Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bells of Saint John Review with spoilers
7 views
Skip to first unread message
The Doctor
Mar 30, 2013, 10:19:53 PM3/30/13
to
I rat eit 9.6/10 .
Moffat know how to twist a plot.
Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
How did she get that number?
All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
The Doctor does rescue Clara the first time.
All right cause a plane to crash instead of using a riot? Hmm!!
Plane is restore and the wi-fi is still worldwide.
Motocycle and dopplegangers. Who said Moffat was not a
genius.
Doppleganger to close down Cloud.
Finally the client, namely the Great Intelligence is revealed.
The 4th Attempt to take over and is foiled.
And yet again he uses a child to carry out his work.
All right Clara what do you have in store for us?
--
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 Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
Moffat know how to twist a plot.
Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
How did she get that number?
All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
The Doctor does rescue Clara the first time.
All right cause a plane to crash instead of using a riot? Hmm!!
Plane is restore and the wi-fi is still worldwide.
Motocycle and dopplegangers. Who said Moffat was not a
genius.
Doppleganger to close down Cloud.
Finally the client, namely the Great Intelligence is revealed.
The 4th Attempt to take over and is foiled.
And yet again he uses a child to carry out his work.
All right Clara what do you have in store for us?
--
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 Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.
anim8rFSK
Mar 30, 2013, 10:58:27 PM3/30/13
to
In article <kj86g9$5fr$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
>
>
> The Doctor does rescue Clara the first time.
>
> All right cause a plane to crash instead of using a riot? Hmm!!
>
> Plane is restore and the wi-fi is still worldwide.
>
> Motocycle and dopplegangers. Who said Moffat was not a
> genius.
>
> Doppleganger to close down Cloud.
>
> Finally the client, namely the Great Intelligence is revealed.
>
> The 4th Attempt to take over and is foiled.
>
> And yet again he uses a child to carry out his work.
>
> All right Clara what do you have in store for us?
I enjoyed it beginning to end.
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> I rat eit 9.6/10 .
>
> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
>
> Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
>
> Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
>
> The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
>
> How did she get that number?
The woman in the shop gave it to her.
> I rat eit 9.6/10 .
>
> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
>
> Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
>
> Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
>
> The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
>
> How did she get that number?
> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
>
>
> The Doctor does rescue Clara the first time.
>
> All right cause a plane to crash instead of using a riot? Hmm!!
>
> Plane is restore and the wi-fi is still worldwide.
>
> Motocycle and dopplegangers. Who said Moffat was not a
> genius.
>
> Doppleganger to close down Cloud.
>
> Finally the client, namely the Great Intelligence is revealed.
>
> The 4th Attempt to take over and is foiled.
>
> And yet again he uses a child to carry out his work.
>
> All right Clara what do you have in store for us?
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 31, 2013, 12:41:30 AM3/31/13
to
anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>How did she get that number?
>The woman in the shop gave it to her.
I liked that Clara finally said the line, or at least most of it!
>>How did she get that number?
>The woman in the shop gave it to her.
John Hall
Mar 31, 2013, 5:53:20 AM3/31/13
to
In article <anim8rfsk-2AE18...@news.easynews.com>,
better reason than that he wanted to slip in a "mad monk" allusion.
>>
>> The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
>>
>> How did she get that number?
>
>The woman in the shop gave it to her.
I wonder if the woman will turn out to be significant before the end of
this season's story arc. Not many people can know what the TARDIS's
phone number is, so I wonder if she will turn out to be River Song.
>
>> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
>> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
>>
>>
>> The Doctor does rescue Clara the first time.
>>
>> All right cause a plane to crash instead of using a riot? Hmm!!
>>
>> Plane is restore and the wi-fi is still worldwide.
>>
>> Motocycle and dopplegangers. Who said Moffat was not a
>> genius.
>>
>> Doppleganger to close down Cloud.
>>
>> Finally the client, namely the Great Intelligence is revealed.
>>
>> The 4th Attempt to take over and is foiled.
>>
>> And yet again he uses a child to carry out his work.
>>
>> All right Clara what do you have in store for us?
>
>I enjoyed it beginning to end.
>
It was great fun so long as you were willing to suspend your disbelief
over the plot, which I was. I especially enjoyed the "mobile phone" gag.
--
John Hall
"Madam, you have between your legs an instrument capable
of giving pleasure to thousands and all you can do is scratch it."
Sir Thomas Beecham (1879-1961) to a lady cellist
anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> writes:
>In article <kj86g9$5fr$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
>> I rat eit 9.6/10 .
>>
>> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
>>
>> Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
>>
>> Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
I loved the way that Steven Moffat set that scene in a monastery for no
>In article <kj86g9$5fr$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
>> I rat eit 9.6/10 .
>>
>> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
>>
>> Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
>>
>> Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
better reason than that he wanted to slip in a "mad monk" allusion.
>>
>> The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
>>
>> How did she get that number?
>
>The woman in the shop gave it to her.
this season's story arc. Not many people can know what the TARDIS's
phone number is, so I wonder if she will turn out to be River Song.
>
>> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
>> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
>>
>>
>> The Doctor does rescue Clara the first time.
>>
>> All right cause a plane to crash instead of using a riot? Hmm!!
>>
>> Plane is restore and the wi-fi is still worldwide.
>>
>> Motocycle and dopplegangers. Who said Moffat was not a
>> genius.
>>
>> Doppleganger to close down Cloud.
>>
>> Finally the client, namely the Great Intelligence is revealed.
>>
>> The 4th Attempt to take over and is foiled.
>>
>> And yet again he uses a child to carry out his work.
>>
>> All right Clara what do you have in store for us?
>
>I enjoyed it beginning to end.
>
over the plot, which I was. I especially enjoyed the "mobile phone" gag.
--
John Hall
"Madam, you have between your legs an instrument capable
of giving pleasure to thousands and all you can do is scratch it."
Sir Thomas Beecham (1879-1961) to a lady cellist
Agamemnon
Mar 31, 2013, 6:39:32 AM3/31/13
to
"John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MIi+OeFQ...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
> In article <anim8rfsk-2AE18...@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> writes:
>>In article <kj86g9$5fr$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
>> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>
>>> I rat eit 9.6/10 .
>>>
>>> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
>>>
>>> Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
>>>
>>> Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
>
> I loved the way that Steven Moffat set that scene in a monastery for no
> better reason than that he wanted to slip in a "mad monk" allusion.
>
>>>
>>> The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
>>>
>>> How did she get that number?
>>
>>The woman in the shop gave it to her.
>
> I wonder if the woman will turn out to be significant before the end of
> this season's story arc. Not many people can know what the TARDIS's
> phone number is, so I wonder if she will turn out to be River Song.
She might be the girl from Blink considering there are Weeping Angels coming
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> writes:
>>In article <kj86g9$5fr$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
>> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>
>>> I rat eit 9.6/10 .
>>>
>>> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
>>>
>>> Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
>>>
>>> Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
>
> I loved the way that Steven Moffat set that scene in a monastery for no
> better reason than that he wanted to slip in a "mad monk" allusion.
>
>>>
>>> The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
>>>
>>> How did she get that number?
>>
>>The woman in the shop gave it to her.
>
> I wonder if the woman will turn out to be significant before the end of
> this season's story arc. Not many people can know what the TARDIS's
> phone number is, so I wonder if she will turn out to be River Song.
up.
The Doctor
Mar 31, 2013, 7:38:06 AM3/31/13
to
In article <anim8rfsk-2AE18...@news.easynews.com>,
>
>> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
>> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
>>
>>
>> The Doctor does rescue Clara the first time.
>>
>> All right cause a plane to crash instead of using a riot? Hmm!!
>>
>> Plane is restore and the wi-fi is still worldwide.
>>
>> Motocycle and dopplegangers. Who said Moffat was not a
>> genius.
>>
>> Doppleganger to close down Cloud.
>>
>> Finally the client, namely the Great Intelligence is revealed.
>>
>> The 4th Attempt to take over and is foiled.
>>
>> And yet again he uses a child to carry out his work.
>>
>> All right Clara what do you have in store for us?
>
>I enjoyed it beginning to end.
>
>--
>"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>In article <kj86g9$5fr$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
>> I rat eit 9.6/10 .
>>
>> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
>>
>> Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
>>
>> Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
>>
>> The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
>>
>> How did she get that number?
>
>The woman in the shop gave it to her.
Who is she?
>In article <kj86g9$5fr$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
>> I rat eit 9.6/10 .
>>
>> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
>>
>> Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
>>
>> Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
>>
>> The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
>>
>> How did she get that number?
>
>The woman in the shop gave it to her.
>
>> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
>> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
>>
>>
>> The Doctor does rescue Clara the first time.
>>
>> All right cause a plane to crash instead of using a riot? Hmm!!
>>
>> Plane is restore and the wi-fi is still worldwide.
>>
>> Motocycle and dopplegangers. Who said Moffat was not a
>> genius.
>>
>> Doppleganger to close down Cloud.
>>
>> Finally the client, namely the Great Intelligence is revealed.
>>
>> The 4th Attempt to take over and is foiled.
>>
>> And yet again he uses a child to carry out his work.
>>
>> All right Clara what do you have in store for us?
>
>I enjoyed it beginning to end.
>
>--
>"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
The Doctor
Mar 31, 2013, 7:41:10 AM3/31/13
to
In article <MIi+OeFQ...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid>,
>>>
>>> The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
>>>
>>> How did she get that number?
>>
>>The woman in the shop gave it to her.
>
>I wonder if the woman will turn out to be significant before the end of
>this season's story arc. Not many people can know what the TARDIS's
>phone number is, so I wonder if she will turn out to be River Song.
>
There is a worthwhile theory.
>>
>>> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
>>> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
>>>
>>>
>>> The Doctor does rescue Clara the first time.
>>>
>>> All right cause a plane to crash instead of using a riot? Hmm!!
>>>
>>> Plane is restore and the wi-fi is still worldwide.
>>>
>>> Motocycle and dopplegangers. Who said Moffat was not a
>>> genius.
>>>
>>> Doppleganger to close down Cloud.
>>>
>>> Finally the client, namely the Great Intelligence is revealed.
>>>
>>> The 4th Attempt to take over and is foiled.
>>>
>>> And yet again he uses a child to carry out his work.
>>>
>>> All right Clara what do you have in store for us?
>>
>>I enjoyed it beginning to end.
>>
>
>It was great fun so long as you were willing to suspend your disbelief
>over the plot, which I was. I especially enjoyed the "mobile phone" gag.
>--
>John Hall
> "Madam, you have between your legs an instrument capable
> of giving pleasure to thousands and all you can do is scratch it."
> Sir Thomas Beecham (1879-1961) to a lady cellist
John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <anim8rfsk-2AE18...@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> writes:
>>In article <kj86g9$5fr$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
>> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>
>>> I rat eit 9.6/10 .
>>>
>>> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
>>>
>>> Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
>>>
>>> Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
>
>I loved the way that Steven Moffat set that scene in a monastery for no
>better reason than that he wanted to slip in a "mad monk" allusion.
>
Solace for you.
>In article <anim8rfsk-2AE18...@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> writes:
>>In article <kj86g9$5fr$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
>> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>
>>> I rat eit 9.6/10 .
>>>
>>> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
>>>
>>> Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
>>>
>>> Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
>
>I loved the way that Steven Moffat set that scene in a monastery for no
>better reason than that he wanted to slip in a "mad monk" allusion.
>
>>>
>>> The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
>>>
>>> How did she get that number?
>>
>>The woman in the shop gave it to her.
>
>I wonder if the woman will turn out to be significant before the end of
>this season's story arc. Not many people can know what the TARDIS's
>phone number is, so I wonder if she will turn out to be River Song.
>
>>
>>> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
>>> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
>>>
>>>
>>> The Doctor does rescue Clara the first time.
>>>
>>> All right cause a plane to crash instead of using a riot? Hmm!!
>>>
>>> Plane is restore and the wi-fi is still worldwide.
>>>
>>> Motocycle and dopplegangers. Who said Moffat was not a
>>> genius.
>>>
>>> Doppleganger to close down Cloud.
>>>
>>> Finally the client, namely the Great Intelligence is revealed.
>>>
>>> The 4th Attempt to take over and is foiled.
>>>
>>> And yet again he uses a child to carry out his work.
>>>
>>> All right Clara what do you have in store for us?
>>
>>I enjoyed it beginning to end.
>>
>
>It was great fun so long as you were willing to suspend your disbelief
>over the plot, which I was. I especially enjoyed the "mobile phone" gag.
>--
>John Hall
> "Madam, you have between your legs an instrument capable
> of giving pleasure to thousands and all you can do is scratch it."
> Sir Thomas Beecham (1879-1961) to a lady cellist
The Doctor
Mar 31, 2013, 7:41:37 AM3/31/13
to
In article <nsGdnWzq26L-j8XM...@eclipse.net.uk>,
>>
>>>
>>>> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
>>>> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Doctor does rescue Clara the first time.
>>>>
>>>> All right cause a plane to crash instead of using a riot? Hmm!!
>>>>
>>>> Plane is restore and the wi-fi is still worldwide.
>>>>
>>>> Motocycle and dopplegangers. Who said Moffat was not a
>>>> genius.
>>>>
>>>> Doppleganger to close down Cloud.
>>>>
>>>> Finally the client, namely the Great Intelligence is revealed.
>>>>
>>>> The 4th Attempt to take over and is foiled.
>>>>
>>>> And yet again he uses a child to carry out his work.
>>>>
>>>> All right Clara what do you have in store for us?
>>>
>>>I enjoyed it beginning to end.
>>>
>>
>> It was great fun so long as you were willing to suspend your disbelief
>> over the plot, which I was. I especially enjoyed the "mobile phone" gag.
>> --
>> John Hall
>> "Madam, you have between your legs an instrument capable
>> of giving pleasure to thousands and all you can do is scratch
>> it."
>> Sir Thomas Beecham (1879-1961) to a lady cellist
>
>
Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>"John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:MIi+OeFQ...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
>> In article <anim8rfsk-2AE18...@news.easynews.com>,
>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> writes:
>>>In article <kj86g9$5fr$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
>>> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>>
>>>> I rat eit 9.6/10 .
>>>>
>>>> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
>>>>
>>>> Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
>>>>
>>>> Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
>>
>> I loved the way that Steven Moffat set that scene in a monastery for no
>> better reason than that he wanted to slip in a "mad monk" allusion.
>>
>>>>
>>>> The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
>>>>
>>>> How did she get that number?
>>>
>>>The woman in the shop gave it to her.
>>
>> I wonder if the woman will turn out to be significant before the end of
>> this season's story arc. Not many people can know what the TARDIS's
>> phone number is, so I wonder if she will turn out to be River Song.
>
>She might be the girl from Blink considering there are Weeping Angels coming
>up.
>
The plot thickens.
>
>"John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:MIi+OeFQ...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
>> In article <anim8rfsk-2AE18...@news.easynews.com>,
>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> writes:
>>>In article <kj86g9$5fr$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
>>> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>>
>>>> I rat eit 9.6/10 .
>>>>
>>>> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
>>>>
>>>> Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
>>>>
>>>> Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
>>
>> I loved the way that Steven Moffat set that scene in a monastery for no
>> better reason than that he wanted to slip in a "mad monk" allusion.
>>
>>>>
>>>> The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
>>>>
>>>> How did she get that number?
>>>
>>>The woman in the shop gave it to her.
>>
>> I wonder if the woman will turn out to be significant before the end of
>> this season's story arc. Not many people can know what the TARDIS's
>> phone number is, so I wonder if she will turn out to be River Song.
>
>She might be the girl from Blink considering there are Weeping Angels coming
>up.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
>>>> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Doctor does rescue Clara the first time.
>>>>
>>>> All right cause a plane to crash instead of using a riot? Hmm!!
>>>>
>>>> Plane is restore and the wi-fi is still worldwide.
>>>>
>>>> Motocycle and dopplegangers. Who said Moffat was not a
>>>> genius.
>>>>
>>>> Doppleganger to close down Cloud.
>>>>
>>>> Finally the client, namely the Great Intelligence is revealed.
>>>>
>>>> The 4th Attempt to take over and is foiled.
>>>>
>>>> And yet again he uses a child to carry out his work.
>>>>
>>>> All right Clara what do you have in store for us?
>>>
>>>I enjoyed it beginning to end.
>>>
>>
>> It was great fun so long as you were willing to suspend your disbelief
>> over the plot, which I was. I especially enjoyed the "mobile phone" gag.
>> --
>> John Hall
>> "Madam, you have between your legs an instrument capable
>> of giving pleasure to thousands and all you can do is scratch
>> it."
>> Sir Thomas Beecham (1879-1961) to a lady cellist
>
>
Stephen Wilson
Mar 31, 2013, 7:44:02 AM3/31/13
to
The Doctor
Mar 31, 2013, 8:01:53 AM3/31/13
to
In article <dkV5t.304088$0K4.1...@fx25.fr7>,
Stephen Wilson is drunk after getting one less hour of sleep.
The Doctor
Mar 31, 2013, 8:24:21 AM3/31/13
to
The Doctor
Mar 31, 2013, 8:25:15 AM3/31/13
to
anim8rFSK
Mar 31, 2013, 10:03:15 AM3/31/13
to
In article <kj976u$im0$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> In article <anim8rfsk-2AE18...@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >In article <kj86g9$5fr$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> > doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> >
> >> I rat eit 9.6/10 .
> >>
> >> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
> >>
> >> Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
> >>
> >> Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
> >>
> >> The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
> >>
> >> How did she get that number?
> >
> >The woman in the shop gave it to her.
>
> Who is she?
That ... would be telling.
> In article <anim8rfsk-2AE18...@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >In article <kj86g9$5fr$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> > doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> >
> >> I rat eit 9.6/10 .
> >>
> >> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
> >>
> >> Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
> >>
> >> Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
> >>
> >> The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
> >>
> >> How did she get that number?
> >
> >The woman in the shop gave it to her.
>
> Who is she?
AC
Mar 31, 2013, 10:49:05 AM3/31/13
to
The Doctor wrote:
> I rat eit 9.6/10 .
>
> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
>
> Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
>
> Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
>
> The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
>
> How did she get that number?
>
> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
>
>
> The Doctor does rescue Clara the first time.
>
> All right cause a plane to crash instead of using a riot? Hmm!!
>
> Plane is restore and the wi-fi is still worldwide.
>
> Motocycle and dopplegangers. Who said Moffat was not a
> genius.
>
> Doppleganger to close down Cloud.
>
> Finally the client, namely the Great Intelligence is revealed.
>
> The 4th Attempt to take over and is foiled.
>
> And yet again he uses a child to carry out his work.
>
> All right Clara what do you have in store for us?
>
Great episode. Lots of arc type stuff hinted, hopefully.
> I rat eit 9.6/10 .
>
> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
>
> Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
>
> Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
>
> The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
>
> How did she get that number?
>
> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
>
>
> The Doctor does rescue Clara the first time.
>
> All right cause a plane to crash instead of using a riot? Hmm!!
>
> Plane is restore and the wi-fi is still worldwide.
>
> Motocycle and dopplegangers. Who said Moffat was not a
> genius.
>
> Doppleganger to close down Cloud.
>
> Finally the client, namely the Great Intelligence is revealed.
>
> The 4th Attempt to take over and is foiled.
>
> And yet again he uses a child to carry out his work.
>
> All right Clara what do you have in store for us?
>
Just wondering, the motor bike thing, a Wallace and Grommet nod?
--
AC
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 31, 2013, 11:16:46 AM3/31/13
to
John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>It was great fun so long as you were willing to suspend your disbelief
>over the plot, which I was. I especially enjoyed the "mobile phone" gag.
I found it necessary to ignore the plot entirely. As is so common on
>It was great fun so long as you were willing to suspend your disbelief
>over the plot, which I was. I especially enjoyed the "mobile phone" gag.
Doctor Who, the horror set up is very good. I thought having the ability
to hack a soul (after the "new software application" was installed) was
excellent horr. Then, they don't do much with it. The room of computer
hackers (all wearing suits?) seemed mostly unnecessary. What was the
purpose those particular souls on the wall of souls, as opposed to all
the ones who weren't shown? I assume those weren't all eaten. As this
was a world-wide epidemic, where were the epidemiologists?
anim8rFSK
Mar 31, 2013, 1:31:47 PM3/31/13
to
In article <kj9k0t$73u$2...@news.albasani.net>,
You also have to ignore the entire 'wifi' aspect, as if they didn't grab
anybody hardwired ...
anybody hardwired ...
Agamemnon
Mar 31, 2013, 2:04:09 PM3/31/13
to
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:C1Y5t.249733$fB.1...@fx27.fr7...
> --
> AC
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 31, 2013, 2:07:28 PM3/31/13
to
anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>>>It was great fun so long as you were willing to suspend your disbelief
>>>over the plot, which I was. I especially enjoyed the "mobile phone" gag.
>>I found it necessary to ignore the plot entirely. As is so common on
>>Doctor Who, the horror set up is very good. I thought having the ability
>>to hack a soul (after the "new software application" was installed) was
>>excellent horr. Then, they don't do much with it. The room of computer
>>hackers (all wearing suits?) seemed mostly unnecessary. What was the
>>purpose those particular souls on the wall of souls, as opposed to all
>>the ones who weren't shown? I assume those weren't all eaten. As this
>>was a world-wide epidemic, where were the epidemiologists?
>You also have to ignore the entire 'wifi' aspect, as if they didn't grab
>anybody hardwired ...
That was just for legal reasons, as the wifi users had all signed away
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>>>It was great fun so long as you were willing to suspend your disbelief
>>>over the plot, which I was. I especially enjoyed the "mobile phone" gag.
>>I found it necessary to ignore the plot entirely. As is so common on
>>Doctor Who, the horror set up is very good. I thought having the ability
>>to hack a soul (after the "new software application" was installed) was
>>excellent horr. Then, they don't do much with it. The room of computer
>>hackers (all wearing suits?) seemed mostly unnecessary. What was the
>>purpose those particular souls on the wall of souls, as opposed to all
>>the ones who weren't shown? I assume those weren't all eaten. As this
>>was a world-wide epidemic, where were the epidemiologists?
>You also have to ignore the entire 'wifi' aspect, as if they didn't grab
>anybody hardwired ...
their rights not to be harvested by an unnamed alien.
The Doctor
Mar 31, 2013, 5:03:11 PM3/31/13
to
In article <anim8rfsk-C70D5...@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>In article <kj976u$im0$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
>> In article <anim8rfsk-2AE18...@news.easynews.com>,
>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >In article <kj86g9$5fr$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
>> > doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> >
>> >> I rat eit 9.6/10 .
>> >>
>> >> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
>> >>
>> >> Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
>> >>
>> >> Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
>> >>
>> >> The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
>> >>
>> >> How did she get that number?
>> >
>> >The woman in the shop gave it to her.
>>
>> Who is she?
>
>That ... would be telling.
>
Do tell.
>In article <kj976u$im0$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
>> In article <anim8rfsk-2AE18...@news.easynews.com>,
>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >In article <kj86g9$5fr$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
>> > doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> >
>> >> I rat eit 9.6/10 .
>> >>
>> >> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
>> >>
>> >> Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
>> >>
>> >> Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
>> >>
>> >> The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
>> >>
>> >> How did she get that number?
>> >
>> >The woman in the shop gave it to her.
>>
>> Who is she?
>
>That ... would be telling.
>
The Doctor
Mar 31, 2013, 5:03:30 PM3/31/13
to
The Doctor
Mar 31, 2013, 5:04:15 PM3/31/13
to
The Doctor
Mar 31, 2013, 5:04:42 PM3/31/13
to
The Doctor
Mar 31, 2013, 5:05:22 PM3/31/13
to
anim8rFSK
Mar 31, 2013, 5:22:47 PM3/31/13
to
In article <kja8cf$1j0$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> In article <anim8rfsk-86558...@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >In article <kj9k0t$73u$2...@news.albasani.net>,
> > "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >It was great fun so long as you were willing to suspend your disbelief
> >> >over the plot, which I was. I especially enjoyed the "mobile phone" gag.
> >>
> >> I found it necessary to ignore the plot entirely. As is so common on
> >> Doctor Who, the horror set up is very good. I thought having the ability
> >> to hack a soul (after the "new software application" was installed) was
> >> excellent horr. Then, they don't do much with it. The room of computer
> >> hackers (all wearing suits?) seemed mostly unnecessary. What was the
> >> purpose those particular souls on the wall of souls, as opposed to all
> >> the ones who weren't shown? I assume those weren't all eaten. As this
> >> was a world-wide epidemic, where were the epidemiologists?
> >
> >You also have to ignore the entire 'wifi' aspect, as if they didn't grab
> >anybody hardwired ...
> >
> >--
> >"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
>
> The 'suits' were uploaded to the cloud.
Which doesn't require wifi.
> In article <anim8rfsk-86558...@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >In article <kj9k0t$73u$2...@news.albasani.net>,
> > "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >It was great fun so long as you were willing to suspend your disbelief
> >> >over the plot, which I was. I especially enjoyed the "mobile phone" gag.
> >>
> >> I found it necessary to ignore the plot entirely. As is so common on
> >> Doctor Who, the horror set up is very good. I thought having the ability
> >> to hack a soul (after the "new software application" was installed) was
> >> excellent horr. Then, they don't do much with it. The room of computer
> >> hackers (all wearing suits?) seemed mostly unnecessary. What was the
> >> purpose those particular souls on the wall of souls, as opposed to all
> >> the ones who weren't shown? I assume those weren't all eaten. As this
> >> was a world-wide epidemic, where were the epidemiologists?
> >
> >You also have to ignore the entire 'wifi' aspect, as if they didn't grab
> >anybody hardwired ...
> >
> >--
> >"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
>
> The 'suits' were uploaded to the cloud.
anim8rFSK
Mar 31, 2013, 5:23:03 PM3/31/13
to
The Doctor
Mar 31, 2013, 5:32:46 PM3/31/13
to
In article <anim8rfsk-B3E24...@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>In article <kja8cf$1j0$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
>> In article <anim8rfsk-86558...@news.easynews.com>,
>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >In article <kj9k0t$73u$2...@news.albasani.net>,
>> > "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >It was great fun so long as you were willing to suspend your disbelief
>> >> >over the plot, which I was. I especially enjoyed the "mobile phone" gag.
>> >>
>> >> I found it necessary to ignore the plot entirely. As is so common on
>> >> Doctor Who, the horror set up is very good. I thought having the ability
>> >> to hack a soul (after the "new software application" was installed) was
>> >> excellent horr. Then, they don't do much with it. The room of computer
>> >> hackers (all wearing suits?) seemed mostly unnecessary. What was the
>> >> purpose those particular souls on the wall of souls, as opposed to all
>> >> the ones who weren't shown? I assume those weren't all eaten. As this
>> >> was a world-wide epidemic, where were the epidemiologists?
>> >
>> >You also have to ignore the entire 'wifi' aspect, as if they didn't grab
>> >anybody hardwired ...
>> >
>> >--
>> >"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
>>
>> The 'suits' were uploaded to the cloud.
>
>Which doesn't require wifi.
>
Just a webcam.
>In article <kja8cf$1j0$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
>> In article <anim8rfsk-86558...@news.easynews.com>,
>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >In article <kj9k0t$73u$2...@news.albasani.net>,
>> > "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >It was great fun so long as you were willing to suspend your disbelief
>> >> >over the plot, which I was. I especially enjoyed the "mobile phone" gag.
>> >>
>> >> I found it necessary to ignore the plot entirely. As is so common on
>> >> Doctor Who, the horror set up is very good. I thought having the ability
>> >> to hack a soul (after the "new software application" was installed) was
>> >> excellent horr. Then, they don't do much with it. The room of computer
>> >> hackers (all wearing suits?) seemed mostly unnecessary. What was the
>> >> purpose those particular souls on the wall of souls, as opposed to all
>> >> the ones who weren't shown? I assume those weren't all eaten. As this
>> >> was a world-wide epidemic, where were the epidemiologists?
>> >
>> >You also have to ignore the entire 'wifi' aspect, as if they didn't grab
>> >anybody hardwired ...
>> >
>> >--
>> >"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
>>
>> The 'suits' were uploaded to the cloud.
>
>Which doesn't require wifi.
>
David Barnett
Mar 31, 2013, 7:22:20 PM3/31/13
to
In article <kj86g9$5fr$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
Corrected first sentence.
Australian viewers weren't impressed, but I thought it
better than a lot of previous episodes.
My rating is 7/10, mainly because I think it is a good
introduction to subsequent episodes.
--
David Barnett
doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
>
> I rate it 9.6/10 .
>
> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
<snip>
> I rate it 9.6/10 .
>
> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
Corrected first sentence.
Australian viewers weren't impressed, but I thought it
better than a lot of previous episodes.
My rating is 7/10, mainly because I think it is a good
introduction to subsequent episodes.
--
David Barnett
David Barnett
Mar 31, 2013, 7:28:10 PM3/31/13
to
In article <anim8rfsk-2AE186.19582730032013
@news.easynews.com>, anim...@cox.net says...
>
> In article <kj86g9$5fr$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
Aussie viewers snarked at the WIFI part.
I posted in aus.tv that I thought Moffatt might have been
having trouble with his WIFI, and this was his revenge!
--
David Barnett
@news.easynews.com>, anim...@cox.net says...
>
> In article <kj86g9$5fr$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
> > I rat eit 9.6/10 .
> >
> > Moffat know how to twist a plot.
> >
>
> > I rat eit 9.6/10 .
> >
> > Moffat know how to twist a plot.
> >
> > Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
> >
> > Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
> >
> > The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
> >
> > How did she get that number?
>
> >
> > Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
> >
> > The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
> >
> > How did she get that number?
>
> The woman in the shop gave it to her.
>
>
> > All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
> > Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
> >
> >
> > The Doctor does rescue Clara the first time.
> >
> > All right cause a plane to crash instead of using a riot? Hmm!!
> >
> > Plane is restore and the wi-fi is still worldwide.
> >
> > Motocycle and dopplegangers. Who said Moffat was not a
> > genius.
> >
> > Doppleganger to close down Cloud.
> >
> > Finally the client, namely the Great Intelligence is revealed.
> >
> > The 4th Attempt to take over and is foiled.
> >
> > And yet again he uses a child to carry out his work.
> >
> > All right Clara what do you have in store for us?
>
> > Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
> >
> >
> > The Doctor does rescue Clara the first time.
> >
> > All right cause a plane to crash instead of using a riot? Hmm!!
> >
> > Plane is restore and the wi-fi is still worldwide.
> >
> > Motocycle and dopplegangers. Who said Moffat was not a
> > genius.
> >
> > Doppleganger to close down Cloud.
> >
> > Finally the client, namely the Great Intelligence is revealed.
> >
> > The 4th Attempt to take over and is foiled.
> >
> > And yet again he uses a child to carry out his work.
> >
> > All right Clara what do you have in store for us?
>
> I enjoyed it beginning to end.
I did too, in spite of my 7/10 rating.
Aussie viewers snarked at the WIFI part.
I posted in aus.tv that I thought Moffatt might have been
having trouble with his WIFI, and this was his revenge!
--
David Barnett
Agamemnon
Mar 31, 2013, 7:29:55 PM3/31/13
to
"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:anim8rfsk-C70D5...@news.easynews.com...
David Barnett
Mar 31, 2013, 7:33:31 PM3/31/13
to
In article <MIi+OeFQ...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid>,
nospam...@jhall.co.uk says...
<snip>
we will see her again in Doctor Who for a while.
--
David Barnett
nospam...@jhall.co.uk says...
<snip>
> I wonder if the woman will turn out to be significant
before the end of
> this season's story arc. Not many people can know what the TARDIS's
> phone number is, so I wonder if she will turn out to be River Song.
Alex Kingston (River Song) is in ARROW, so I don't think
before the end of
> this season's story arc. Not many people can know what the TARDIS's
> phone number is, so I wonder if she will turn out to be River Song.
we will see her again in Doctor Who for a while.
--
David Barnett
The Doctor
Mar 31, 2013, 7:39:18 PM3/31/13
to
The Doctor
Mar 31, 2013, 7:39:54 PM3/31/13
to
The Doctor
Mar 31, 2013, 7:40:19 PM3/31/13
to
The Doctor
Mar 31, 2013, 7:40:52 PM3/31/13
to
~consul
Mar 31, 2013, 7:47:59 PM3/31/13
to
'tis on this 3/31/2013 5:03 PM, wrote The Doctor thus to say:
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>>>> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
>>>>> Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
It doesn't seem directly related to the Christmas episode.
>>>>> Opening souls trapped in cyberspace but for what reason?
>>>>> Enter the Doctor in 1207 cumbria.
>>>>> The Bells of Saint John? The telephone in his Police Box.
>>>>> How did she get that number?
>>>> The woman in the shop gave it to her.
>>> Who is she?
>> That ... would be telling.
> Do tell.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
The Doctor
Mar 31, 2013, 7:49:26 PM3/31/13
to
Monsieur Tabernac
Mar 31, 2013, 7:49:47 PM3/31/13
to
season.
http://www.hypable.com/2013/03/18/doctor-who-synopsis-revealed-for-series-7-b/
"There is also a final episode whose title has not officially been
announced. However, in a Q & A that took place at Trinity College in
Dublin, Steven Moffet confirmed it will involve Alex Kingston, who
plays River Song, and it will also bring in the much anticipated
mystery of Trenzalore, “Yes. She will certainly be in this series…Is
there more to come about, as it were, Trenzalore and the battle in The
Doctor’s future that led to the attempts on his life in the past? Is
that what you’re asking? Yes.” "
http://www.denofgeek.com/tv/doctor-who/24774/updated-what-do-we-know-about-doctor-who-series-7-part-2
The Doctor
Mar 31, 2013, 7:50:33 PM3/31/13
to
anim8rFSK
Mar 31, 2013, 7:53:44 PM3/31/13
to
In article <kjahf6$9n2$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> In article <MPG.2bc37033c...@news.bigpond.com>,
> David Barnett <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >In article <kj86g9$5fr$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> >doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
> >>
> >> I rate it 9.6/10 .
> >>
> >> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
> ><snip>
> >
> >Corrected first sentence.
> >
> >Australian viewers weren't impressed, but I thought it
> >better than a lot of previous episodes.
> >
> >My rating is 7/10, mainly because I think it is a good
> >introduction to subsequent episodes.
> >--
> >David Barnett
>
> Average Australian rating please?
There *are* no Average Australians!
> In article <MPG.2bc37033c...@news.bigpond.com>,
> David Barnett <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >In article <kj86g9$5fr$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
> >doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
> >>
> >> I rate it 9.6/10 .
> >>
> >> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
> ><snip>
> >
> >Corrected first sentence.
> >
> >Australian viewers weren't impressed, but I thought it
> >better than a lot of previous episodes.
> >
> >My rating is 7/10, mainly because I think it is a good
> >introduction to subsequent episodes.
> >--
> >David Barnett
>
> Average Australian rating please?
The Doctor
Mar 31, 2013, 7:54:29 PM3/31/13
to
~consul
Mar 31, 2013, 8:09:01 PM3/31/13
to
'tis on this 3/31/2013 7:33 PM, wrote David Barnett thus to say:
> In article <MIi+OeFQ...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid>,
> nospam...@jhall.co.uk says...
> In article <MIi+OeFQ...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid>,
> nospam...@jhall.co.uk says...
>> I wonder if the woman will turn out to be significant
> before the end of
>> this season's story arc. Not many people can know what the TARDIS's
>> phone number is, so I wonder if she will turn out to be River Song.
> Alex Kingston (River Song) is in ARROW, so I don't think
> we will see her again in Doctor Who for a while.
Arrow also has John Barrowman, so it may work out.
> before the end of
>> this season's story arc. Not many people can know what the TARDIS's
>> phone number is, so I wonder if she will turn out to be River Song.
> Alex Kingston (River Song) is in ARROW, so I don't think
> we will see her again in Doctor Who for a while.
I am dissappointed that they both weren't on Supernatural, as I am sure there would have been some small reference joke worked in somehow.
The Doctor
Mar 31, 2013, 8:25:29 PM3/31/13
to
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 31, 2013, 11:49:52 PM3/31/13
to
>>David Barnett <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
>>>>I rate it 9.6/10 .
>>>>Moffat know how to twist a plot.
>>><snip>
>>>Corrected first sentence.
>>>Australian viewers weren't impressed, but I thought it
>>>better than a lot of previous episodes.
>>>My rating is 7/10, mainly because I think it is a good
>>>introduction to subsequent episodes.
>>>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
>>>>I rate it 9.6/10 .
>>>>Moffat know how to twist a plot.
>>><snip>
>>>Corrected first sentence.
>>>Australian viewers weren't impressed, but I thought it
>>>better than a lot of previous episodes.
>>>My rating is 7/10, mainly because I think it is a good
>>>introduction to subsequent episodes.
>>Average Australian rating please?
>There *are* no Average Australians!
What is this, Lake Wobegon?
>There *are* no Average Australians!
The Coca Cola Kid
Apr 1, 2013, 1:34:21 AM4/1/13
to
Great concepts, flaccid execution. Right now, I am not exactly sure which
show I am watching, since it feels like a mish-mash of Friends, Willy Wonka,
and stock hack-written dramedy. I am starting to see why some people think
that Matt Smith may be worried about getting typecast by playing the lead
role in Doctor Who. My heart sank as soon as I saw Clara being
un-downloaded. I just knew that everyone in the world who went missing
would end up being put back the way that they were by the end of the
episode. Granted, this time, at least, there was a throw-away line that a
small number of people could be put back successfully, and rest would die.
Although that was a blink and you will miss it explanation, easily forgotten
about by the ending. Or maybe I may have even imagined it. The fact that
there is no longer a threat in the wi-fi after everything is tidily taken
care of also makes the whole plot and its themes feel extremely
inconsequential, and lightweight. This feels like Doctor Who on auto-pilot.
Hopefully next week's will offer more substance, despite the terrible
lighting in the preview.
show I am watching, since it feels like a mish-mash of Friends, Willy Wonka,
and stock hack-written dramedy. I am starting to see why some people think
that Matt Smith may be worried about getting typecast by playing the lead
role in Doctor Who. My heart sank as soon as I saw Clara being
un-downloaded. I just knew that everyone in the world who went missing
would end up being put back the way that they were by the end of the
episode. Granted, this time, at least, there was a throw-away line that a
small number of people could be put back successfully, and rest would die.
Although that was a blink and you will miss it explanation, easily forgotten
about by the ending. Or maybe I may have even imagined it. The fact that
there is no longer a threat in the wi-fi after everything is tidily taken
care of also makes the whole plot and its themes feel extremely
inconsequential, and lightweight. This feels like Doctor Who on auto-pilot.
Hopefully next week's will offer more substance, despite the terrible
lighting in the preview.
shawn
Apr 1, 2013, 1:45:29 AM4/1/13
to
accidents happen over time and given that the lady in charge had been
under the Great Intelligence's control since she was a child it is
obvious that this had been going on for decades. Which makes you
wonder what did it do before there was Wi-Fi and why didn't the Doctor
pick up on this at some point in the past? I guess these are the sorts
of questions we aren't supposed to ask.
anim8rFSK
Apr 1, 2013, 2:21:04 AM4/1/13
to
In article <kj7il8lkuuju3cp48...@4ax.com>,
Well, the assistant did complain that they were taking people too fast
and going to get caught.
and going to get caught.
The Doctor
Apr 1, 2013, 9:15:35 AM4/1/13
to
In article <kjb050$95g$1...@news.albasani.net>,
Lake Wobegon?
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
The Doctor
Apr 1, 2013, 9:18:44 AM4/1/13
to
In article <kjb68s$o4b$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
Auto-pilot? Are you kidding me?
The Coca Cola Kid <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
The Doctor
Apr 1, 2013, 9:20:22 AM4/1/13
to
Adam H. Kerman
Apr 1, 2013, 9:42:51 AM4/1/13
to
>Great concepts, flaccid execution. Right now, I am not exactly sure which
>show I am watching, since it feels like a mish-mash of Friends, Willy Wonka,
>and stock hack-written dramedy.
Wow. That criticism makes no sense whatsoever.
>show I am watching, since it feels like a mish-mash of Friends, Willy Wonka,
>and stock hack-written dramedy.
>I am starting to see why some people think that Matt Smith may be
>worried about getting typecast by playing the lead role in Doctor Who.
>My heart sank as soon as I saw Clara being un-downloaded. I just knew
>that everyone in the world who went missing would end up being put back
>the way that they were by the end of the episode.
that done before.
>Granted, this time, at least, there was a throw-away line that a small
>number of people could be put back successfully, and rest would die.
people. It's Doctor Who. They often have plots in which large numbers of
people can't be saved.
So does this count as Clara's third resurrection? Fourth?
>Although that was a blink and you will miss it explanation, easily forgotten
>about by the ending. Or maybe I may have even imagined it. The fact that
>there is no longer a threat in the wi-fi after everything is tidily taken
>care of also makes the whole plot and its themes feel extremely
>inconsequential, and lightweight. This feels like Doctor Who on auto-pilot.
Adam H. Kerman
Apr 1, 2013, 9:44:37 AM4/1/13
to
The Doctor
Apr 1, 2013, 9:48:58 AM4/1/13
to
In article <kjc2sr$el9$1...@news.albasani.net>,
The question is what is Clara?
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
The Doctor
Apr 1, 2013, 9:49:33 AM4/1/13
to
In article <kjc305$el9$2...@news.albasani.net>,
Moffat has shown us how.
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
Winston
Apr 1, 2013, 11:35:01 AM4/1/13
to
John Hall <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> writes:
> I especially enjoyed the "mobile phone" gag.
And, better than any "smartphone", it has an immersive universe browser
capability. (:-)
-WBE
> I especially enjoyed the "mobile phone" gag.
And, better than any "smartphone", it has an immersive universe browser
capability. (:-)
-WBE
The Coca Cola Kid
Apr 1, 2013, 1:49:06 PM4/1/13
to
On Apr 1, 8:42 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
the 'classic' Doctor Who TV episodes, where the Doctor's companion
could actually die, now the they 'die' almost every week, only to be
resurrected, along with a huge chunk of the rest of the cast, at the
flick of a magic macguffin. It has become a ridiculous parody of
itself.
>>Granted, this time, at least, there was a throw-away line that a small
>>number of people could be put back successfully, and rest would die.
>
>No, the rest had already been murdered. The souls were captured from dead
>people.
Seriously ... ? I must have missed that part. I was under the
impression that their bodies all died after they were completely
downloaded, and those who were dead for too long could not be
restored. Or were they supposed to have been in a persistent
vegetative state?
>It's Doctor Who. They often have plots in which large numbers of
>people can't be saved.
Not recently. Doctor Who is now a show where 'everybody lives', even
when they 'die'.
>The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>>My heart sank as soon as I saw Clara being un-downloaded. I just knew
>>that everyone in the world who went missing would end up being put back
>>the way that they were by the end of the episode.
>
>Huh. The Doctor's companion is there to be put in jeopardy? Never seen
>that done before.
There is no feeling of jeopardy any more. That is the point. Unlike
>>My heart sank as soon as I saw Clara being un-downloaded. I just knew
>>that everyone in the world who went missing would end up being put back
>>the way that they were by the end of the episode.
>
>Huh. The Doctor's companion is there to be put in jeopardy? Never seen
>that done before.
the 'classic' Doctor Who TV episodes, where the Doctor's companion
could actually die, now the they 'die' almost every week, only to be
resurrected, along with a huge chunk of the rest of the cast, at the
flick of a magic macguffin. It has become a ridiculous parody of
itself.
>>Granted, this time, at least, there was a throw-away line that a small
>>number of people could be put back successfully, and rest would die.
>
>No, the rest had already been murdered. The souls were captured from dead
>people.
impression that their bodies all died after they were completely
downloaded, and those who were dead for too long could not be
restored. Or were they supposed to have been in a persistent
vegetative state?
>It's Doctor Who. They often have plots in which large numbers of
>people can't be saved.
when they 'die'.
David Johnston
Apr 1, 2013, 2:05:28 PM4/1/13
to
On 4/1/2013 11:49 AM, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>>> Granted, this time, at least, there was a throw-away line that a small
>>> number of people could be put back successfully, and rest would die.
>>
>> No, the rest had already been murdered. The souls were captured from dead
>> people.
>
> Seriously ... ? I must have missed that part. I was under the
> impression that their bodies all died after they were completely
> downloaded,
It's a definitional issue.
>>> Granted, this time, at least, there was a throw-away line that a small
>>> number of people could be put back successfully, and rest would die.
>>
>> No, the rest had already been murdered. The souls were captured from dead
>> people.
>
> Seriously ... ? I must have missed that part. I was under the
> impression that their bodies all died after they were completely
> downloaded,
The Doctor
Apr 1, 2013, 2:15:09 PM4/1/13
to
The Doctor
Apr 1, 2013, 2:17:03 PM4/1/13
to
In article <e8702e53-a394-46f2...@p12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
The Coca Cola Kid <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>My heart sank as soon as I saw Clara being un-downloaded. =A0I just knew
>>>that everyone in the world who went missing would end up being put back
>>>the way that they were by the end of the episode.
>>
>>Huh. The Doctor's companion is there to be put in jeopardy? Never seen
>>that done before.
>
>There is no feeling of jeopardy any more. That is the point. Unlike
>the 'classic' Doctor Who TV episodes, where the Doctor's companion
>could actually die, now the they 'die' almost every week, only to be
>resurrected, along with a huge chunk of the rest of the cast, at the
>flick of a magic macguffin. It has become a ridiculous parody of
>itself.
>
>>>Granted, this time, at least, there was a throw-away line that a small
>>>number of people could be put back successfully, and rest would die.
>>
>>No, the rest had already been murdered. The souls were captured from dead
>>people.
>
>Seriously ... ? I must have missed that part. I was under the
>impression that their bodies all died after they were completely
>downloaded, and those who were dead for too long could not be
>restored. Or were they supposed to have been in a persistent
>vegetative state?
>
>>It's Doctor Who. They often have plots in which large numbers of
>>people can't be saved.
>
>Not recently. Doctor Who is now a show where 'everybody lives', even
>when they 'die'.
Well Amy and Rory gets old.
>>>the way that they were by the end of the episode.
>>
>>Huh. The Doctor's companion is there to be put in jeopardy? Never seen
>>that done before.
>
>There is no feeling of jeopardy any more. That is the point. Unlike
>the 'classic' Doctor Who TV episodes, where the Doctor's companion
>could actually die, now the they 'die' almost every week, only to be
>resurrected, along with a huge chunk of the rest of the cast, at the
>flick of a magic macguffin. It has become a ridiculous parody of
>itself.
>
>>>Granted, this time, at least, there was a throw-away line that a small
>>>number of people could be put back successfully, and rest would die.
>>
>>No, the rest had already been murdered. The souls were captured from dead
>>people.
>
>Seriously ... ? I must have missed that part. I was under the
>impression that their bodies all died after they were completely
>downloaded, and those who were dead for too long could not be
>restored. Or were they supposed to have been in a persistent
>vegetative state?
>
>>It's Doctor Who. They often have plots in which large numbers of
>>people can't be saved.
>
>Not recently. Doctor Who is now a show where 'everybody lives', even
>when they 'die'.
Adam H. Kerman
Apr 1, 2013, 2:21:07 PM4/1/13
to
The Coca Cola Kid <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 1, 8:42 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>>>My heart sank as soon as I saw Clara being un-downloaded. I just knew
>>>that everyone in the world who went missing would end up being put back
>>>the way that they were by the end of the episode.
>>Huh. The Doctor's companion is there to be put in jeopardy? Never seen
>>that done before.
>There is no feeling of jeopardy any more. That is the point. Unlike
>the 'classic' Doctor Who TV episodes, where the Doctor's companion
>could actually die, now the they 'die' almost every week, only to be
>resurrected, along with a huge chunk of the rest of the cast, at the
>flick of a magic macguffin. It has become a ridiculous parody of
>itself.
I don't recall a lot of companions dying. Adric. Nyssa died, but was
>>The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>>>My heart sank as soon as I saw Clara being un-downloaded. I just knew
>>>that everyone in the world who went missing would end up being put back
>>>the way that they were by the end of the episode.
>>Huh. The Doctor's companion is there to be put in jeopardy? Never seen
>>that done before.
>There is no feeling of jeopardy any more. That is the point. Unlike
>the 'classic' Doctor Who TV episodes, where the Doctor's companion
>could actually die, now the they 'die' almost every week, only to be
>resurrected, along with a huge chunk of the rest of the cast, at the
>flick of a magic macguffin. It has become a ridiculous parody of
>itself.
replaced with a clone or android. Jo Grant. Remind me who else.
I do remember a companion being in jeopardy most weeks.
>>>Granted, this time, at least, there was a throw-away line that a small
>>>number of people could be put back successfully, and rest would die.
>>No, the rest had already been murdered. The souls were captured from dead
>>people.
>Seriously ... ? I must have missed that part. I was under the
>impression that their bodies all died after they were completely
>downloaded, and those who were dead for too long could not be
>restored. Or were they supposed to have been in a persistent
>vegetative state?
>>It's Doctor Who. They often have plots in which large numbers of
>>people can't be saved.
>Not recently. Doctor Who is now a show where 'everybody lives', even
>when they 'die'.
the original series.
The Coca Cola Kid
Apr 1, 2013, 8:40:49 PM4/1/13
to
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote in message news:kjcj6j$ktt$1...@news.albasani.net...
>I don't recall a lot of companions dying. Adric. Nyssa died, but was
>replaced with a clone or android. Jo Grant. Remind me who else.
In the classic series, there were Katarina, Sara Kingdom, Adric, Kamelion
(the android that you are probably thinking of), and Peri. Nyssa did not
die in the show, but it was implied that she might later develop cancer, as
a result of her radiation treatment, in her leaving story. Peri's death,
which occurred about half way through a season, was later reported to be a
hoax, at the end of the season. That was done because Doctor Who had
received a lot criticism for having too much violence and death, and the
producers were worried, since the show had just come off of an eighteen
month hiatus (from 1985 to 1986), that the show would be cancelled if they
did not do that. Still, it set a terrible precedent
>I do remember a companion being in jeopardy most weeks.
Yes, and that was because, most of the time, there was a sense that the
companion could be seriously injured, or even die, permanently. Apart from
the Time Lords, who could regenerate, most of the major characters did not
appear to 'die', only to miraculously un-die, like they do now, in the
show, almost regularly.
>You don't count uploading the soul as murder? Huh.
You do not consider murder to be something that is irreversible? Huh.
>>Not recently. Doctor Who is now a show where 'everybody lives', even
>>when they 'die'.
>
>What are you bitching about, then? Lots of people dying harkens back to
>the original series.
Dying does. Mass resurrections do not.
>I don't recall a lot of companions dying. Adric. Nyssa died, but was
>replaced with a clone or android. Jo Grant. Remind me who else.
(the android that you are probably thinking of), and Peri. Nyssa did not
die in the show, but it was implied that she might later develop cancer, as
a result of her radiation treatment, in her leaving story. Peri's death,
which occurred about half way through a season, was later reported to be a
hoax, at the end of the season. That was done because Doctor Who had
received a lot criticism for having too much violence and death, and the
producers were worried, since the show had just come off of an eighteen
month hiatus (from 1985 to 1986), that the show would be cancelled if they
did not do that. Still, it set a terrible precedent
>I do remember a companion being in jeopardy most weeks.
companion could be seriously injured, or even die, permanently. Apart from
the Time Lords, who could regenerate, most of the major characters did not
appear to 'die', only to miraculously un-die, like they do now, in the
show, almost regularly.
>You don't count uploading the soul as murder? Huh.
>>Not recently. Doctor Who is now a show where 'everybody lives', even
>>when they 'die'.
>
>What are you bitching about, then? Lots of people dying harkens back to
>the original series.
The Coca Cola Kid
Apr 1, 2013, 8:42:17 PM4/1/13
to
"The Doctor" wrote in message news:kjciuv$1pk$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>Well Amy and Rory gets old.
Adam H. Kerman
Apr 1, 2013, 9:01:21 PM4/1/13
to
The Coca Cola Kid <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote in message news:kjcj6j$ktt$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>I don't recall a lot of companions dying. Adric. Nyssa died, but was
>>replaced with a clone or android. Jo Grant. Remind me who else.
>In the classic series, there were Katarina, Sara Kingdom, Adric, Kamelion
>(the android that you are probably thinking of), and Peri. Nyssa did not
>die in the show, but it was implied that she might later develop cancer, as
>a result of her radiation treatment, in her leaving story. Peri's death,
>which occurred about half way through a season, was later reported to be a
>hoax, at the end of the season. That was done because Doctor Who had
>received a lot criticism for having too much violence and death, and the
>producers were worried, since the show had just come off of an eighteen
>month hiatus (from 1985 to 1986), that the show would be cancelled if they
>did not do that. Still, it set a terrible precedent
>>I do remember a companion being in jeopardy most weeks.
>Yes, and that was because, most of the time, there was a sense that the
>companion could be seriously injured, or even die, permanently. Apart from
>the Time Lords, who could regenerate, most of the major characters did not
>appear to 'die', only to miraculously un-die, like they do now, in the
>show, almost regularly.
>>You don't count uploading the soul as murder? Huh.
>You do not consider murder to be something that is irreversible? Huh.
It wasn't irreversible if done immediately, but the time frame wasn't
>>I don't recall a lot of companions dying. Adric. Nyssa died, but was
>>replaced with a clone or android. Jo Grant. Remind me who else.
>In the classic series, there were Katarina, Sara Kingdom, Adric, Kamelion
>(the android that you are probably thinking of), and Peri. Nyssa did not
>die in the show, but it was implied that she might later develop cancer, as
>a result of her radiation treatment, in her leaving story. Peri's death,
>which occurred about half way through a season, was later reported to be a
>hoax, at the end of the season. That was done because Doctor Who had
>received a lot criticism for having too much violence and death, and the
>producers were worried, since the show had just come off of an eighteen
>month hiatus (from 1985 to 1986), that the show would be cancelled if they
>did not do that. Still, it set a terrible precedent
>>I do remember a companion being in jeopardy most weeks.
>Yes, and that was because, most of the time, there was a sense that the
>companion could be seriously injured, or even die, permanently. Apart from
>the Time Lords, who could regenerate, most of the major characters did not
>appear to 'die', only to miraculously un-die, like they do now, in the
>show, almost regularly.
>>You don't count uploading the soul as murder? Huh.
>You do not consider murder to be something that is irreversible? Huh.
established. Yeah, dude. You missed something huge.
Also, the alien had eaten many of the souls by that point. You're telling
me that wasn't murder?
>>>Not recently. Doctor Who is now a show where 'everybody lives', even
>>>when they 'die'.
>>What are you bitching about, then? Lots of people dying harkens back to
>>the original series.
>Dying does. Mass resurrections do not.
last 90 minutes or so.
Ross
Apr 2, 2013, 7:32:51 AM4/2/13
to
On Apr 1, 9:01 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> The Coca Cola Kid <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Adam H. Kerman" wrote in messagenews:kjcj6j$ktt$1...@news.albasani.net...
That would explain why they explicitly say that only the tiny fraction
of people whose bodies hadn't died yet would survive.
Honestly seems pretty dark and well out-of-line with anything not
written by Eric Saward to just have the Doctor glibly decide by fiat
for all of those people that death is better for all of them than
continuing to live in the cloud (I don't know if I'd agree if it were
me personally in the cloud. Probably. But I know for DAMNED sure that
I wouldn't want some random alien unilaterally making the decision for
me). But I assume they're doing that damned "Without his pet humans,
the Doctor goes off the deep end and becomes dark and scary" yet again.
> The Coca Cola Kid <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Adam H. Kerman" wrote in messagenews:kjcj6j$ktt$1...@news.albasani.net...
of people whose bodies hadn't died yet would survive.
Honestly seems pretty dark and well out-of-line with anything not
written by Eric Saward to just have the Doctor glibly decide by fiat
for all of those people that death is better for all of them than
continuing to live in the cloud (I don't know if I'd agree if it were
me personally in the cloud. Probably. But I know for DAMNED sure that
I wouldn't want some random alien unilaterally making the decision for
me). But I assume they're doing that damned "Without his pet humans,
the Doctor goes off the deep end and becomes dark and scary" yet again.
Siri Cruise
Apr 2, 2013, 7:41:27 AM4/2/13
to
In article <069b5e6e-c4f4-48ca...@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
force. They can't be returned to life, so it is considerred a blessing to let
them die completely and move on to whatever that brings. This isn't the same as
River in the library, because that is a simulation of a dead woman. This about
trapped souls.
Ross <rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
> > I doubt there was a mass resurrection, just whoever had been taken in the
> > last 90 minutes or so.
>
> That would explain why they explicitly say that only the tiny fraction
> of people whose bodies hadn't died yet would survive.
>
> Honestly seems pretty dark and well out-of-line with anything not
> written by Eric Saward to just have the Doctor glibly decide by fiat
> for all of those people that death is better for all of them than
It's old idea of people trapped between life and death by a usually demonic
> > I doubt there was a mass resurrection, just whoever had been taken in the
> > last 90 minutes or so.
>
> That would explain why they explicitly say that only the tiny fraction
> of people whose bodies hadn't died yet would survive.
>
> Honestly seems pretty dark and well out-of-line with anything not
> written by Eric Saward to just have the Doctor glibly decide by fiat
> for all of those people that death is better for all of them than
force. They can't be returned to life, so it is considerred a blessing to let
them die completely and move on to whatever that brings. This isn't the same as
River in the library, because that is a simulation of a dead woman. This about
trapped souls.
Ross
Apr 2, 2013, 8:58:20 AM4/2/13
to
On Apr 2, 7:41 am, Siri Cruise <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <069b5e6e-c4f4-48ca-8904-4e310b5b5...@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
I know what it's about. But it's morally bankrupt to have the "hero"
just unilaterally make the decision for all those people that they're
better off dead, especially given that the only reason he did it was
to get Clara back.
> In article <069b5e6e-c4f4-48ca-8904-4e310b5b5...@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
just unilaterally make the decision for all those people that they're
better off dead, especially given that the only reason he did it was
to get Clara back.
Siri Cruise
Apr 2, 2013, 9:36:49 AM4/2/13
to
In article <f3e85180-b28c-4898...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
I see it similar to whether you should keep an apparently brain dead person on a
ventilator, feeding tube, et al, or carry a deformed baby to term, or whether
you should destroy a country's economy to overthrow a dictator, or a number of
situations where one person has to decide which way to screw others is best for
them. Since that wasn't the focus of this episode, they did include a quick line
that alludes to the moral complexity without exploring it.
--
Daddy said Mommy is full of taters. I asked what were those, and
he said dead aliens. I think he means William Shatner.
ventilator, feeding tube, et al, or carry a deformed baby to term, or whether
you should destroy a country's economy to overthrow a dictator, or a number of
situations where one person has to decide which way to screw others is best for
them. Since that wasn't the focus of this episode, they did include a quick line
that alludes to the moral complexity without exploring it.
--
Daddy said Mommy is full of taters. I asked what were those, and
he said dead aliens. I think he means William Shatner.
The Doctor
Apr 2, 2013, 9:48:43 AM4/2/13
to
The Doctor
Apr 2, 2013, 9:49:42 AM4/2/13
to
My reviews causes ra massive reply. I will keep up the good work.
Adam H. Kerman
Apr 2, 2013, 11:57:25 AM4/2/13
to
Ross <rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>On Apr 1, 9:01 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>The Coca Cola Kid <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 1, 9:01 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>The Coca Cola Kid <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>>>>Not recently. Doctor Who is now a show where 'everybody lives', even
>>>>>when they 'die'.
>>>>What are you bitching about, then? Lots of people dying harkens back to
>>>>the original series.
>>>Dying does. Mass resurrections do not.
>>I doubt there was a mass resurrection, just whoever had been taken in the
>>last 90 minutes or so.
>That would explain why they explicitly say that only the tiny fraction
>of people whose bodies hadn't died yet would survive.
>Honestly seems pretty dark and well out-of-line with anything not
>written by Eric Saward to just have the Doctor glibly decide by fiat
>for all of those people that death is better for all of them than
>continuing to live in the cloud (I don't know if I'd agree if it were
>me personally in the cloud. Probably. But I know for DAMNED sure that
>I wouldn't want some random alien unilaterally making the decision for
>me). But I assume they're doing that damned "Without his pet humans,
>the Doctor goes off the deep end and becomes dark and scary" yet again.
I think we both agree that the ones for whom there was no possibility of
>>>>>Not recently. Doctor Who is now a show where 'everybody lives', even
>>>>>when they 'die'.
>>>>What are you bitching about, then? Lots of people dying harkens back to
>>>>the original series.
>>>Dying does. Mass resurrections do not.
>>I doubt there was a mass resurrection, just whoever had been taken in the
>>last 90 minutes or so.
>That would explain why they explicitly say that only the tiny fraction
>of people whose bodies hadn't died yet would survive.
>Honestly seems pretty dark and well out-of-line with anything not
>written by Eric Saward to just have the Doctor glibly decide by fiat
>for all of those people that death is better for all of them than
>continuing to live in the cloud (I don't know if I'd agree if it were
>me personally in the cloud. Probably. But I know for DAMNED sure that
>I wouldn't want some random alien unilaterally making the decision for
>me). But I assume they're doing that damned "Without his pet humans,
>the Doctor goes off the deep end and becomes dark and scary" yet again.
resurrection were dead.
I have trouble accepting that whatever energy was trapped in the cloud
was alive, in order to reject The Doctor's solution. The cloud was, in
fact, the alien's larder. In no way could The Doctor leave them in place.
The script referred to "souls", so we were supposed to accept that this
was a horrid and unnatural afterlife for the ones who couldn't be
resurrected. By removing every soul from the larder, the viewer is to
assume that the souls moved into a natural afterlife condition, whatever
that was. I assume this is knowledge The Doctor lacks, what is supposed
to happen to the soul after death.
In previous series, it was too strongly suggested that The Doctor was
Jesus Christ. If I had a choice, I'd like my Doctor Who stories to be
free of religion, at least from the human perspective.
anim8rFSK
Apr 2, 2013, 1:15:54 PM4/2/13
to
In article <kjev55$89t$1...@news.albasani.net>,
alive. See the later HEECHEE books.
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Ross <rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 1, 9:01 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>The Coca Cola Kid <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>
> >>>>>Not recently. Doctor Who is now a show where 'everybody lives', even
> >>>>>when they 'die'.
>
> >>>>What are you bitching about, then? Lots of people dying harkens back to
> >>>>the original series.
>
> >>>Dying does. Mass resurrections do not.
>
> >>I doubt there was a mass resurrection, just whoever had been taken in the
> >>last 90 minutes or so.
>
> >That would explain why they explicitly say that only the tiny fraction
> >of people whose bodies hadn't died yet would survive.
>
> >Honestly seems pretty dark and well out-of-line with anything not
> >written by Eric Saward to just have the Doctor glibly decide by fiat
> >for all of those people that death is better for all of them than
> >continuing to live in the cloud (I don't know if I'd agree if it were
> >me personally in the cloud. Probably. But I know for DAMNED sure that
> >I wouldn't want some random alien unilaterally making the decision for
> >me). But I assume they're doing that damned "Without his pet humans,
> >the Doctor goes off the deep end and becomes dark and scary" yet again.
>
> I think we both agree that the ones for whom there was no possibility of
> resurrection were dead.
I don't. Their physical bodies may be dead, but their minds were still
> Ross <rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 1, 9:01 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>The Coca Cola Kid <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>
> >>>>>Not recently. Doctor Who is now a show where 'everybody lives', even
> >>>>>when they 'die'.
>
> >>>>What are you bitching about, then? Lots of people dying harkens back to
> >>>>the original series.
>
> >>>Dying does. Mass resurrections do not.
>
> >>I doubt there was a mass resurrection, just whoever had been taken in the
> >>last 90 minutes or so.
>
> >That would explain why they explicitly say that only the tiny fraction
> >of people whose bodies hadn't died yet would survive.
>
> >Honestly seems pretty dark and well out-of-line with anything not
> >written by Eric Saward to just have the Doctor glibly decide by fiat
> >for all of those people that death is better for all of them than
> >continuing to live in the cloud (I don't know if I'd agree if it were
> >me personally in the cloud. Probably. But I know for DAMNED sure that
> >I wouldn't want some random alien unilaterally making the decision for
> >me). But I assume they're doing that damned "Without his pet humans,
> >the Doctor goes off the deep end and becomes dark and scary" yet again.
>
> I think we both agree that the ones for whom there was no possibility of
> resurrection were dead.
alive. See the later HEECHEE books.
>
> I have trouble accepting that whatever energy was trapped in the cloud
> was alive, in order to reject The Doctor's solution. The cloud was, in
> fact, the alien's larder. In no way could The Doctor leave them in place.
No, but maybe they could go someplace else.
> I have trouble accepting that whatever energy was trapped in the cloud
> was alive, in order to reject The Doctor's solution. The cloud was, in
> fact, the alien's larder. In no way could The Doctor leave them in place.
>
> The script referred to "souls", so we were supposed to accept that this
> was a horrid and unnatural afterlife for the ones who couldn't be
> resurrected. By removing every soul from the larder, the viewer is to
> assume that the souls moved into a natural afterlife condition, whatever
> that was. I assume this is knowledge The Doctor lacks, what is supposed
> to happen to the soul after death.
I just accepted 'soul' as an ignorant misuse of the term.
> The script referred to "souls", so we were supposed to accept that this
> was a horrid and unnatural afterlife for the ones who couldn't be
> resurrected. By removing every soul from the larder, the viewer is to
> assume that the souls moved into a natural afterlife condition, whatever
> that was. I assume this is knowledge The Doctor lacks, what is supposed
> to happen to the soul after death.
>
> In previous series, it was too strongly suggested that The Doctor was
> Jesus Christ. If I had a choice, I'd like my Doctor Who stories to be
> free of religion, at least from the human perspective.
> In previous series, it was too strongly suggested that The Doctor was
> Jesus Christ. If I had a choice, I'd like my Doctor Who stories to be
> free of religion, at least from the human perspective.
Adam H. Kerman
Apr 2, 2013, 1:35:01 PM4/2/13
to
were resurrected.
>>The script referred to "souls", so we were supposed to accept that this
>>was a horrid and unnatural afterlife for the ones who couldn't be
>>resurrected. By removing every soul from the larder, the viewer is to
>>assume that the souls moved into a natural afterlife condition, whatever
>>that was. I assume this is knowledge The Doctor lacks, what is supposed
>>to happen to the soul after death.
>I just accepted 'soul' as an ignorant misuse of the term.
Ross
Apr 2, 2013, 2:34:31 PM4/2/13
to
On Apr 2, 9:36 am, Siri Cruise <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <f3e85180-b28c-4898-b334-211b07c9e...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Except you can't walk up to the wall of screens and ASK an apparently
brain-dead person how they feel about it.
If the Doctor had sent his robot avatar into the next room and had him
say to the wall, "I'm sorry, I can't save you; you're all dead. But I
can end your imprisonment by shutting all this down," and they all
said that was good enough, then there's no problem. But they didn't do
that; they just had the Doctor make the decision for them.
> In article <f3e85180-b28c-4898-b334-211b07c9e...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
brain-dead person how they feel about it.
If the Doctor had sent his robot avatar into the next room and had him
say to the wall, "I'm sorry, I can't save you; you're all dead. But I
can end your imprisonment by shutting all this down," and they all
said that was good enough, then there's no problem. But they didn't do
that; they just had the Doctor make the decision for them.
Dano
Apr 2, 2013, 2:40:36 PM4/2/13
to
"Ross" wrote in message
news:f835be2c-9b02-4b57...@r6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
===========================================
It's only a friggin' hour long show...with YOU writing it, it would never
end. And you would bore everyone to tears.
news:f835be2c-9b02-4b57...@r6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
It's only a friggin' hour long show...with YOU writing it, it would never
end. And you would bore everyone to tears.
anim8rFSK
Apr 2, 2013, 4:25:58 PM4/2/13
to
In article <kjf4s5$n5n$2...@news.albasani.net>,
In the Heechee books 'dead' people just live blissfully ever after in
cyberspace.
cyberspace.
The Doctor
Apr 2, 2013, 4:39:55 PM4/2/13
to
The Coca Cola Kid
Apr 2, 2013, 7:42:48 PM4/2/13
to
"Ross" wrote in message
news:f3e85180-b28c-4898...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>I know what it's about. But it's morally bankrupt to have the "hero"
>just unilaterally make the decision for all those people that they're
>better off dead, especially given that the only reason he did it was
>to get Clara back.
He acted similarly, when he decided to kill all of the people that were
>just unilaterally make the decision for all those people that they're
>better off dead, especially given that the only reason he did it was
>to get Clara back.
converted into Cybermen, and also some that were not, including Martha
Jones' cousin, in series two of the revival. Since the beginning, of the
original series, Doctor Who has always been ambivalent, about whether the
lead character is a hero, or an anti-hero.
Keith Cunningham
Apr 3, 2013, 6:19:28 AM4/3/13
to
"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:kj86g9$5fr$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>I rat eit 9.6/10 .
>
> Moffat know how to twist a plot.
>
Yes. I was reminded of the Idiots Lantern episode.
KC
The Doctor
Apr 3, 2013, 8:27:06 AM4/3/13
to
The Coca Cola Kid
Apr 3, 2013, 9:06:12 AM4/3/13
to
On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 7:27:06 AM UTC-5, The Doctor wrote:
> Keith Cunningham wrote:
>
>>Yes. I was reminded of the Idiots Lantern episode.
>
'The Empty Child', 'The Girl in the Fireplace' and 'Blink', which were
great, and 'Silence in the Library', which was good, but noticeably
derivative of his earlier work.
> Keith Cunningham wrote:
>
>>Yes. I was reminded of the Idiots Lantern episode.
>
>That's Moffat for you during RTD's reign.
That was Mark Gatiss, who wrote 'The Idiot's Lantern'. Moffat wrote
'The Empty Child', 'The Girl in the Fireplace' and 'Blink', which were
great, and 'Silence in the Library', which was good, but noticeably
derivative of his earlier work.
The Doctor
Apr 3, 2013, 12:36:35 PM4/3/13
to
In article <49ea1423-22bd-44db...@g4g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
I satnd corrected.
The Coca Cola Kid <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jim G.
Apr 4, 2013, 7:16:44 PM4/4/13
to
anim8rFSK sent the following on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 23:21:04 -0700:
> In article <kj7il8lkuuju3cp48...@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 00:34:21 -0500, "The Coca Cola Kid"
> > <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Great concepts, flaccid execution. Right now, I am not exactly sure which
> > >show I am watching, since it feels like a mish-mash of Friends, Willy Wonka,
> > >and stock hack-written dramedy. I am starting to see why some people think
> > >that Matt Smith may be worried about getting typecast by playing the lead
> > >role in Doctor Who. My heart sank as soon as I saw Clara being
> > >about by the ending. Or maybe I may have even imagined it. The fact that
> > >there is no longer a threat in the wi-fi after everything is tidily taken
> > >care of also makes the whole plot and its themes feel extremely
> > >inconsequential, and lightweight. This feels like Doctor Who on auto-pilot.
> > >Hopefully next week's will offer more substance, despite the terrible
> > >lighting in the preview.
> >
> > No, the line was definitely there. Not really a surprise since
> > accidents happen over time and given that the lady in charge had been
> > under the Great Intelligence's control since she was a child it is
> > obvious that this had been going on for decades. Which makes you
> > wonder what did it do before there was Wi-Fi and why didn't the Doctor
> > pick up on this at some point in the past? I guess these are the sorts
> > of questions we aren't supposed to ask.
>
> Well, the assistant did complain that they were taking people too fast
> and going to get caught.
I guess you can get away with just so many people in the prime of life
suddenly going comatose before some pesky family members start to
complain and some annoying doctors start to ask questions.
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER
> In article <kj7il8lkuuju3cp48...@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 00:34:21 -0500, "The Coca Cola Kid"
> > <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Great concepts, flaccid execution. Right now, I am not exactly sure which
> > >show I am watching, since it feels like a mish-mash of Friends, Willy Wonka,
> > >and stock hack-written dramedy. I am starting to see why some people think
> > >that Matt Smith may be worried about getting typecast by playing the lead
> > >role in Doctor Who. My heart sank as soon as I saw Clara being
> > >un-downloaded. I just knew that everyone in the world who went missing
> > >would end up being put back the way that they were by the end of the
> > >episode. Granted, this time, at least, there was a throw-away line that a
> > >would end up being put back the way that they were by the end of the
> > >small number of people could be put back successfully, and rest would die.
> > >Although that was a blink and you will miss it explanation, easily forgotten
> > >about by the ending. Or maybe I may have even imagined it. The fact that
> > >there is no longer a threat in the wi-fi after everything is tidily taken
> > >care of also makes the whole plot and its themes feel extremely
> > >inconsequential, and lightweight. This feels like Doctor Who on auto-pilot.
> > >Hopefully next week's will offer more substance, despite the terrible
> > >lighting in the preview.
> >
> > No, the line was definitely there. Not really a surprise since
> > accidents happen over time and given that the lady in charge had been
> > under the Great Intelligence's control since she was a child it is
> > obvious that this had been going on for decades. Which makes you
> > wonder what did it do before there was Wi-Fi and why didn't the Doctor
> > pick up on this at some point in the past? I guess these are the sorts
> > of questions we aren't supposed to ask.
>
> Well, the assistant did complain that they were taking people too fast
> and going to get caught.
I guess you can get away with just so many people in the prime of life
suddenly going comatose before some pesky family members start to
complain and some annoying doctors start to ask questions.
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER
Jim G.
Apr 4, 2013, 7:16:44 PM4/4/13
to
The Doctor sent the following on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 02:19:53 +0000 (UTC):
> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
Steve Jobs. You don't think that he *really* died of cancer, do you?
> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
Steve Jobs. You don't think that he *really* died of cancer, do you?
The Doctor
Apr 4, 2013, 10:27:02 PM4/4/13
to
In article <2hcrl81uv83htpobb...@4ax.com>,
Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>The Doctor sent the following on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 02:19:53 +0000 (UTC):
>> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
>> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
>
>Steve Jobs. You don't think that he *really* died of cancer, do you?
>
Steve Jobs was intelligent but not a Great Intelligence.
>The Doctor sent the following on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 02:19:53 +0000 (UTC):
>> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
>> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
>
>Steve Jobs. You don't think that he *really* died of cancer, do you?
>
The Coca Cola Kid
Apr 4, 2013, 10:40:05 PM4/4/13
to
"anim8rFSK" wrote in message
news:anim8rfsk-78D51...@news.easynews.com...
>In the Heechee books 'dead' people just live blissfully ever after in
>cyberspace.
That is kind of how Moffat's 'Silence in the Library' / 'Forest of the Dead'
story ended, for the characters who could not be restored. Of course, the
virtual reality in the Library seemed to be designed specifically for that
purpose.
news:anim8rfsk-78D51...@news.easynews.com...
>In the Heechee books 'dead' people just live blissfully ever after in
>cyberspace.
story ended, for the characters who could not be restored. Of course, the
virtual reality in the Library seemed to be designed specifically for that
purpose.
The Coca Cola Kid
Apr 4, 2013, 10:57:41 PM4/4/13
to
"Dano" wrote in message news:kjf8io$8f7$1...@dont-email.me...
>It's only a friggin' hour long show...with YOU writing it, it would never
>end. And you would bore everyone to tears.
It is actually only a friggin' forty-five minute long show ... but it is it
really too much to ask that they actually explore some of the moral
complexities, rather than just vaguely alluding to them, fleetingly? If it
is too much to ask to have them do this on the televised episodes, then I
wish that they would make novelisations/tie-ins that expand upon the
televised episodes, like some, (but clearly not all), of the novelisations
of the original/classic series did.
>It's only a friggin' hour long show...with YOU writing it, it would never
>end. And you would bore everyone to tears.
really too much to ask that they actually explore some of the moral
complexities, rather than just vaguely alluding to them, fleetingly? If it
is too much to ask to have them do this on the televised episodes, then I
wish that they would make novelisations/tie-ins that expand upon the
televised episodes, like some, (but clearly not all), of the novelisations
of the original/classic series did.
The Coca Cola Kid
Apr 4, 2013, 11:00:09 PM4/4/13
to
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote in message news:kjev55$89t$1...@news.albasani.net...
>In previous series, it was too strongly suggested that The Doctor was
>Jesus Christ. If I had a choice, I'd like my Doctor Who stories to be
>free of religion, at least from the human perspective.
you are talking about 'Last of the Time Lords'.)
Adam H. Kerman
Apr 4, 2013, 11:41:26 PM4/4/13
to
>>In previous series, it was too strongly suggested that The Doctor was
>>Jesus Christ. If I had a choice, I'd like my Doctor Who stories to be
>>free of religion, at least from the human perspective.
>As I recall, that episode was written by a devout atheist. (Assuming that
>you are talking about 'Last of the Time Lords'.)
There was more than one. One I hated was during the Rose period, but I don't
>>Jesus Christ. If I had a choice, I'd like my Doctor Who stories to be
>>free of religion, at least from the human perspective.
>As I recall, that episode was written by a devout atheist. (Assuming that
>you are talking about 'Last of the Time Lords'.)
recall the name.
The Doctor
Apr 5, 2013, 9:52:51 AM4/5/13
to
In article <kjldi8$385$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
They all died physically.
The Coca Cola Kid <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
The Doctor
Apr 5, 2013, 9:53:33 AM4/5/13
to
In article <kjlej7$59u$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
This of thos as multiple Sontaran Experiments.
The Coca Cola Kid <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
anim8rFSK
Apr 5, 2013, 11:39:44 AM4/5/13
to
In article <kjmkvj$40q$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> In article <kjldi8$385$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> The Coca Cola Kid <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >"anim8rFSK" wrote in message
> >news:anim8rfsk-78D51...@news.easynews.com...
> >
> >>In the Heechee books 'dead' people just live blissfully ever after in
> >>cyberspace.
> >
> >That is kind of how Moffat's 'Silence in the Library' / 'Forest of the Dead'
> >story ended, for the characters who could not be restored. Of course, the
> >virtual reality in the Library seemed to be designed specifically for that
> >purpose.
> >
>
> They all died physically.
Not 'all' but 'a lot'
> In article <kjldi8$385$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> The Coca Cola Kid <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >"anim8rFSK" wrote in message
> >news:anim8rfsk-78D51...@news.easynews.com...
> >
> >>In the Heechee books 'dead' people just live blissfully ever after in
> >>cyberspace.
> >
> >That is kind of how Moffat's 'Silence in the Library' / 'Forest of the Dead'
> >story ended, for the characters who could not be restored. Of course, the
> >virtual reality in the Library seemed to be designed specifically for that
> >purpose.
> >
>
> They all died physically.
The Doctor
Apr 5, 2013, 4:27:26 PM4/5/13
to
solar penguin
Apr 5, 2013, 5:09:04 PM4/5/13
to
On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 20:27:26 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <anim8rfsk-A904E...@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
>
> Their spirits are preserved.
aren't preserved?
The Doctor
Apr 5, 2013, 6:16:06 PM4/5/13
to
Jim G.
Apr 8, 2013, 3:45:16 PM4/8/13
to
The Doctor sent the following on Fri, 5 Apr 2013 02:27:02 +0000 (UTC):
> In article <2hcrl81uv83htpobb...@4ax.com>,
> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >The Doctor sent the following on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 02:19:53 +0000 (UTC):
> >> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
> >> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
> >
> >Steve Jobs. You don't think that he *really* died of cancer, do you?
> >
>
> Steve Jobs was intelligent but not a Great Intelligence.
Clearly you need to be drinking more colored water with sugar in it.
> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >The Doctor sent the following on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 02:19:53 +0000 (UTC):
> >> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
> >> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
> >
> >Steve Jobs. You don't think that he *really* died of cancer, do you?
> >
>
> Steve Jobs was intelligent but not a Great Intelligence.
The Doctor
Apr 8, 2013, 6:15:34 PM4/8/13
to
In article <b326m8lqvos3valsv...@4ax.com>,
Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>The Doctor sent the following on Fri, 5 Apr 2013 02:27:02 +0000 (UTC):
>> In article <2hcrl81uv83htpobb...@4ax.com>,
>> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >The Doctor sent the following on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 02:19:53 +0000 (UTC):
>> >> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
>> >> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
>> >
>> >Steve Jobs. You don't think that he *really* died of cancer, do you?
>> >
>>
>> Steve Jobs was intelligent but not a Great Intelligence.
>
>Clearly you need to be drinking more colored water with sugar in it.
>
>--
>Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
>"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER
Try again. Jobs is good, Great Intelligence is evil.
>The Doctor sent the following on Fri, 5 Apr 2013 02:27:02 +0000 (UTC):
>> In article <2hcrl81uv83htpobb...@4ax.com>,
>> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >The Doctor sent the following on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 02:19:53 +0000 (UTC):
>> >> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
>> >> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
>> >
>> >Steve Jobs. You don't think that he *really* died of cancer, do you?
>> >
>>
>> Steve Jobs was intelligent but not a Great Intelligence.
>
>Clearly you need to be drinking more colored water with sugar in it.
>
>--
>Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
>"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER
Jim G.
Apr 9, 2013, 4:10:26 PM4/9/13
to
The Doctor sent the following on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 22:15:34 +0000 (UTC):
> Great Intelligence is evil.
Not necessarily.
> In article <b326m8lqvos3valsv...@4ax.com>,
> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >The Doctor sent the following on Fri, 5 Apr 2013 02:27:02 +0000 (UTC):
> >> In article <2hcrl81uv83htpobb...@4ax.com>,
> >> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >The Doctor sent the following on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 02:19:53 +0000 (UTC):
> >> >> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
> >> >> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
> >> >
> >> >Steve Jobs. You don't think that he *really* died of cancer, do you?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Steve Jobs was intelligent but not a Great Intelligence.
> >
> >Clearly you need to be drinking more colored water with sugar in it.
>
> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >The Doctor sent the following on Fri, 5 Apr 2013 02:27:02 +0000 (UTC):
> >> In article <2hcrl81uv83htpobb...@4ax.com>,
> >> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >The Doctor sent the following on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 02:19:53 +0000 (UTC):
> >> >> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
> >> >> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
> >> >
> >> >Steve Jobs. You don't think that he *really* died of cancer, do you?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Steve Jobs was intelligent but not a Great Intelligence.
> >
> >Clearly you need to be drinking more colored water with sugar in it.
>
> Try again. Jobs is good,
Is? And not everyone would agree with the "good" part, either.
> Great Intelligence is evil.
Not necessarily.
The Doctor
Apr 9, 2013, 5:43:52 PM4/9/13
to
In article <fdf8m892du2dr90e4...@4ax.com>,
>
>> Great Intelligence is evil.
>
>Not necessarily.
>
REmember the Yeti.
>--
>Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
>"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER
Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>The Doctor sent the following on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 22:15:34 +0000 (UTC):
>> In article <b326m8lqvos3valsv...@4ax.com>,
>> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >The Doctor sent the following on Fri, 5 Apr 2013 02:27:02 +0000 (UTC):
>> >> In article <2hcrl81uv83htpobb...@4ax.com>,
>> >> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >The Doctor sent the following on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 02:19:53 +0000 (UTC):
>> >> >> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
>> >> >> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
>> >> >
>> >> >Steve Jobs. You don't think that he *really* died of cancer, do you?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Steve Jobs was intelligent but not a Great Intelligence.
>> >
>> >Clearly you need to be drinking more colored water with sugar in it.
>>
>> Try again. Jobs is good,
>
>Is? And not everyone would agree with the "good" part, either.
Gates and M$ took computing 20 years backwards.
>The Doctor sent the following on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 22:15:34 +0000 (UTC):
>> In article <b326m8lqvos3valsv...@4ax.com>,
>> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >The Doctor sent the following on Fri, 5 Apr 2013 02:27:02 +0000 (UTC):
>> >> In article <2hcrl81uv83htpobb...@4ax.com>,
>> >> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >The Doctor sent the following on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 02:19:53 +0000 (UTC):
>> >> >> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
>> >> >> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
>> >> >
>> >> >Steve Jobs. You don't think that he *really* died of cancer, do you?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Steve Jobs was intelligent but not a Great Intelligence.
>> >
>> >Clearly you need to be drinking more colored water with sugar in it.
>>
>> Try again. Jobs is good,
>
>Is? And not everyone would agree with the "good" part, either.
>
>> Great Intelligence is evil.
>
>Not necessarily.
>
>--
>Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
>"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER
Jim G.
Apr 10, 2013, 3:44:47 PM4/10/13
to
The Doctor sent the following on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 21:43:52 +0000 (UTC):
Cupertino is good. Cupertino is wise. Cupertino cares for us. Cupertino
wants us to be happy. And all Cupertino asks for in return is as much of
our money as we can afford to offer at the altar of Cupertino.
> >> Great Intelligence is evil.
> >
> >Not necessarily.
> >
>
> REmember the Yeti.
Remember absolutes.
> In article <fdf8m892du2dr90e4...@4ax.com>,
> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >The Doctor sent the following on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 22:15:34 +0000 (UTC):
> >> In article <b326m8lqvos3valsv...@4ax.com>,
> >> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >The Doctor sent the following on Fri, 5 Apr 2013 02:27:02 +0000 (UTC):
> >> >> In article <2hcrl81uv83htpobb...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >The Doctor sent the following on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 02:19:53 +0000 (UTC):
> >> >> >> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
> >> >> >> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Steve Jobs. You don't think that he *really* died of cancer, do you?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Steve Jobs was intelligent but not a Great Intelligence.
> >> >
> >> >Clearly you need to be drinking more colored water with sugar in it.
> >>
> >> Try again. Jobs is good,
> >
> >Is? And not everyone would agree with the "good" part, either.
>
> Gates and M$ took computing 20 years backwards.
Of course they did. We must all believe what Cupertino tells us.
> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >The Doctor sent the following on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 22:15:34 +0000 (UTC):
> >> In article <b326m8lqvos3valsv...@4ax.com>,
> >> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >The Doctor sent the following on Fri, 5 Apr 2013 02:27:02 +0000 (UTC):
> >> >> In article <2hcrl81uv83htpobb...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >The Doctor sent the following on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 02:19:53 +0000 (UTC):
> >> >> >> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
> >> >> >> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Steve Jobs. You don't think that he *really* died of cancer, do you?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Steve Jobs was intelligent but not a Great Intelligence.
> >> >
> >> >Clearly you need to be drinking more colored water with sugar in it.
> >>
> >> Try again. Jobs is good,
> >
> >Is? And not everyone would agree with the "good" part, either.
>
> Gates and M$ took computing 20 years backwards.
Cupertino is good. Cupertino is wise. Cupertino cares for us. Cupertino
wants us to be happy. And all Cupertino asks for in return is as much of
our money as we can afford to offer at the altar of Cupertino.
> >> Great Intelligence is evil.
> >
> >Not necessarily.
> >
>
> REmember the Yeti.
The Doctor
Apr 10, 2013, 4:04:10 PM4/10/13
to
In article <uv8bm8lp0h98c8rsr...@4ax.com>,
>> >> Great Intelligence is evil.
>> >
>> >Not necessarily.
>> >
>>
>> REmember the Yeti.
>
>Remember absolutes.
REcall Yeti and the Web of fear.
>
>--
>Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
>"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER
Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>The Doctor sent the following on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 21:43:52 +0000 (UTC):
>> In article <fdf8m892du2dr90e4...@4ax.com>,
>> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >The Doctor sent the following on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 22:15:34 +0000 (UTC):
>> >> In article <b326m8lqvos3valsv...@4ax.com>,
>> >> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >The Doctor sent the following on Fri, 5 Apr 2013 02:27:02 +0000 (UTC):
>> >> >> In article <2hcrl81uv83htpobb...@4ax.com>,
>> >> >> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >The Doctor sent the following on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 02:19:53 +0000 (UTC):
>> >> >> >> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
>> >> >> >> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Steve Jobs. You don't think that he *really* died of cancer, do you?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Steve Jobs was intelligent but not a Great Intelligence.
>> >> >
>> >> >Clearly you need to be drinking more colored water with sugar in it.
>> >>
>> >> Try again. Jobs is good,
>> >
>> >Is? And not everyone would agree with the "good" part, either.
>>
>> Gates and M$ took computing 20 years backwards.
>
>Of course they did. We must all believe what Cupertino tells us.
>Cupertino is good. Cupertino is wise. Cupertino cares for us. Cupertino
>wants us to be happy. And all Cupertino asks for in return is as much of
>our money as we can afford to offer at the altar of Cupertino.
>
Nelli is a Pink Elephant.
>The Doctor sent the following on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 21:43:52 +0000 (UTC):
>> In article <fdf8m892du2dr90e4...@4ax.com>,
>> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >The Doctor sent the following on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 22:15:34 +0000 (UTC):
>> >> In article <b326m8lqvos3valsv...@4ax.com>,
>> >> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >The Doctor sent the following on Fri, 5 Apr 2013 02:27:02 +0000 (UTC):
>> >> >> In article <2hcrl81uv83htpobb...@4ax.com>,
>> >> >> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >The Doctor sent the following on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 02:19:53 +0000 (UTC):
>> >> >> >> All right, the plot is to capture Clara Oswald's soul in the
>> >> >> >> Cloud. But who is controlling the Cloud?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Steve Jobs. You don't think that he *really* died of cancer, do you?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Steve Jobs was intelligent but not a Great Intelligence.
>> >> >
>> >> >Clearly you need to be drinking more colored water with sugar in it.
>> >>
>> >> Try again. Jobs is good,
>> >
>> >Is? And not everyone would agree with the "good" part, either.
>>
>> Gates and M$ took computing 20 years backwards.
>
>Of course they did. We must all believe what Cupertino tells us.
>Cupertino is good. Cupertino is wise. Cupertino cares for us. Cupertino
>wants us to be happy. And all Cupertino asks for in return is as much of
>our money as we can afford to offer at the altar of Cupertino.
>
>> >> Great Intelligence is evil.
>> >
>> >Not necessarily.
>> >
>>
>> REmember the Yeti.
>
>Remember absolutes.
>
>--
>Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
>"Relax. It's North Korea, the nation-state equivalent of the short bus." -- Sterling Archer, ARCHER
Merrick Baldelli
Apr 10, 2013, 4:16:26 PM4/10/13
to
On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 15:10:26 -0500, Jim G.
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Great Intelligence is evil.
>
>Not necessarily.
I find it bitterly sardonic that you're attempting to have an
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Great Intelligence is evil.
>
>Not necessarily.
intelligent conversation with Yads. Particularly given the man hasn't
shown a glimmer of intelligence in years.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ Who are these folks and why have they
/ / stopped taking their medication?
- Captain Infinity
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages