in 2010 were ten years old and eight years old.

Case closed. You continue believe whatever rubish you want.

> > Fact: It was rubbish as a "Battlestar Galactica" show. It was a
> > completely different show.
>
> A fact is something so obvious that everyone agrees with it, like
> gravity. So, again, you're wrong.

Ron Moore's version being very different is a fact (and blatantly obvious
to anyone with eyes, ears and at least a couple of braincells) and is
correct - enough Ron Moore and others involved making it said so, and it's
the entire reason it's called a "reimaginging".

> > As a completely different show, it should have had it's own name and not
> > stolen the real "Battlestar Galactica" name or screwed up that franchise.
> > Calling Ron Moore's version by a different name ("Warship Gigantica -
> > loosely based on Battlestar Galactica") would have made no difference to
> > the quality, or lack of. It would also have given the new show a better
> > chance with people who disliked the real "Battlestar Galactica".
>
> This is all just your opinion. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with it,
> mind you.

Nope that's a fact too. There were some people who didn't bother watching
Ron Moore's version when it started because they never liked the original
/ real "Battlestar Galactica". If it had been called something else, they
would have watched it earlier to see if it was any good.

[Your Name]

In article <CFFXr.1342075$3s1.4...@fx12.am4>, "john smith"

Did I say that?? Nope, I didn't think so either. :-\

The easiest way to distinguish which seasons are being referred to is to
use the name of the actor playing the role of the Doctor at the time -
that makes it patently clear to everyone, whereas season numbers and even
years are too easily confused or require looking up.

[Your Name]

In article <k0mt5c$ons$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The

Doctor) wrote:
> In article <502EF1...@RADW.USENET>, MDS <M...@RADW.USENET> wrote:
> >
> > Doctor Who 1987-1989 was definitely a kids show. :-)
>

> You misspelled 1963.

He also misspelled 2012 (and further). He meant to say the correct version of:

Doctor Who 1963-2012+ was definitely a kids' show.

[The Doctor]

In article <YourName-180...@203-118-187-18.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,

Exactly!!

[MDS]

Target audience age range? It's a family show, you moron.
F-a-m-i-l-y! Kids are part of F-a-m-i-l-y.


Doctor Who- Family show. PERIOD.

>
> > > Fact: It was rubbish as a "Battlestar Galactica" show. It was a
> > > completely different show.
> >
> > A fact is something so obvious that everyone agrees with it, like
> > gravity. So, again, you're wrong.
>
> Ron Moore's version being very different is a fact (and blatantly obvious
> to anyone with eyes, ears and at least a couple of braincells) and is
> correct - enough Ron Moore and others involved making it said so, and it's
> the entire reason it's called a "reimaginging".
>
> > > As a completely different show, it should have had it's own name and not
> > > stolen the real "Battlestar Galactica" name or screwed up that franchise.
> > > Calling Ron Moore's version by a different name ("Warship Gigantica -
> > > loosely based on Battlestar Galactica") would have made no difference to
> > > the quality, or lack of. It would also have given the new show a better
> > > chance with people who disliked the real "Battlestar Galactica".
> >
> > This is all just your opinion. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with it,
> > mind you.
>
> Nope that's a fact too. There were some people who didn't bother watching
> Ron Moore's version when it started because they never liked the original
> / real "Battlestar Galactica". If it had been called something else, they
> would have watched it earlier to see if it was any good.

[The Doctor]

Kids count as part of the family.

[solar penguin]

The Doctor wrote:

> MDS <M...@radw.usenet> wrote:
> : The Doctor wrote:
> : >
> : > In article <502E66...@RADW.USENET>, MDS <M...@RADW.USENET> wrote:
> : > >The Doctor wrote:
> : > >>
> : > >>

> : > >> I doubt DFLames would ever come back.
> : > >
> : > >
> : > >Why?
> : > >
> : > >
> : >
> : > He would get roasted!
>
>
> : I doubt that.
>
> SP is still here and so am I his 2 biggest enemies.
>

You flatter me, but I doubt that I was his biggest enemy. As far as
he was concerned, I was just another troll in his kill-file.

He probably thought he was _my_ biggest enemy though. After all, he
was vain enough to think he was everyone's biggest enemy. He was like
that.

As for you, you could never be anyone's biggest enemy even if you
tried. That requires a degree of skill and competence that you just
don't have.

[The Doctor]

In article <922b7aaf-94a4-46c5...@f17g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

Cheers burning bird.

[MDS]

Hello, SP