Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Class S01E02 The Coach with the Dragon Tattoo
83 views
Skip to first unread message
Agamemnon
Oct 23, 2016, 7:19:13 PM10/23/16
to
Slight improvement over the trash which was episode 1 but not much.
The writers don't have have a clue how to construct a plot or portray
character relationships.
If they want to do Buffy, Angel or Smallville then at least watch them
first and learn the basics. Better still read some Harry Potter.
The characters are all extremely dislikable with no redeeming qualities
whatsoever.
There's one selfish bitch who first attacks, then at their next meeting
pounces on an Ofsted Inspector and tries to force herself into a lip
lock with him. FFS... If you want to do that then at least try to
justify it in the same manner as today's episode of Poldark but in
reverse. There's also a selfish immature 14 yearold who's trying to make
passes at guys at least 2 years older than her and she's taller than
everyone else in the Class including the teacher. On top of that there's
this girl who's been paired of with the alien prince, despite the fact
that he's gay and nothing can ever be expected to happen between them.
And finally there's the guy who thinks he can play football and starts
bashing up or pushing around the gay prince who tries to help him but
take advice about the loss of his girlfriend from the 14 year old who
fancies him.
So with all that given forget about any of them getting into any
meaningful relationships. What other reason is there left for anyone to
want to watch it?
The writing is absolutely puerile. First episode; the monster of the
weak creates a blood bath. Everyone forgets. Second episode; the monster
of the weak creates another blood bath, kills the headmaster, gets away
with all of it, clears off after grabbing the coach--whatever happened
to PE teachers? Everyone forgets. Why does the monster need blood? To
feed his estranged girlfriend who's now the possession of the PE
teacher, I mean coach. Why does she need blood, why can't she eat meat?
Not explained. Why can't he feed her with horse meat? It was good enough
for TESCO to put it in their burgers? Why doesn't the dragon--who for
some reason is able to speak perfect English--feed in a abattoir and
stop attracting attention to itself? Why does it need humans?
Clearly the intention is not about writing a good story and transmitting
meaningful thoughts and ideas. Just like all puerile British drama, the
writers and producers have no idea who to how to construct or write a
good story; they're only interested in one thing and that is to shock,
proving their total, complete and utter immaturity and amateurism.
There story is nothing more than a recipe of set pieces thrown into the
pot. Once again rather than showing they are telling back-story after
the events have happened. Once again the director is trying to do Sherlock.
First you need a monster. Place the monster on the rampage killing
humans. It doesn't matter if it has and justifiable motivation or not.
Add some conflict between all the protagonists, pepper it up so that
none of them can work together as a cohesive unit, and bring to the
boil. Let it simmer. Add some interpersonal stuff totally unrelated to
the plot including some of the ingredients left over from last week to
pad out time. You don't need to worry about credibility or plot. Stew
for 40 minutes. Remove the monster and discard it--it's there just to
add flavoring--and sieve out it's victims and throw them away. No one
will care about them next week. Now eat.
I'd rather not.
2.5/10
The writers don't have have a clue how to construct a plot or portray
character relationships.
If they want to do Buffy, Angel or Smallville then at least watch them
first and learn the basics. Better still read some Harry Potter.
The characters are all extremely dislikable with no redeeming qualities
whatsoever.
There's one selfish bitch who first attacks, then at their next meeting
pounces on an Ofsted Inspector and tries to force herself into a lip
lock with him. FFS... If you want to do that then at least try to
justify it in the same manner as today's episode of Poldark but in
reverse. There's also a selfish immature 14 yearold who's trying to make
passes at guys at least 2 years older than her and she's taller than
everyone else in the Class including the teacher. On top of that there's
this girl who's been paired of with the alien prince, despite the fact
that he's gay and nothing can ever be expected to happen between them.
And finally there's the guy who thinks he can play football and starts
bashing up or pushing around the gay prince who tries to help him but
take advice about the loss of his girlfriend from the 14 year old who
fancies him.
So with all that given forget about any of them getting into any
meaningful relationships. What other reason is there left for anyone to
want to watch it?
The writing is absolutely puerile. First episode; the monster of the
weak creates a blood bath. Everyone forgets. Second episode; the monster
of the weak creates another blood bath, kills the headmaster, gets away
with all of it, clears off after grabbing the coach--whatever happened
to PE teachers? Everyone forgets. Why does the monster need blood? To
feed his estranged girlfriend who's now the possession of the PE
teacher, I mean coach. Why does she need blood, why can't she eat meat?
Not explained. Why can't he feed her with horse meat? It was good enough
for TESCO to put it in their burgers? Why doesn't the dragon--who for
some reason is able to speak perfect English--feed in a abattoir and
stop attracting attention to itself? Why does it need humans?
Clearly the intention is not about writing a good story and transmitting
meaningful thoughts and ideas. Just like all puerile British drama, the
writers and producers have no idea who to how to construct or write a
good story; they're only interested in one thing and that is to shock,
proving their total, complete and utter immaturity and amateurism.
There story is nothing more than a recipe of set pieces thrown into the
pot. Once again rather than showing they are telling back-story after
the events have happened. Once again the director is trying to do Sherlock.
First you need a monster. Place the monster on the rampage killing
humans. It doesn't matter if it has and justifiable motivation or not.
Add some conflict between all the protagonists, pepper it up so that
none of them can work together as a cohesive unit, and bring to the
boil. Let it simmer. Add some interpersonal stuff totally unrelated to
the plot including some of the ingredients left over from last week to
pad out time. You don't need to worry about credibility or plot. Stew
for 40 minutes. Remove the monster and discard it--it's there just to
add flavoring--and sieve out it's victims and throw them away. No one
will care about them next week. Now eat.
I'd rather not.
2.5/10
The Doctor
Oct 23, 2016, 7:37:29 PM10/23/16
to
In article <sKWdneQiedny2JDF...@brightview.co.uk>,
I would be surprise if Clas gets an extension.
Please bring back Star Cops.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Time for the USA to hold a referendum on its republic and vote to dissolve!!
Please bring back Star Cops.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Time for the USA to hold a referendum on its republic and vote to dissolve!!
Agamemnon
Oct 23, 2016, 7:56:39 PM10/23/16
to
graduates? They'll be no class left unless the 14 year old is held back
a few years.
License fee payers money would be better wasted on getting a bunch of
GCSE English students to write the scripts.
> Please bring back Star Cops.
>
The Doctor
Oct 23, 2016, 8:04:51 PM10/23/16
to
In article <xL2dnYNCRImr05DF...@brightview.co.uk>,
Too bad it is heading that way.
>
>> Please bring back Star Cops.
>>
>
>LOL...
:0)
>
>> Please bring back Star Cops.
>>
>
>LOL...
The Last Doctor
Oct 30, 2016, 5:21:37 AM10/30/16
to
On 24/10/2016 00:19, Agamemnon wrote:
> Slight improvement over the trash which was episode 1 but not much.
Agreed.
> Slight improvement over the trash which was episode 1 but not much.
>
> The writers don't have have a clue how to construct a plot or portray
> character relationships.
there to highlight the interrelationships of the characters as much as
anything else. Would I prefer more strongly plotted stories? Yes. Am I
going to get them? Well, I know the answer to this by now, so I may as
well stop being disappointed by it and live with what we are going to get.
As to characters - what you SHOULD be saying is that they're not showing
the kind of ultra traditional relationships YOU like. The character work
isn't bad at all, and they need time for that anyway. The characters are
slowly getting filled out (albeit largely in line with well-worn
traits). Your later words (and those you wrote about episode 1) show
that you are seriously misinterpreting a lot of the character
interactions anyway due to your weird obsessions and hangups with
underage sexuality and homosexuality.
>
> If they want to do Buffy, Angel or Smallville then at least watch them
> first and learn the basics. Better still read some Harry Potter.
their old VHS tapes and had to buy it again on Blu-Ray.
>
> The characters are all extremely dislikable with no redeeming qualities
> whatsoever.
> There's one selfish bitch who first attacks, then at their next meeting
> pounces on an Ofsted Inspector and tries to force herself into a lip
> lock with him. FFS... If you want to do that then at least try to
> justify it in the same manner as today's episode of Poldark but in
> reverse.
relvelation that he wants "YOU" (i.e. her). It's not like Ross forcing
both himself and Elizabeth to face the truth about their passion, in any
way.
> There's also a selfish immature 14 yearold who's trying to make
> passes at guys at least 2 years older than her and she's taller than
> everyone else in the Class including the teacher.
head. And height is NOT a character trait. It's height.
> On top of that there's
> this girl who's been paired of with the alien prince,
> despite the fact
> that he's gay and nothing can ever be expected to happen between them.
imposing human limitations on aliens.
> And finally there's the guy who thinks he can play football and starts
> bashing up or pushing around the gay prince who tries to help him but
> take advice about the loss of his girlfriend from the 14 year old who
> fancies him.
watching without preconceptions.
>
> So with all that given forget about any of them getting into any
> meaningful relationships. What other reason is there left for anyone to
> want to watch it?
obvously. I suggest you give it up and go and re-read the Barsoom novels.
>
> The writing is absolutely puerile. First episode; the monster of the
> weak creates a blood bath. Everyone forgets. Second episode; the monster
> of the weak creates another blood bath, kills the headmaster, gets away
> with all of it, clears off after grabbing the coach--whatever happened
> to PE teachers? Everyone forgets.
_Buffy_. There must be a lot more happening at Coal Hill and they do
sort of know it ... just look at that huge board of the dead and the
lost. It's bigger than most towns' war memorials.
> Why does the monster need blood? To
> feed his estranged girlfriend who's now the possession of the PE
> teacher, I mean coach. Why does she need blood, why can't she eat meat?
> Not explained. Why can't he feed her with horse meat? It was good enough
> for TESCO to put it in their burgers? Why doesn't the dragon--who for
> some reason is able to speak perfect English--feed in a abattoir and
> stop attracting attention to itself? Why does it need humans?
and surely dismembering and flaying victims, and wasting the blood by
spattering it everywhere can't be the most efficient method of getting
blood.
As for the English - we're going to have to go with the TARDIS visitng
here so often has left the area with permanent translation capabilities.
Just like the rift - sorry, bunghole. They should get good marks in
their language A levels, at least, here.
Rant skipped.
>
> 2.5/10
>
Not that bad. But not good.
--
Bashir: What I want to know is, out of all the stories you told me which
ones were true and which ones weren't?
Garak: My dear doctor...they're all true.
Bashir: Even the lies?
Garak: Especially the lies.
Tim Bruening
Oct 30, 2016, 12:17:05 PM10/30/16
to
On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 2:21:37 AM UTC-7, The Last Doctor wrote:
> On 24/10/2016 00:19, Agamemnon wrote:
> > Slight improvement over the trash which was episode 1 but not much.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >
> > The writers don't have have a clue how to construct a plot or portray
> > character relationships.
>
> Modern _Who_ and now _Class_ really isn't plot driven. The story is
> there to highlight the interrelationships of the characters as much as
> anything else. Would I prefer more strongly plotted stories? Yes. Am I
> going to get them? Well, I know the answer to this by now, so I may as
> well stop being disappointed by it and live with what we are going to get.
>
> As to characters - what you SHOULD be saying is that they're not showing
> the kind of ultra traditional relationships YOU like. The character work
> isn't bad at all, and they need time for that anyway. The characters are
> slowly getting filled out (albeit largely in line with well-worn
> traits). Your later words (and those you wrote about episode 1) show
> that you are seriously misinterpreting a lot of the character
> interactions anyway due to your weird obsessions and hangups with
> underage sexuality and homosexuality.
Agamemnon's complaint seems to be that most viewers, being heterosexual, won't be able to relate to the homosexual relationships being shown in this series, so won't be able to identify or sympathize with the characters, so will lose interest in the series.
> On 24/10/2016 00:19, Agamemnon wrote:
> > Slight improvement over the trash which was episode 1 but not much.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >
> > The writers don't have have a clue how to construct a plot or portray
> > character relationships.
>
> Modern _Who_ and now _Class_ really isn't plot driven. The story is
> there to highlight the interrelationships of the characters as much as
> anything else. Would I prefer more strongly plotted stories? Yes. Am I
> going to get them? Well, I know the answer to this by now, so I may as
> well stop being disappointed by it and live with what we are going to get.
>
> As to characters - what you SHOULD be saying is that they're not showing
> the kind of ultra traditional relationships YOU like. The character work
> isn't bad at all, and they need time for that anyway. The characters are
> slowly getting filled out (albeit largely in line with well-worn
> traits). Your later words (and those you wrote about episode 1) show
> that you are seriously misinterpreting a lot of the character
> interactions anyway due to your weird obsessions and hangups with
> underage sexuality and homosexuality.
Tim Bruening
Oct 30, 2016, 1:15:43 PM10/30/16
to
On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 2:21:37 AM UTC-7, The Last Doctor wrote:
> On 24/10/2016 00:19, Agamemnon wrote:
> > Why does the monster need blood? To
> > feed his estranged girlfriend who's now the possession of the PE
> > teacher, I mean coach. Why does she need blood, why can't she eat meat?
> > Not explained. Why can't he feed her with horse meat? It was good enough
> > for TESCO to put it in their burgers? Why doesn't the dragon--who for
> > some reason is able to speak perfect English--feed in a abattoir and
> > stop attracting attention to itself? Why does it need humans?
>
> At last, a valid criticism. I totally agree. Blood is easy to get ...
> and surely dismembering and flaying victims, and wasting the blood by
> spattering it everywhere can't be the most efficient method of getting
> blood.
Maybe the dragons need more then blood. Maybe they need to feel the pain and fear of sentient victims in order for their hunger to be truly satisfied.
> > Why does the monster need blood? To
> > feed his estranged girlfriend who's now the possession of the PE
> > teacher, I mean coach. Why does she need blood, why can't she eat meat?
> > Not explained. Why can't he feed her with horse meat? It was good enough
> > for TESCO to put it in their burgers? Why doesn't the dragon--who for
> > some reason is able to speak perfect English--feed in a abattoir and
> > stop attracting attention to itself? Why does it need humans?
>
> At last, a valid criticism. I totally agree. Blood is easy to get ...
> and surely dismembering and flaying victims, and wasting the blood by
> spattering it everywhere can't be the most efficient method of getting
> blood.
The Last Doctor
Oct 30, 2016, 1:24:25 PM10/30/16
to
the prom and they kissed - but it was hardly the focus of the episode -
took longer for me to type all that than the screen time it got! - and
Charlie may be bi, uncertain, or just trying to blend in with humanity and
not getting it right yet. We spent almost as much time learning that he's a
fan of _The Vampire Diaries_.
The Last Doctor
Oct 30, 2016, 1:24:25 PM10/30/16
to
was not the one doing the killing, so no such explanation would work.
Tim Bruening
Oct 30, 2016, 1:34:44 PM10/30/16
to
Where was that dragon while its mate was killing?
The Last Doctor
Oct 30, 2016, 1:50:29 PM10/30/16
to
(the school soccer coach). Hence the episode title.
Tim Bruening
Oct 30, 2016, 2:34:40 PM10/30/16
to
Agamemnon
Oct 30, 2016, 2:52:19 PM10/30/16
to
On 30/10/2016 09:21, The Last Doctor wrote:
> On 24/10/2016 00:19, Agamemnon wrote:
>> Slight improvement over the trash which was episode 1 but not much.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>
>> The writers don't have have a clue how to construct a plot or portray
>> character relationships.
>
> Modern _Who_ and now _Class_ really isn't plot driven. The story is
And the reason for that is? The writers don't have a clue how to do it.
> On 24/10/2016 00:19, Agamemnon wrote:
>> Slight improvement over the trash which was episode 1 but not much.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>
>> The writers don't have have a clue how to construct a plot or portray
>> character relationships.
>
> Modern _Who_ and now _Class_ really isn't plot driven. The story is
How does someone get a job at the BBC as a writer? It's obviously not
based on their ability to writer. Maybe they slept with one of the gay
high ups?
> there to highlight the interrelationships of the characters as much as
> anything else. Would I prefer more strongly plotted stories? Yes. Am I
> going to get them? Well, I know the answer to this by now, so I may as
> well stop being disappointed by it and live with what we are going to get.
>
> As to characters - what you SHOULD be saying is that they're not showing
> the kind of ultra traditional relationships YOU like. The character work
> isn't bad at all, and they need time for that anyway. The characters are
> slowly getting filled out (albeit largely in line with well-worn
> traits). Your later words (and those you wrote about episode 1) show
> that you are seriously misinterpreting a lot of the character
> interactions anyway due to your weird obsessions and hangups with
> underage sexuality and homosexuality.
that can't get on with each other, they all think they're the victim and
aren't very nice to anyone. Do you seriously think that that is either
entertaining, enjoyable or uplifting? That the way to do
characterization. Any idiot can write people arguing with each other.
It's the easiest thing to do. It's not so easy creating characters
people will like.
These idiots don't know how to do characterization. It's not writing
people speaking the way they speak in real live. It's meaningfully
getting across their innermost feelings, ideas, aspirations, and
personality in the fewest words possible without being vulgar or
offensive. Being vulgar is for comedy and that's what differentiates
Aristophanes from Euripides, Sophocles and Aeschylus. It's about making
the characters likable, making them cohesive and most importantly
writing every single word they say so that it both tells you everything
mentioned above and at the same time it advances the plot. Patrick Ness
doesn't have a clue how to do that and neither do most of the writers
writing modern Doctor Who.
As for sexuality. Class is being written by a gay and he doesn't have
any idea how to portray meaningful heterosexual relationship. RTD
couldn't do it either. Instead these people portray sexual perversions
and extremes and treat women (in the case of lesbian writers men) in a
shameful and demeaning manner, as nothing more than sex objects. They
don't understand relationships. If I'm reading ERB, or E E Smith, I can
find things in what they have written that remind me of relationships I
have had. There is nothing of that in what RTD or Patrick Ness have ever
written. They don't understand how women act in a relationships with
man. They just turn them into sluts and whores and trollops. After you
gave me your list of gay writers it finally clicked. Homer, Apollonius,
Quintus, Euripides were all heterosexual. They have to be because the
relationships they've written define love. Gay writers don't have a clue
what love means. They've never experienced it in their entries lives.
All that interests them is pleasure. Now it all makes sense.
>
>>
>> If they want to do Buffy, Angel or Smallville then at least watch them
>> first and learn the basics. Better still read some Harry Potter.
>
> They've very clearly watched at least _Buffy_ from end to end, worn out
> their old VHS tapes and had to buy it again on Blu-Ray.
not read Harry Potter because they can't do friendship.
>
>>
>> The characters are all extremely dislikable with no redeeming qualities
>> whatsoever.
>
> Those aren't the characters in _Class_. They're the ones in your head.
>
Harry Potter and the Curse Child which is the way to do the genre
properly. The moment you start reading you instantly like both Albus and
Scorpius. Neither of them are immature, self centered, arrogant tossers
that hate everyone and everything around them like the characters in class.
What Albus and Scorpius say, everything they say advances the plot, but
not only that, it also tells you about them and their relationships with
their parents. Class fails dismally to do that.
None of the characters in Class are likable. Selfish evil bitch is a
melodramatic pantomime villain. Naive girl, as of episode 3 is being
turned into a slut whose so desperate she'll kiss or sleep with anyone
after only an hour together. 14 year old trollop is a trollop who spends
all her time talking to older boys. Arrogant lothario is an arrogant
Lothario that uses asking for help with his homework to chat up girls.
Alien prince is an totally stupid idiot devoid of any qualities of
leadership. And eastern european gay is just there to perform gay sex.
None of these people display any satellites of courage or caring for
others. They're all in it for themselves and themselves alone.
Collectively they are an incoherent and weak ramble.
In contrast but Albus and Scorpius show leadership qualities, they do
things not for themselves but for the sake of others. Theirs is a true
friendship and no one can tear them apart. They make mistakes at times.
They are not infallible. Albus has a hangup about having to live up to
the reputation of his father. Scorpius has to live live his father's
down. Both are capable of forming meaningful and caring relationships.
Harry and Ron are true caring men who respect women and love and care
for their wives. Ginny and Hermione are respectable caring women who
love only their husbands and shy away from other men. They can all act
and do the right thing both as individuals and collectively.
Collectively they form a strong cohesive bond that makes them stronger
as a whole.
Why not write something like that? It's because Patrick Ness can't.
>> There's one selfish bitch who first attacks, then at their next meeting
>> pounces on an Ofsted Inspector and tries to force herself into a lip
>> lock with him. FFS... If you want to do that then at least try to
>> justify it in the same manner as today's episode of Poldark but in
>> reverse.
>
> She's an alien, he's a robot and the kiss follows a strage written
> relvelation that he wants "YOU" (i.e. her). It's not like Ross forcing
> both himself and Elizabeth to face the truth about their passion, in any
> way.
revelation that he wants "YOU"? Can anyone seriously believe that she
really that stupid and that naive? THIS IS NOT MORK AND BLOODY MINDY!
>
>> There's also a selfish immature 14 yearold who's trying to make
>> passes at guys at least 2 years older than her and she's taller than
>> everyone else in the Class including the teacher.
>
> She doesn't make passes at anyone in either episode. That's all in your
> head. And height is NOT a character trait. It's height.
14 years old and that needs to be conveyed to every new viewer every
time. She spends all of her time talking to boys on the internet despite
what her mother says to her. In literary shorthand that depicts a trollop.
>
>> On top of that there's
>> this girl who's been paired of with the alien prince,
>
> No she hasn't.
prince the lead male. It's a mismatch made in hell.
>
>> despite the fact
>> that he's gay and nothing can ever be expected to happen between them.
>
> He isn't necessarily gay. He sn't even necessarily male. You keep
> imposing human limitations on aliens.
gay. His entire planet is gay. One half is like Lyranne II dominated
exclusively by vicious women and the other is Kalonia. On top of that
the inhabitants are born from eggs in nests and try to kill each other
off as soon as the hatch. They're like the Green Martians of Barsoom.
>
>> And finally there's the guy who thinks he can play football and starts
>> bashing up or pushing around the gay prince who tries to help him but
>> take advice about the loss of his girlfriend from the 14 year old who
>> fancies him.
>
> That is just a complete misread of both Ram and Tanya. You should try
> watching without preconceptions.
after 14 year old trollop and when she doesn't respond to his calls he
goes after naive girl.
>
>>
>> So with all that given forget about any of them getting into any
>> meaningful relationships. What other reason is there left for anyone to
>> want to watch it?
>
> Since everything you said was wrong, possibly lots. But not for you,
> obvously. I suggest you give it up and go and re-read the Barsoom novels.
are all realistic ones and not some gays fantasy of what heterosexuals
are really like. I can identify with Barsoom but not with Class.
I suggest you read The Moon Maid/Moon Men/Red Hawk since that is the
work which created the so-called "YA" genre in the first place and it
can be seen that Patrick Ness has got everything wrong.
>
>>
>> The writing is absolutely puerile. First episode; the monster of the
>> weak creates a blood bath. Everyone forgets. Second episode; the monster
>> of the weak creates another blood bath, kills the headmaster, gets away
>> with all of it, clears off after grabbing the coach--whatever happened
>> to PE teachers? Everyone forgets.
>
> Sadly "everyone forgets" is a common trope of both _Doctor Who_ and
> _Buffy_. There must be a lot more happening at Coal Hill and they do
> sort of know it ... just look at that huge board of the dead and the
> lost. It's bigger than most towns' war memorials.
child to such a place if they looked at its record.
Agamemnon
Oct 30, 2016, 3:14:53 PM10/30/16
to
prince is completely gay, no question about it.
His half of the planet is all male and selfish evil bitch's is all
female. It's the planet Gay!
> not getting it right yet. We spent almost as much time learning that he's a
> fan of _The Vampire Diaries_.
>
it's real. Can anyone take this show seriously. Just how stupid does the
writer think the audience are? THIS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE MORK AND B
Agamemnon
Oct 30, 2016, 3:23:37 PM10/30/16
to
Does Patrick Ness have to remotest clue where the entire concept
originally came from? It's an allegory to drug addiction and originates
in Gallactic Patrol by E E Smith, in the form of the Delgonians who
tortured their victims, keeping them alive as long as possible and then
feasted on their souls.
As usual Ness has obtained his ideas from secondary sources by trying to
copy the likes of Buff and Smallville. He doesn't have clue what they
actually mean.
Agamemnon
Oct 30, 2016, 3:27:21 PM10/30/16
to
On 30/10/2016 17:24, The Last Doctor wrote:
who doesn't have a clue where his own 'ideas' originally came from.
It's the Delgoinans from Gallact Patrol that Ness is trying to copy but
he's copying them from secondary sources which he doesn't understand
because he's not familiar with the original.
Agamemnon
Oct 30, 2016, 3:28:53 PM10/30/16
to
describing the original source of the material which Ness doesn't have a
clue about.
Agamemnon
Oct 30, 2016, 3:30:02 PM10/30/16
to
Agamemnon
Oct 30, 2016, 4:00:02 PM10/30/16
to
The Doctor
Oct 30, 2016, 4:51:40 PM10/30/16
to
In article <fdc3732a-0901-4cc8...@googlegroups.com>,
Well this make Torchwwod looks the same.
I rather wath DW:Midnight, which is really one notch down
from DW:TimeLash.
I rather wath DW:Midnight, which is really one notch down
from DW:TimeLash.
The Doctor
Oct 30, 2016, 4:58:20 PM10/30/16
to
The Doctor
Oct 30, 2016, 4:59:00 PM10/30/16
to
The Doctor
Oct 30, 2016, 4:59:28 PM10/30/16
to
The Doctor
Oct 30, 2016, 4:59:54 PM10/30/16
to
The Doctor
Oct 30, 2016, 5:00:18 PM10/30/16
to
The Last Doctor
Oct 31, 2016, 5:28:10 AM10/31/16
to
The Last Doctor
Oct 31, 2016, 5:32:12 AM10/31/16
to
reject the show? If so, why? If not, why would most viewers (who are not
Aggy, who will watch it obsessively anyway just to hate on it)?
>>
>> There aren't any though Tim. Charlie, the alien prince, did ask a man to
>> the prom and they kissed - but it was hardly the focus of the episode -
>> took longer for me to type all that than the screen time it got! - and
>> Charlie may be bi, uncertain, or just trying to blend in with
>> humanity and
>
> Episode 3 confirms it without room for any shadow of doubt that alien
> prince is completely gay, no question about it.
explicitly gay scenes involving Charlie, the alien prince.
>
> His half of the planet is all male and selfish evil bitch's is all
> female. It's the planet Gay!
your crazy, with no basis in reality.
The Last Doctor
Oct 31, 2016, 5:38:13 AM10/31/16
to
torture, no psychic enslavement, no deceptive illusion, no svaouring of
pain and terror mentioned. In short, zero points of similarity with
Smith's Delgon Overlords.
Just another bucket of insanity from your bottomless well of crazy.
The Doctor
Oct 31, 2016, 10:45:19 AM10/31/16
to
Tim Bruening
Oct 31, 2016, 12:46:34 PM10/31/16
to
Agamemnon
Oct 31, 2016, 1:44:12 PM10/31/16
to
dragons needed to feast on blood they could have got it from an abattoir
or somewhere else where they wouldn't be noticed and less dangerous.
>
> Just another bucket of insanity from your bottomless well of crazy.
>
from Buffy but doesn't have a clue where the original idea came from and
therefore does not understand it's meaning.
Tim has come up with better though out plots that Ness ever has or ever
will because unlike Ness he is actually versed in the genre.
Tim Bruening
Oct 31, 2016, 1:48:59 PM10/31/16
to
Sequel: The Dragon With The Coach Tattoo. When the dragon and the coach back on Dragon World, the coach and the dragon have traded positions. He is now a tattoo on HER skin!
Tim Bruening
Oct 31, 2016, 1:49:34 PM10/31/16
to
When the dragon turned into a tattoo, where did her mass go?
Agamemnon
Oct 31, 2016, 1:57:10 PM10/31/16
to
watching it cannot possibly identify with him especially with him
engaging in rampant obscene buggery and touching up a teenage boy which
is enough to make you want to puke.
Like I said before you can't do romance with a gay male lead and a gay
writer doesn't have a clue how write believable heterosexual relationships.
>
>>>
>>> There aren't any though Tim. Charlie, the alien prince, did ask a man to
>>> the prom and they kissed - but it was hardly the focus of the episode -
>>> took longer for me to type all that than the screen time it got! - and
>>> Charlie may be bi, uncertain, or just trying to blend in with
>>> humanity and
>>
>> Episode 3 confirms it without room for any shadow of doubt that alien
>> prince is completely gay, no question about it.
>
> Yes, I hadn't watched that episode at this point. There now have been
> explicitly gay scenes involving Charlie, the alien prince.
>
>>
>> His half of the planet is all male and selfish evil bitch's is all
>> female. It's the planet Gay!
>
> This, on the other hand, is just lunatic bollocks from the depths of
> your crazy, with no basis in reality.
>
were women. Her half of the planet is Lyranne II and her people behave
like the Green Martians from the Barsoom series.
I expect both of them to be wearing Slitheen zip suits, in which care
where did they get them from? It's either that or a psychic projection
into everyone's minds. I just feel sorry for eastern european gay who
might have fucked something with tentacles but not and octopus,
something scaly but not a snake, something wingy but not a bird.
The Doctor
Oct 31, 2016, 7:18:36 PM10/31/16
to
The Doctor
Oct 31, 2016, 7:19:07 PM10/31/16
to
In article <a859a1d3-dd37-43a9...@googlegroups.com>,
Did you yet watch that episode?
Tim Bruening <tsbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>When the dragon turned into a tattoo, where did her mass go?
Merged.
>When the dragon turned into a tattoo, where did her mass go?
Did you yet watch that episode?
Tim Bruening
Oct 31, 2016, 7:31:22 PM10/31/16
to
On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 4:19:07 PM UTC-7, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <a859a1d3-dd37-43a9...@googlegroups.com>,
> Tim Bruening <tsbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >When the dragon turned into a tattoo, where did her mass go?
>
> Merged.
So the coach gained weight?
> In article <a859a1d3-dd37-43a9...@googlegroups.com>,
> Tim Bruening <tsbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >When the dragon turned into a tattoo, where did her mass go?
>
> Merged.
>
> Did you yet watch that episode?
BBCA hasn't seen fit to show it.
> Did you yet watch that episode?
The Doctor
Oct 31, 2016, 7:32:36 PM10/31/16
to
In article <4b2ef6e1-0a2f-4285...@googlegroups.com>,
Tim Bruening <tsbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 4:19:07 PM UTC-7, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <a859a1d3-dd37-43a9...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Tim Bruening <tsbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >When the dragon turned into a tattoo, where did her mass go?
>>
>> Merged.
>
>So the coach gained weight?
>>
>> Did you yet watch that episode?
>
>BBCA hasn't seen fit to show it.
>
Did you read agamemnon's instructions on torrents?
>On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 4:19:07 PM UTC-7, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <a859a1d3-dd37-43a9...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Tim Bruening <tsbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >When the dragon turned into a tattoo, where did her mass go?
>>
>> Merged.
>
>So the coach gained weight?
>>
>> Did you yet watch that episode?
>
>BBCA hasn't seen fit to show it.
>
Daniel60
Nov 1, 2016, 7:41:26 AM11/1/16
to
Daniel
The Doctor
Nov 1, 2016, 10:46:32 AM11/1/16
to
In article <nv9v0a$3u7$3...@dont-email.me>,
Exactly, what special signal?
3 witnesses saw a dragon take out the headmaster and when did the other
dragon know?
3 witnesses saw a dragon take out the headmaster and when did the other
dragon know?
Daniel60
Nov 2, 2016, 8:34:31 AM11/2/16
to
On 2/11/2016 1:46 AM, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <nv9v0a$3u7$3...@dont-email.me>,
> Daniel60 <Dani...@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> On 1/11/2016 10:18 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>>> In article <d2967916-603b-4cf4...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Tim Bruening <tsbr...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 2:28:10 AM UTC-7, The Last Doctor
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 30/10/2016 18:34, Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 10:50:29 AM UTC-7, The Last
>>>>>> Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
> In article <nv9v0a$3u7$3...@dont-email.me>,
> Daniel60 <Dani...@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> On 1/11/2016 10:18 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>>> In article <d2967916-603b-4cf4...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Tim Bruening <tsbr...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 2:28:10 AM UTC-7, The Last Doctor
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 30/10/2016 18:34, Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 10:50:29 AM UTC-7, The Last
>>>>>> Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>> Where it was the entire episode - imprinted as a (motile)
>>>>>>> tattoo onto "PE" (the school soccer coach). Hence the episode
>>>>>>> title
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was the coach ever near a dragon killing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. And he had to clear up all the leftovers.
>>>>
>>>> So his dragon could have sensed the pain and fear of the victims,
>>>> as I suggested.
>>>
>>> IT did not.
>>>
>> How do you know, Doctor? Did the dragon send you some special signal??
>
Say what?? You agree that you know (Exactly,) and then ask what the
special signal was!! How can you type that you have something but not
know that you have something??
> 3 witnesses saw a dragon take out the headmaster and when did the other
> dragon know?
Daniel
The Doctor
Nov 2, 2016, 11:21:10 AM11/2/16
to
Tim Bruening
Nov 2, 2016, 1:04:09 PM11/2/16
to
The Doctor
Nov 2, 2016, 6:35:10 PM11/2/16
to
Daniel60
Nov 3, 2016, 8:41:41 AM11/3/16
to
>>> ESP?
>>
>> Extra-Sensory Perception.
>
> Have you seen the episode?
>
Yes!
>>
>> Extra-Sensory Perception.
>
> Have you seen the episode?
>
Daniel
~consul
Nov 9, 2016, 3:43:42 PM11/9/16
to
On 10/30/2016 2:34 PM, Tim Bruening wrote:
> On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 10:50:29 AM UTC-7, The Last Doctor wrote:
> On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 10:50:29 AM UTC-7, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>> Why does the monster need blood? To
>>>>>>> feed his estranged girlfriend who's now the possession of the PE
>>>>>>> teacher, I mean coach. Why does she need blood, why can't she eat meat?
>>>>>>> feed his estranged girlfriend who's now the possession of the PE
>>>>>>> teacher, I mean coach. Why does she need blood, why can't she eat meat?
>>> Where was that dragon while its mate was killing?
>> Where it was the entire episode - imprinted as a (motile) tattoo onto "PE"
>> (the school soccer coach). Hence the episode title
> Was the coach ever near a dragon killing?
The ethereal dragon was always wandering around, it wasn't killing
>> (the school soccer coach). Hence the episode title
> Was the coach ever near a dragon killing?
anything. I thought the one doing all the killing was the dragon
trapped on the man as a tattoo. The PE instructor was talking about it
getting out and killing.
--
"... 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
The Doctor
Nov 9, 2016, 5:27:15 PM11/9/16
to
In article <o001ov$hlf$1...@dont-email.me>,
When will TB view this episode?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Lest we forget 11 Nov
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Agamemnon
Nov 9, 2016, 6:31:40 PM11/9/16
to
On 09/11/2016 20:43, ~consul wrote:
> On 10/30/2016 2:34 PM, Tim Bruening wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 10:50:29 AM UTC-7, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>> Why does the monster need blood? To
>>>>>>>> feed his estranged girlfriend who's now the possession of the PE
>>>>>>>> teacher, I mean coach. Why does she need blood, why can't she
>>>>>>>> eat meat?
>>>> Where was that dragon while its mate was killing?
>>> Where it was the entire episode - imprinted as a (motile) tattoo onto
>>> "PE"
>>> (the school soccer coach). Hence the episode title
>> Was the coach ever near a dragon killing?
>
> The ethereal dragon was always wandering around, it wasn't killing
> anything. I thought the one doing all the killing was the dragon trapped
> on the man as a tattoo. The PE instructor was talking about it getting
> out and killing.
The dragon doing the killing was the boyfriend of the one on the PE
> On 10/30/2016 2:34 PM, Tim Bruening wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 10:50:29 AM UTC-7, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>> Why does the monster need blood? To
>>>>>>>> feed his estranged girlfriend who's now the possession of the PE
>>>>>>>> teacher, I mean coach. Why does she need blood, why can't she
>>>>>>>> eat meat?
>>>> Where was that dragon while its mate was killing?
>>> Where it was the entire episode - imprinted as a (motile) tattoo onto
>>> "PE"
>>> (the school soccer coach). Hence the episode title
>> Was the coach ever near a dragon killing?
>
> The ethereal dragon was always wandering around, it wasn't killing
> anything. I thought the one doing all the killing was the dragon trapped
> on the man as a tattoo. The PE instructor was talking about it getting
> out and killing.
teacher's body. Why the one on the PE teacher couldn't hunt for food by
itself isn't explained. The only reason way a female wouldn't be hunting
and have to rely on the male is if she's nursing babies. Why the female
needed to dwell on the man's body and why she was getting out of it
isn't explained either. Why she needed blood and not meat is also not
explained.
It's shit writing and a shit story by a shit writer who doesn't know
shit about science fiction and is instead writing incoherent
supernatural shit fantasy.
How Patrick Ness was given this series I don't know. There are lots of
infinitely better writers around. Doesn't anybody at the BBC read scripts?
Daniel60
Nov 10, 2016, 5:10:10 AM11/10/16
to
On 10/11/2016 9:27 AM, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <o001ov$hlf$1...@dont-email.me>,
> ~consul <con...@dolphinsPLEASEdelAWAY-cove.DELcom> wrote:
>> On 10/30/2016 2:34 PM, Tim Bruening wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 10:50:29 AM UTC-7, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Why does the monster need blood? To
>>>>>>>>> feed his estranged girlfriend who's now the possession of the PE
>>>>>>>>> teacher, I mean coach. Why does she need blood, why can't she eat meat?
>>>>> Where was that dragon while its mate was killing?
>>>> Where it was the entire episode - imprinted as a (motile) tattoo onto "PE"
>>>> (the school soccer coach). Hence the episode title
>>> Was the coach ever near a dragon killing?
>>
>> The ethereal dragon was always wandering around, it wasn't killing
>> anything. I thought the one doing all the killing was the dragon
>> trapped on the man as a tattoo. The PE instructor was talking about it
>> getting out and killing.
>> --
>> "... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here,
>> at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
>> --till next time, consul
>
> When will TB view this episode?
>
I give up! Why??
> In article <o001ov$hlf$1...@dont-email.me>,
> ~consul <con...@dolphinsPLEASEdelAWAY-cove.DELcom> wrote:
>> On 10/30/2016 2:34 PM, Tim Bruening wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 10:50:29 AM UTC-7, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Why does the monster need blood? To
>>>>>>>>> feed his estranged girlfriend who's now the possession of the PE
>>>>>>>>> teacher, I mean coach. Why does she need blood, why can't she eat meat?
>>>>> Where was that dragon while its mate was killing?
>>>> Where it was the entire episode - imprinted as a (motile) tattoo onto "PE"
>>>> (the school soccer coach). Hence the episode title
>>> Was the coach ever near a dragon killing?
>>
>> The ethereal dragon was always wandering around, it wasn't killing
>> anything. I thought the one doing all the killing was the dragon
>> trapped on the man as a tattoo. The PE instructor was talking about it
>> getting out and killing.
>> --
>> "... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here,
>> at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
>> --till next time, consul
>
> When will TB view this episode?
>
Daniel
The Doctor
Nov 10, 2016, 8:50:31 AM11/10/16
to
In article <o01h10$ru5$2...@dont-email.me>,
Half is statments prove that he has not seen an episode yet Maike and Ag
has given him instructions on how to.
has given him instructions on how to.
Daniel60
Nov 12, 2016, 5:20:13 AM11/12/16
to
> Half is statments prove that he has not seen an episode yet Maike and Ag
> has given him instructions on how to.
>
Maybe, after reading a lot of the posts hereabouts, he has decided it
> has given him instructions on how to.
>
might not be worth the effort!
Daniel
The Doctor
Nov 12, 2016, 8:08:02 AM11/12/16
to
Agamemnon
Nov 12, 2016, 11:23:37 AM11/12/16
to
law since it could be classified as child porn in the US since the
protagonists are under age.
Siri Cruise
Nov 12, 2016, 12:00:10 PM11/12/16
to
In article <hradndGaiMCa37rF...@brightview.co.uk>,
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> It also might be possible that by watching it he will be breaking the
> law since it could be classified as child porn in the US since the
> protagonists are under age.
USC citation?
> It also might be possible that by watching it he will be breaking the
> law since it could be classified as child porn in the US since the
> protagonists are under age.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
The Doctor
Nov 12, 2016, 1:13:48 PM11/12/16
to
The Other Doctor
Nov 12, 2016, 7:00:58 PM11/12/16
to
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:hradndGaiMCa37rF...@brightview.co.uk...
So far the main people who seem to have issues with Class are the 2 people I
anticipated to have problems - i.e. you and Yads. Presumably the 2 of you
have problems with the idea of anyone having sex, because neither of you get
any yourselves.
There has been no porn shown in Class. There have been characters who have
sex. Newsflash: people have sex.
Doctor Who has shown characters killing. And for some reason, you seem to
think it's OK to show people dying, but it's not OK to suggest that people
have sex.
I almost feel sorry for you.
The Doctor
Nov 12, 2016, 7:28:08 PM11/12/16
to
In article <Z2OVz.86452$WM.7...@fx20.am4>,
Hey Freak, you must be desolate.
Agamemnon
Nov 12, 2016, 8:42:32 PM11/12/16
to
and there is no justification for it whatsoever in the story. Therefore
it is there as pron.
>
> So far the main people who seem to have issues with Class are the 2
> people I anticipated to have problems - i.e. you and Yads. Presumably
> the 2 of you have problems with the idea of anyone having sex,
> because neither of you get any yourselves.
than as sluts, whores and sex objects.
>
> There has been no porn shown in Class. There have been characters who
> have sex. Newsflash: people have sex.
>
> Doctor Who has shown characters killing. And for some reason, you
> seem to think it's OK to show people dying, but it's not OK to
> suggest that people have sex.
>
> I almost feel sorry for you.
>
>
thanks to them letting Patrick Ness do as he pleases without
consideration of the law or morality.
The Doctor
Nov 12, 2016, 10:12:43 PM11/12/16
to
The Other Doctor
Nov 13, 2016, 4:30:40 PM11/13/16
to
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>>>
>>> It also might be possible that by watching it he will be breaking
>>> the law since it could be classified as child porn in the US since
>>> the protagonists are under age.
>>
>> WTF? There has been no sign of any porn, let alone "child porn" in
>> Class.
>
> There has been depicted what would be regarded as underage sex in the US
> and there is no justification for it whatsoever in the story. Therefore it
> is there as pron.
"Pron"? If you mean porn, then you and I have a very different idea about
>>> It also might be possible that by watching it he will be breaking
>>> the law since it could be classified as child porn in the US since
>>> the protagonists are under age.
>>
>> WTF? There has been no sign of any porn, let alone "child porn" in
>> Class.
>
> There has been depicted what would be regarded as underage sex in the US
> and there is no justification for it whatsoever in the story. Therefore it
> is there as pron.
what constitutes porn.
>> So far the main people who seem to have issues with Class are the 2
>> people I anticipated to have problems - i.e. you and Yads. Presumably
>> the 2 of you have problems with the idea of anyone having sex,
>> because neither of you get any yourselves.
>
> How about because both of us treat women with honour and respect rather
> than as sluts, whores and sex objects.
notion about how to honour or respect women.
>>
>> There has been no porn shown in Class. There have been characters who
>> have sex. Newsflash: people have sex.
>
> Tell that to the judge.
>>
>> Doctor Who has shown characters killing. And for some reason, you
>> seem to think it's OK to show people dying, but it's not OK to
>> suggest that people have sex.
>
> The people having sex are under age.
sexual activity have taken place occur with actors who are over the age of
16, and they're playing characters who are also over the age of 16. So no,
the people having sex are not under age.
>>
>> I almost feel sorry for you.
>>
>>
>
> Feel sorry for BBC America when they end up in standing in the dock thanks
> to them letting Patrick Ness do as he pleases without consideration of the
> law or morality.
idea of people having sex. I get that. That's your problem.
Agamemnon
Nov 13, 2016, 4:52:59 PM11/13/16
to
On 13/11/2016 21:33, The Other Doctor wrote:
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:afGdnX87xOieWLrF...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> It also might be possible that by watching it he will be
>>>> breaking the law since it could be classified as child porn in
>>>> the US since the protagonists are under age.
>>>
>>> WTF? There has been no sign of any porn, let alone "child porn"
>>> in Class.
>>
>> There has been depicted what would be regarded as underage sex in
>> the US and there is no justification for it whatsoever in the
>> story. Therefore it is there as pron.
>
> "Pron"? If you mean porn, then you and I have a very different idea
> about what constitutes porn.
Two actors were paid to kiss each other and simulate sexual acts. That's
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:afGdnX87xOieWLrF...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> It also might be possible that by watching it he will be
>>>> breaking the law since it could be classified as child porn in
>>>> the US since the protagonists are under age.
>>>
>>> WTF? There has been no sign of any porn, let alone "child porn"
>>> in Class.
>>
>> There has been depicted what would be regarded as underage sex in
>> the US and there is no justification for it whatsoever in the
>> story. Therefore it is there as pron.
>
> "Pron"? If you mean porn, then you and I have a very different idea
> about what constitutes porn.
the definition of pron.
>
>>> So far the main people who seem to have issues with Class are the
>>> 2 people I anticipated to have problems - i.e. you and Yads.
>>> Presumably the 2 of you have problems with the idea of anyone
>>> having sex, because neither of you get any yourselves.
>>
>> How about because both of us treat women with honour and respect
>> rather than as sluts, whores and sex objects.
>
> LOL!! Yads knows how to load women up. Neither of you have the
> faintest notion about how to honour or respect women.
Patrick Ness.
>
>>>
>>> There has been no porn shown in Class. There have been characters
>>> who have sex. Newsflash: people have sex.
>>
>> Tell that to the judge.
>
> Tell that to what judge?
>
>>>
>>> Doctor Who has shown characters killing. And for some reason,
>>> you seem to think it's OK to show people dying, but it's not OK
>>> to suggest that people have sex.
>>
>> The people having sex are under age.
>
> Under age? Age of consent in the UK is 16. All of the scenes that
> imply any sexual activity have taken place occur with actors who are
> over the age of 16, and they're playing characters who are also over
> the age of 16. So no, the people having sex are not under age.
that you can depict two 14 year old school kids having sex in Germany
and show it in the UK.
The age of consent in the USA is between 16 and 18 and therefore you
can't show two 16 or 17 year old school kids having sex in any states
where the age of consent is 18.
>
>
>>>
>>> I almost feel sorry for you.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Feel sorry for BBC America when they end up in standing in the dock
>> thanks to them letting Patrick Ness do as he pleases without
>> consideration of the law or morality.
>
> He's broken no laws. And I see no dodgy morality either. You don't
> like the idea of people having sex. I get that. That's your problem.
immoral sexual fantasies on screen none of which have anything to do
with the plot. Patrick Ness has no understanding of romance. He thinks
love is the same thing as sex. He is disrespectful of woman and thinks
they are all bitches, sluts, whores and trolls. If you want to see
romance done properly watch Poldark not Ness's juvenile filth.
The Other Doctor
Nov 13, 2016, 5:15:31 PM11/13/16
to
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> On 13/11/2016 21:33, The Other Doctor wrote:
>> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>> news:afGdnX87xOieWLrF...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>> It also might be possible that by watching it he will be
>>>>> breaking the law since it could be classified as child porn in
>>>>> the US since the protagonists are under age.
>>>>
>>>> WTF? There has been no sign of any porn, let alone "child porn"
>>>> in Class.
>>>
>>> There has been depicted what would be regarded as underage sex in
>>> the US and there is no justification for it whatsoever in the
>>> story. Therefore it is there as pron.
>>
>> "Pron"? If you mean porn, then you and I have a very different idea
>> about what constitutes porn.
>
> Two actors were paid to kiss each other and simulate sexual acts. That's
> the definition of pron.
Two actors were paid to act. They kissed. Kissing is not porn.
>> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>> news:afGdnX87xOieWLrF...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>> It also might be possible that by watching it he will be
>>>>> breaking the law since it could be classified as child porn in
>>>>> the US since the protagonists are under age.
>>>>
>>>> WTF? There has been no sign of any porn, let alone "child porn"
>>>> in Class.
>>>
>>> There has been depicted what would be regarded as underage sex in
>>> the US and there is no justification for it whatsoever in the
>>> story. Therefore it is there as pron.
>>
>> "Pron"? If you mean porn, then you and I have a very different idea
>> about what constitutes porn.
>
> Two actors were paid to kiss each other and simulate sexual acts. That's
> the definition of pron.
>>
>>>> So far the main people who seem to have issues with Class are the
>>>> 2 people I anticipated to have problems - i.e. you and Yads.
>>>> Presumably the 2 of you have problems with the idea of anyone
>>>> having sex, because neither of you get any yourselves.
>>>
>>> How about because both of us treat women with honour and respect
>>> rather than as sluts, whores and sex objects.
>>
>> LOL!! Yads knows how to load women up. Neither of you have the
>> faintest notion about how to honour or respect women.
>
> We have more honour and respect for them than either you or especially
> Patrick Ness.
disrespecting a woman. I don't think you even know how to talk to a woman,
let alone show respect for one.
>>
>>>>
>>>> There has been no porn shown in Class. There have been characters
>>>> who have sex. Newsflash: people have sex.
>>>
>>> Tell that to the judge.
>>
>> Tell that to what judge?
>
> The one in the US that BBC America will be in the dock against.
about what can be shown there.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Doctor Who has shown characters killing. And for some reason,
>>>> you seem to think it's OK to show people dying, but it's not OK
>>>> to suggest that people have sex.
>>>
>>> The people having sex are under age.
>>
>> Under age? Age of consent in the UK is 16. All of the scenes that
>> imply any sexual activity have taken place occur with actors who are
>> over the age of 16, and they're playing characters who are also over
>> the age of 16. So no, the people having sex are not under age.
>
> Wrong. The age of consent in most of Europe is 14. That doesn't mean that
> you can depict two 14 year old school kids having sex in Germany and show
> it in the UK.
> The age of consent in the USA is between 16 and 18 and therefore you can't
> show two 16 or 17 year old school kids having sex in any states where the
> age of consent is 18.
killed on TV.
Besides which, you're the one who's wrong. For instance, in Canada the age
of consent is 16. However sex with a child aged 12-13 is actually
permissible if the partner is less than 2 years older. In Delaware, the age
of consent is 18. However teenagers can have sex from the age of 16 as long
as the older partner is under 30.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I almost feel sorry for you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Feel sorry for BBC America when they end up in standing in the dock
>>> thanks to them letting Patrick Ness do as he pleases without
>>> consideration of the law or morality.
>>
>> He's broken no laws. And I see no dodgy morality either. You don't
>> like the idea of people having sex. I get that. That's your problem.
>
> I don't like perverts like Patrick Ness depicting his obscene and immoral
> sexual fantasies on screen none of which have anything to do with the
> plot. Patrick Ness has no understanding of romance. He thinks love is the
> same thing as sex. He is disrespectful of woman and thinks they are all
> bitches, sluts, whores and trolls. If you want to see romance done
> properly watch Poldark not Ness's juvenile filth.
marrying someone else and essentially glamourising rape is romance done
properly. You're warped.
Agamemnon
Nov 13, 2016, 5:29:16 PM11/13/16
to
> disrespecting a woman. I don't think you even know how to talk to a
> woman, let alone show respect for one.
types of women he knows.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There has been no porn shown in Class. There have been
>>>>> characters who have sex. Newsflash: people have sex.
>>>>
>>>> Tell that to the judge.
>>>
>>> Tell that to what judge?
>>
>> The one in the US that BBC America will be in the dock against.
>
> Patrick Ness comes from America. I think he's got a better idea than
> you about what can be shown there.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Doctor Who has shown characters killing. And for some
>>>>> reason, you seem to think it's OK to show people dying, but
>>>>> it's not OK to suggest that people have sex.
>>>>
>>>> The people having sex are under age.
>>>
>>> Under age? Age of consent in the UK is 16. All of the scenes
>>> that imply any sexual activity have taken place occur with actors
>>> who are over the age of 16, and they're playing characters who
>>> are also over the age of 16. So no, the people having sex are not
>>> under age.
>>
>> Wrong. The age of consent in most of Europe is 14. That doesn't
>> mean that you can depict two 14 year old school kids having sex in
>> Germany and show it in the UK.
>
> No I'm not wrong. Age of consent in the UK is 16.
>
>> The age of consent in the USA is between 16 and 18 and therefore
>> you can't show two 16 or 17 year old school kids having sex in any
>> states where the age of consent is 18.
>
> Why not? It's illegal to kill people. Yet people are frequently shown
> being killed on TV.
>
> Besides which, you're the one who's wrong. For instance, in Canada
> the age of consent is 16. However sex with a child aged 12-13 is
> actually permissible if the partner is less than 2 years older. In
included the character of 14 year old trollop in Class. Does he no
realize that this is the UK and sex with a 14 year old no matter the age
differences is illegal?
> Delaware, the age of consent is 18. However teenagers can have sex
> from the age of 16 as long as the older partner is under 30.
participants are over 18.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I almost feel sorry for you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Feel sorry for BBC America when they end up in standing in the
>>>> dock thanks to them letting Patrick Ness do as he pleases
>>>> without consideration of the law or morality.
>>>
>>> He's broken no laws. And I see no dodgy morality either. You
>>> don't like the idea of people having sex. I get that. That's your
>>> problem.
>>
>> I don't like perverts like Patrick Ness depicting his obscene and
>> immoral sexual fantasies on screen none of which have anything to
>> do with the plot. Patrick Ness has no understanding of romance. He
>> thinks love is the same thing as sex. He is disrespectful of woman
>> and thinks they are all bitches, sluts, whores and trolls. If you
>> want to see romance done properly watch Poldark not Ness's juvenile
>> filth.
>
> Poldark! Figures. You think a series that shows someone bedding a
> maid, marrying someone else and essentially glamourising rape is
> romance done properly. You're warped.
Demelza and married her. Love is something that neither you or Ness
understand. What Ness did by having arrogant lothario take advantage of
naive girl when neither of them were in love was far worse than what
Ross did to Elizabeth who was still in love with him and he still
thought he was in love her and he did it in order to punish George. What
plot justification was there in showing the lothario bed the slut? There
was none. In good romances the prince only gets to make love to the
princess AFTER he's rescued her, not before.
Siri Cruise
Nov 13, 2016, 5:44:52 PM11/13/16
to
In article <3Y4Wz.111808$WM.6...@fx20.am4>,
to correct a metathesis.
> > is there as pron.
>
> "Pron"? If you mean porn, then you and I have a very different idea about
Pron is usenetism for porn. Maybe it was supposed to suggest people too excited
>
> "Pron"? If you mean porn, then you and I have a very different idea about
to correct a metathesis.
The Doctor
Nov 13, 2016, 6:56:35 PM11/13/16
to
In article <3Y4Wz.111808$WM.6...@fx20.am4>,
The Other Doctor <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
The Other Doctor <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>news:afGdnX87xOieWLrF...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> It also might be possible that by watching it he will be breaking
>>>> the law since it could be classified as child porn in the US since
>>>> the protagonists are under age.
>>>
>>> WTF? There has been no sign of any porn, let alone "child porn" in
>>> Class.
>>
>> There has been depicted what would be regarded as underage sex in the US
>> and there is no justification for it whatsoever in the story. Therefore it
>> is there as pron.
>
>"Pron"? If you mean porn, then you and I have a very different idea about
>what constitutes porn.
>
>>> So far the main people who seem to have issues with Class are the 2
>>> people I anticipated to have problems - i.e. you and Yads. Presumably
>>> the 2 of you have problems with the idea of anyone having sex,
>>> because neither of you get any yourselves.
>>
>> How about because both of us treat women with honour and respect rather
>> than as sluts, whores and sex objects.
>
>LOL!! Yads knows how to load women up. Neither of you have the faintest
>notion about how to honour or respect women.
>
Care to be driven where a woman can be respected?
>news:afGdnX87xOieWLrF...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> It also might be possible that by watching it he will be breaking
>>>> the law since it could be classified as child porn in the US since
>>>> the protagonists are under age.
>>>
>>> WTF? There has been no sign of any porn, let alone "child porn" in
>>> Class.
>>
>> There has been depicted what would be regarded as underage sex in the US
>> and there is no justification for it whatsoever in the story. Therefore it
>> is there as pron.
>
>"Pron"? If you mean porn, then you and I have a very different idea about
>what constitutes porn.
>
>>> So far the main people who seem to have issues with Class are the 2
>>> people I anticipated to have problems - i.e. you and Yads. Presumably
>>> the 2 of you have problems with the idea of anyone having sex,
>>> because neither of you get any yourselves.
>>
>> How about because both of us treat women with honour and respect rather
>> than as sluts, whores and sex objects.
>
>LOL!! Yads knows how to load women up. Neither of you have the faintest
>notion about how to honour or respect women.
>
>>>
>>> There has been no porn shown in Class. There have been characters who
>>> have sex. Newsflash: people have sex.
>>
>> Tell that to the judge.
>
>Tell that to what judge?
>
>>>
>>> Doctor Who has shown characters killing. And for some reason, you
>>> seem to think it's OK to show people dying, but it's not OK to
>>> suggest that people have sex.
>>
>> The people having sex are under age.
>
>Under age? Age of consent in the UK is 16. All of the scenes that imply any
>sexual activity have taken place occur with actors who are over the age of
>16, and they're playing characters who are also over the age of 16. So no,
>the people having sex are not under age.
>
>
>>>
>>> I almost feel sorry for you.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Feel sorry for BBC America when they end up in standing in the dock thanks
>> to them letting Patrick Ness do as he pleases without consideration of the
>> law or morality.
>
>He's broken no laws. And I see no dodgy morality either. You don't like the
>idea of people having sex. I get that. That's your problem.
>
>
The Doctor
Nov 13, 2016, 6:57:44 PM11/13/16
to
The Doctor
Nov 13, 2016, 6:58:30 PM11/13/16
to
In article <5C5Wz.140067$2P.1...@fx38.am4>,
Read raomans 1 from the KJV and get back to us.
The Doctor
Nov 13, 2016, 6:59:27 PM11/13/16
to
The Doctor
Nov 13, 2016, 6:59:59 PM11/13/16
to
In article <chine.bleu-4E7A2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>--
>:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
>'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
>Free the Amos Yee one.
>Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <3Y4Wz.111808$WM.6...@fx20.am4>,
> "The Other Doctor" <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> > is there as pron.
>>
>> "Pron"? If you mean porn, then you and I have a very different idea about
>
>Pron is usenetism for porn. Maybe it was supposed to suggest people too excited
>to correct a metathesis.
>
Back to the KJV Bible with you Siri.
>In article <3Y4Wz.111808$WM.6...@fx20.am4>,
> "The Other Doctor" <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> > is there as pron.
>>
>> "Pron"? If you mean porn, then you and I have a very different idea about
>
>Pron is usenetism for porn. Maybe it was supposed to suggest people too excited
>to correct a metathesis.
>
>--
>:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
>'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
>Free the Amos Yee one.
>Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Idlehands
Nov 13, 2016, 11:45:11 PM11/13/16
to
Agge's "mind" and how this "majority" follows his sick and twisted thinking.
I don't feel sorry for him in the slightest, I do hope that he never
breeds and passes his twisted thinking onto another generation.
--
The was a old guy named binky
Whose thumb began to smell stinky
He made his mom gasp, pulling it out of his ass
And stuck it in his mouth like a Twinkie.
Anonymous
So why can't you accept that he's an idiot and move on?
Bill Jillians (Formosa'd by Checkmate)
Daniel60
Nov 15, 2016, 4:49:24 AM11/15/16
to
Daniel
solar penguin
Nov 15, 2016, 4:59:31 AM11/15/16
to
Stephen disrespecting women!
Siri Cruise
Nov 15, 2016, 5:01:56 AM11/15/16
to
The Doctor
Nov 15, 2016, 10:17:18 AM11/15/16
to
The Doctor
Nov 15, 2016, 10:17:43 AM11/15/16
to
The Doctor
Nov 15, 2016, 10:18:14 AM11/15/16
to
Tim Bruening
Nov 15, 2016, 8:51:08 PM11/15/16
to
Agamemnon
Nov 16, 2016, 1:12:00 AM11/16/16
to
Siri Cruise
Nov 16, 2016, 1:35:38 AM11/16/16
to
Tim Bruening
Nov 16, 2016, 2:32:17 AM11/16/16
to
Animals in Class: Dragons in this episode. What other animals have been seen?
The Doctor
Nov 16, 2016, 8:31:38 AM11/16/16
to
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Merry Christmas 2016 and Happy New Year 2017
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
The Doctor
Nov 16, 2016, 8:32:01 AM11/16/16
to
In article <chine.bleu-6DD40...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <ae229bab-c1ad-4294...@googlegroups.com>,
> Tim Bruening <tsbr...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 1:59:31 AM UTC-8, solar penguin wrote:
>> > On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:49:54 +1100, Daniel60
>> > <Dani...@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > >On 14/11/2016 10:58 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>> > >> In article <5C5Wz.140067$2P.1...@fx38.am4>,
>> > >> The Other Doctor <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I've never seen Ness disrespecting a woman. You've never seen me
>> > >>> disrespecting a woman. I don't think you even know how to talk to a
>> > >>> woman, let alone show respect for one.
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >> Read raomans 1 from the KJV and get back to us.
>> > >
>> > >So now you're making up books of the KJV Bible, doctor!!
>> > >
>> >
>> > And apparently this book contains eye-witness descriptions of Ness and
>> > Stephen disrespecting women!
>>
>> Is Donald Trump in there too?
>
>A snake in the grass?
>
That's Hillary Clinton.
>In article <ae229bab-c1ad-4294...@googlegroups.com>,
> Tim Bruening <tsbr...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 1:59:31 AM UTC-8, solar penguin wrote:
>> > On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:49:54 +1100, Daniel60
>> > <Dani...@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > >On 14/11/2016 10:58 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>> > >> In article <5C5Wz.140067$2P.1...@fx38.am4>,
>> > >> The Other Doctor <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I've never seen Ness disrespecting a woman. You've never seen me
>> > >>> disrespecting a woman. I don't think you even know how to talk to a
>> > >>> woman, let alone show respect for one.
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >> Read raomans 1 from the KJV and get back to us.
>> > >
>> > >So now you're making up books of the KJV Bible, doctor!!
>> > >
>> >
>> > And apparently this book contains eye-witness descriptions of Ness and
>> > Stephen disrespecting women!
>>
>> Is Donald Trump in there too?
>
>A snake in the grass?
>
solar penguin
Nov 19, 2016, 2:41:56 AM11/19/16
to
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:17:42 -0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
(The Doctor) wrote:
>In article <u0nl2ctr2e9l97vtq...@4ax.com>,
>solar penguin <solar....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:49:54 +1100, Daniel60
>><Dani...@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On 14/11/2016 10:58 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>>>> In article <5C5Wz.140067$2P.1...@fx38.am4>,
>>>> The Other Doctor <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never seen Ness disrespecting a woman. You've never seen me
>>>>> disrespecting a woman. I don't think you even know how to talk to a
>>>>> woman, let alone show respect for one.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Read raomans 1 from the KJV and get back to us.
>>>
>>>So now you're making up books of the KJV Bible, doctor!!
>>>
>>
>>And apparently this book contains eye-witness descriptions of Ness and
>>Stephen disrespecting women!
>
>Romans 1 , yes.
I didn't know Ness and Stephen were that old!
(The Doctor) wrote:
>In article <u0nl2ctr2e9l97vtq...@4ax.com>,
>solar penguin <solar....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:49:54 +1100, Daniel60
>><Dani...@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On 14/11/2016 10:58 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>>>> In article <5C5Wz.140067$2P.1...@fx38.am4>,
>>>> The Other Doctor <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never seen Ness disrespecting a woman. You've never seen me
>>>>> disrespecting a woman. I don't think you even know how to talk to a
>>>>> woman, let alone show respect for one.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Read raomans 1 from the KJV and get back to us.
>>>
>>>So now you're making up books of the KJV Bible, doctor!!
>>>
>>
>>And apparently this book contains eye-witness descriptions of Ness and
>>Stephen disrespecting women!
>
>Romans 1 , yes.
The Doctor
Nov 19, 2016, 8:28:31 AM11/19/16
to
In article <7g003cplccn491sms...@4ax.com>,
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.6 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:7 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.8 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;9 10 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:11 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.12
solar penguin <solar....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:17:42 -0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>(The Doctor) wrote:
>
>>In article <u0nl2ctr2e9l97vtq...@4ax.com>,
>>solar penguin <solar....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:49:54 +1100, Daniel60
>>><Dani...@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 14/11/2016 10:58 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>> In article <5C5Wz.140067$2P.1...@fx38.am4>,
>>>>> The Other Doctor <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've never seen Ness disrespecting a woman. You've never seen me
>>>>>> disrespecting a woman. I don't think you even know how to talk to a
>>>>>> woman, let alone show respect for one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Read raomans 1 from the KJV and get back to us.
>>>>
>>>>So now you're making up books of the KJV Bible, doctor!!
>>>>
>>>
>>>And apparently this book contains eye-witness descriptions of Ness and
>>>Stephen disrespecting women!
>>
>>Romans 1 , yes.
>
>I didn't know Ness and Stephen were that old!
Romans 1 KJV
>On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:17:42 -0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>(The Doctor) wrote:
>
>>In article <u0nl2ctr2e9l97vtq...@4ax.com>,
>>solar penguin <solar....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:49:54 +1100, Daniel60
>>><Dani...@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 14/11/2016 10:58 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>> In article <5C5Wz.140067$2P.1...@fx38.am4>,
>>>>> The Other Doctor <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've never seen Ness disrespecting a woman. You've never seen me
>>>>>> disrespecting a woman. I don't think you even know how to talk to a
>>>>>> woman, let alone show respect for one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Read raomans 1 from the KJV and get back to us.
>>>>
>>>>So now you're making up books of the KJV Bible, doctor!!
>>>>
>>>
>>>And apparently this book contains eye-witness descriptions of Ness and
>>>Stephen disrespecting women!
>>
>>Romans 1 , yes.
>
>I didn't know Ness and Stephen were that old!
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.6 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:7 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.8 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;9 10 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:11 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.12
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
solar penguin
Nov 19, 2016, 8:39:47 AM11/19/16
to
On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 13:28:31 -0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
Hardly a reliable eye-witness decription of them. I don't even see
the names "Patrick Ness" or "Stephen Wilson" in that text.
the names "Patrick Ness" or "Stephen Wilson" in that text.
The Doctor
Nov 19, 2016, 8:52:47 AM11/19/16
to
Tim Bruening
Nov 19, 2016, 9:37:58 PM11/19/16
to
The Doctor
Nov 19, 2016, 10:15:32 PM11/19/16
to
Tim Bruening
Nov 19, 2016, 10:22:27 PM11/19/16
to
Tim Bruening
Apr 22, 2017, 11:04:48 PM4/22/17
to
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 11:32:17 PM UTC-8, Tim Bruening wrote:
> Animals in Class: Dragons in this episode. What other animals have been seen?
Quill and a man call the students monkeys.
> Animals in Class: Dragons in this episode. What other animals have been seen?
Tim Bruening
Apr 22, 2017, 11:07:56 PM4/22/17
to
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Great moments: Quill kissing a robot inspector.
The dragon!
Ram's prosthetic leg.
Next week: Tangle trees!
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Great moments: Quill kissing a robot inspector.
The dragon!
Ram's prosthetic leg.
Next week: Tangle trees!
Tim Bruening
Apr 22, 2017, 11:17:59 PM4/22/17
to
On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 8:07:56 PM UTC-7, Tim Bruening wrote:
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
>
> Great moments: Quill kissing a robot inspector.
Did she think that the inspector was a male Quill?
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
>
> Great moments: Quill kissing a robot inspector.
Then the robot is disassembled by the dragon!
Tim Bruening
Apr 22, 2017, 11:28:51 PM4/22/17
to
On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 8:07:56 PM UTC-7, Tim Bruening wrote:
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
At the end, tthe male dragon takes the coach with the female dragon tattoo through a rip in space-time back to his world. What are the statuses of the coach and his dragon tattoo?
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
> 1
The Doctor
Apr 23, 2017, 8:32:40 AM4/23/17
to
In article <de7813c1-a3e6-430c...@googlegroups.com>,
Yawn.
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
BC Keep your province Healthy!! Vote Liberal.
Tim Bruening
Apr 23, 2017, 12:28:40 PM4/23/17
to
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sequel title: The Dragon With The Coach Tattoo.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
The Doctor
Apr 23, 2017, 5:49:36 PM4/23/17
to
Tim Bruening
Apr 23, 2017, 8:21:21 PM4/23/17
to
On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 2:49:36 PM UTC-7, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <01975401-24a9-41b3...@googlegroups.com>,
> Tim Bruening <tsbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >
> >Sequel title: The Dragon With The Coach Tattoo.
>
> No.
But its logical!
> In article <01975401-24a9-41b3...@googlegroups.com>,
> Tim Bruening <tsbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >1
> >
> >Sequel title: The Dragon With The Coach Tattoo.
>
> No.
The coach was dragged into the dragon dimension. It would seem logical for the dragon to become solid, with the coach being two dimensional! In this way, the two dragons would be reunited!
The Doctor
Apr 23, 2017, 11:49:01 PM4/23/17
to
Tim Bruening
Apr 24, 2017, 3:53:52 AM4/24/17
to
stephen.w...@gmail.com
Apr 24, 2017, 4:16:57 AM4/24/17
to
Ignore Yads. He doesn't speak for the fans. He doesn't speak for radw. He rarely even makes any sense.
Many people enjoyed Class. It didn't perform as well as was hoped in the ratings, but there's always a chance it will be recommissioned.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.radiotimes.com/amp/news/2017-04-19/steven-moffat-wants-to-make-more-of-doctor-who-spin-off-class--we-cant-let-the-weeping-angels-win
Many people enjoyed Class. It didn't perform as well as was hoped in the ratings, but there's always a chance it will be recommissioned.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.radiotimes.com/amp/news/2017-04-19/steven-moffat-wants-to-make-more-of-doctor-who-spin-off-class--we-cant-let-the-weeping-angels-win
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages