On 21/10/2023 16:33, The Last Doctor wrote:
> ámyalos <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>> On 20/10/2023 02:58, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>> ámyalos <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>>> On 16/10/2023 20:56, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>>> Agadeluded <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> continued to hallucinate:
>
> [Re: catalogue list of Doctor Who Universe content to be added to iPlayer]
>
>>> I concede that it’s possible that it would be ambiguous to someone without
>>> a firm command of grammar and the English language. But only you seem to
>>> have suffered from this “ambiguity” - everyone else knew what was intended.
>>
>> You have not proof that everyone else interpreted it your way or will
>> interpret it you way
>
> That’s true, which is why I used the word “seem”. In English this usually
> means that I am working on the basis of available evidence and am not
> assuming the absolute rectitude of my conclusions. You should try using
> such constructions sometimes instead of giving the absurd impression that
> you believe you and only you have Truth on your side. This is almost
> invariably not the case.
>

On the contrary, over 90% of what I say turns out to be 100% correct
compared to your 10%.

> I only have evidence that the only person who has interpreted it your way
> is you. It’s always possible that if by some miracle another thousand

That is enough evidence to show that it was ambiguous.

> people read this, as opposed to the dozen or so who actually have, then a
> second person might take it the way you were determined to.
>
>> and you have conceded that it was ambiguous as I said.
>
> To someone without a firm grasp of grammar and the English, yes. Do try to

You are adding false caveats after the fact. Ambiguity is an absolute,
and it is most obvious to people who have the firmest grasp of grammar
as they can see it a mile away.

I've had to correct so-called maths teachers on YouTube who wrote
ambiguous test questions whose clauses explicitly contradicted
themselves and the premise of the entire question and others agreed with
me and said it was ambiguous questions like those that prevented them
from getting higher grades.

> learn to read sentences before trying to take conclusions out of context.
>

Learn to write unambiguous sentences. The only way you can figure those
kind of sentences or maths questions out is if you have external
information, and if you need external information it always implies bad
writing and sentence construction, not bad reading.

>>> Stop trying to tell me what I was saying when what you mean is your unique
>>> interpretation of what I was saying, please.
>>
>> You conceded that it was ambiguous so I am entitled to interpret it any
>> way I want within that ambiguity.
>
> Absolutely. As I said, it was ambiguous to people without a grasp of
> English grammar and usage so I agree that you’re welcome to believe it so.
>

It was ambiguous to EVERYONE with a full grasp of English grammar and
usage. Only those with a limited grasp would have interpreted it your
way, which demonstrates that you are the one with the limited grasp of
these things just like the self proclaimed maths teacher I and others
had to correct on YouTube because we had the higher grasp of mathematics.

> [Re: An Unearthly Cild being withheld from the iPlayer catalogue]
>
>>> They didn’t know that would be the case till a few days ago. That only
>>> kicked off cos Stef Coburn is a money grabbing jerk. He already had a suit
>>> to own the copyright to TARDIS kicked out in 2013. This time the impetus
>>> (apart from another landmark anniversary) seems to be that he loathes the
>>> idea of a black man as the Doctor.
>>>
>>
>> How do you know it's not because he's gay? We've already had a black
>> woman, so why isn't he complaining about that,
>
> He is complaining about every aspect of Doctor Who. He’s very much a fellow
> traveller of yours in this regard.
>

He wouldn't need to be complaining if the show wasn't written and
produced by woke bigots writing self serving agenda base fan fiction.

>> except for the fact that
>> the entire Chibnall era is not canon.
>
> Your stupid lies are not worthy of response.
>

I do not lie.

>>>> Maybe the Director Waris Hussein wants royalties too for his part in the
>>>> writing.
>>>
>>> Nope. Hussein went on record to point out that he never even met Coburn.
>>>
>>
>> He still inserted stuff including various caveman grunts while he was
>> filming it.
>
> Who did? Hussein? Well, he was the director. He never asked for a writing
> credit though.

Maybe he's asking for one now.

>
>>
>>>>>> ITVX wants you to pay to watch all of them. They've got to be joking.
>>>>>
>>>>> To be fair, ITVX wants you to pay for their premium service which includes
>>>>> fewer ads (not none though) and all the BritBox content. For most people,
>>>>
>>>> Oh, so they want you to pay for ads too. They can fuck themselves if
>>>> they think I'm paying to watch commercials for tampons and other women's
>>>> products.
>
> Some of ITV’s contractual arrangements and sponsorships require them to
> carry those ads. All the regular advertising is removed.
>

I am not paying to watch adverts. They can stuff themselves if they
think I will.

> For most streamers an ad-supported lower priced tier is becoming the norm.

The point of streaming is so that you don't have to watch adverts and
you can watch it at a time convenient to you without it being broken up.
It is not convenient to be forced to watch half an hour of mind numbing
commercials advertising products to dumb women who are stupid enough to
want to spend their money on something they do not need.

> Now that Netflix and Disney have both gone down this path, most othered
> will follow.

If they try that they will lose my subscription. I will opt for the free
shipping only option.

>
But in this case, ITVX’s remaining advertising is that which
> it is legally obligated to carry.
>

Hum? Legally obliged to carry adverts it doesn't need? They can fuck
themselves.

>
>>> Oh poor you. Sadly they don’t advertise wank toys for incels, so you
>>> clearly can’t be targeted with the products you want.
>>
>> I don't need any wank toys.
>
> Got plenty, eh?

I don't have any. Maybe you do. I didn't even know they even existed
until you told me.

>
>> Maybe you do.
>
> No, been happily married for over 30 years, so not part of my needs.
>

Oh, so you need to defend being married... What does that imply?

>> What I currently need is an
>> RTX 4090. Why can't they advertise one of those at 1/3 of the rip off
>> price they are currently being sold at?
>
> Because bleeding edge technology is always sold at a premium to cover a
> higher proportion of the R&D costs. If you can’t afford to live at the high

The RTX 4090 is NOT bleeding edge technology. DLSS 3 is bullshit
software cheats used by cheap home computers and gaming consoles in the
1980s to up the frame rate without rending genuine frames, because top
of the line graphics cards should be expected to be 4 times faster than
the RTX 4090 is right now, and not cost 8 times the price of my current
graphics card for only 4 times the FPS.

NVIDA and AMD are ripping off their customers. They're both incapable of
increasing their FPS without increasing the power draw by the same
amount, which is cheating. The same goes for CPUs. All they're going now
is adding more cores and increasing the power consumption by the same
proportion. And to end gaming motherboards are an out right rip-off. I
might as well have built as many PCs years ago to get the same speed.

> end, learn to live at the lower level. It’s pointless moaning about the
> price of a new Tesla when your income will only cope with a second hand
> Nissan Leaf.

Even if I was a billionaire I would not pay £2000 fucking quid for a
graphics card that can't even do 4K at 120 fps with ray tracing enabled
even by cheating using DLSS 3, when my currant card which cost about
£280 eight years ago is perfectly capable of gaming at 2K at 60 fps.
There will be no upgrade until the 120 fps at 4K with ray tracing enable
criterion is surpassed.

And just look at Intel's latest i9 14900K bullshit CPU which is barely
3% faster than the previous generation and they expect you to pay 15%
more for it? Fuck them! I'll wait and see what AMD have to offer.

On 21/10/2023 19:45, Blueshirt wrote:
> Hornplayer9599 wrote:
>
>> On 10/21/2023 13:13, Blueshirt wrote:xtent.
>>>
>>> Do you take all of your opinions from YouTube?
>>>
>>> Somebody saying something on YouTube doesn't make them correct yer
>>> know!
>>
>> Speaking as a subscriber to Nerdrotic's channel, Gary provides the
>> viewer with his opinion, and provides the material used to form said
>> opinion. He invites others to form their own opinion, and doesn't take
>> it personally when someone disagrees with him...and corrects the record
>> when new information shows that he is in error.
>
> YouTube channels can be entertaining but I think it's so much easier to
> watch a TV show and judge it yourself than base your opinions on what
> A.N.Other on YouTube says about it.

What do you think reviews and reviewers are for? You find a reviewer
whose opinion you respect and then you know what you should watch or
read. Maybe you think all reviewers should be fired and their reviews
should not be published?

>
> How can you respect somebody's opinion here about a TV show if it's based
> on what they've seen on a YouTube channel?

You have clearly shown that you do not understand the concept of peer
review. But as demonstrated by Orwell in Animal Farm and 1984, woke far
leftists are brainwashed into suppressing all opinions contrary to the
official narrative, Napoleon is Always Right. And you see what happens
to what-was-his-name-again? And of course newspeak ie. political
correctness was invented by Ingsoc to suppress all opinions contrary to
party ideology, as is also confirmed by Roald Dahl who said that
political correctness was invented by Marx and Stalin.

--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
stands for." -William Shatner

On 21/10/2023 20:14, The Last Doctor wrote:
> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>>
>>> Jo Martin has one and it was implied that is was the same TARDIS, which
>>> is totally ridiculous as we saw the real Doctor stealing the TARDIS in
>>> The Name of the Doctor. What a coincidence! Chibnall has totally
>>> destroyed Matt Smith's entire story arc.
>>
>> Why the "Fugitive" Doctor's TARDIS was a blue British Police box was
>> something that was never explained. It was strange if she was
>> pre-Hartnell, as a Gallifreyan TARDIS isn't a blue Police box by default.
>>
>
> Obviously the out of universe reason is simply to drop a big final clue
> stick for viewers who weren’t paying attention.
>
> In universe there are a couple of easy possibilities to explain it away,
> both of which depend on the long-established telepathic bond between a Time
> Lord and their personal TARDIS, and even more so for the Doctor and their
> TARDIS (as per “The Doctor’s Wife”).
>

So Mike has decided to confound everyone with fan-fiction in defence of
Chibnall in the same manner that Squealer employs to defend Napoleon in
Animal Farm. I always thought I'd seen this style of argument somewhere
before.

> 1) Bootstrap paradox version: the Fugitive Doctor’s TARDIS did NOT have the
> Police Box exterior when buried.
>
> Rather, when the TARDIS connected subconsciously with 13 while she was
> uncovering it, it assumed that shape because it saw the shape in her mind
> and wanted to let her know that it was HER TARDIS. Then it took that shape
> back into the past, and kept assuming that shape whether appropriate or
> not.
>

What a load of nonsense. I'm not a dumb sheep or carthorse Squealer.

If the TARDIS changed shaped buried in a hold in the ground the the
earth on top of it would have either caved into the void or being pushed
out by its expansion.

> 2) Repeated meme variation: the TARDIS developed its obsession with Police
> Box form early in the pre-Hartnell Doctor’s career.
>

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

This is not Animal Farm squealer.

> In either scenario, when the Doctor was memory wiped the TARDIS still kept
> trying to assume that form for other Time Lords. This made it “broken”
> which is why it was in the workshop waiting to be stolen by the Hartnell
> Doctor (when prompted by Clara to make sure he stole what was already his
> own TARDIS), and it promptly reassumed its already beloved form.
>

So the TARDIS is a willing accomplice to the Timeless Child monster's
crime against all forms of life, as well, and wants to brainwash other
Time Lords into continuing to commit them, as it does with Hartnell and
Troughton by taking them to places and times seemingly at random.

> Before anyone asks, this is purely fanwank. I have no basis in the show to
> support either possibility, I just don’t like awkward continuity issues.
>

Napoleon is Always Right and I Shall Try to Work Harder. Right Squealer?

--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
stands for." -William Shatner

The True Doctor wrote:

> On 21/10/2023 19:45, Blueshirt wrote:
> >
> > YouTube channels can be entertaining but I think it's so much easier to
> > watch a TV show and judge it yourself than base your opinions on what
> > A.N.Other on YouTube says about it.
>
> What do you think reviews and reviewers are for? You find a reviewer
> whose opinion you respect and then you know what you should watch or
> read. Maybe you think all reviewers should be fired and their reviews
> should not be published?

YouTube channels are just ego trips... generally the more controversial
the opinion the more viewers they get which in turn equals more money for
that channel. You the viewer are the sucker if you put too much faith in
them as they don't see you as their friend, they see you as the product!!!
Your views monetise their videos.

I will chance first episodes of a new TV show to see what I like or don't
like.
> > How can you respect somebody's opinion here about a TV show if it's
> > based on what they've seen on a YouTube channel?
>
> You have clearly shown that you do not understand the concept of peer
> review. But as demonstrated by Orwell in Animal Farm and 1984, woke far
> leftists are brainwashed into suppressing all opinions contrary to the
> official narrative,

There is no official narrative for Doctor Who and/or Disney+
programming... you watch it and like it or watch it and don't like it.

Or trust some dude on the internet and don't watch it...

The Last Doctor wrote:
>
> Before anyone asks, this is purely fanwank. I have no basis in the show
> to support either possibility, I just don’t like awkward continuity
> issues.

Well, we can all come up with theories and as it wasn't explained nobody
can say if those theories are right or wrong!

I assume Chris Chibnall had some idea behind making the Fugitive Doctor's
TARDIS a blue police box as he's not stupid, but it stands out as
something that is odd.

The True Doctor wrote:

> On 21/10/2023 16:33, The Last Doctor wrote:
>
> > For most streamers an ad-supported lower priced tier is becoming the
> > norm.
>
> The point of streaming is so that you don't have to watch adverts and
> you can watch it at a time convenient to you without it being broken up.
> It is not convenient to be forced to watch half an hour of mind numbing
> commercials advertising products to dumb women who are stupid enough to
> want to spend their money on something they do not need.

I agree. If I am paying for a streaming service I don't want to watch
adverts. They are acceptable on a free TV service but for me not on a paid
service. I'll pay the extra if I have to, but they can shove their adverts!

On 21/10/2023 22:03, Blueshirt wrote:
> The Last Doctor wrote:
>>
>> Before anyone asks, this is purely fanwank. I have no basis in the show
>> to support either possibility, I just don’t like awkward continuity
>> issues.
>
> Well, we can all come up with theories and as it wasn't explained nobody
> can say if those theories are right or wrong!
>
> I assume Chris Chibnall had some idea behind making the Fugitive Doctor's
> TARDIS a blue police box as he's not stupid, but it stands out as
> something that is odd.

Chibnall is completely stupid since he's a woke far left retard. He
wanted to destroy Doctor Who in it's entirety so set about destroying
Matt Smith's era, the Time Lords, replacing the Doctor's original origin
story and wiping out all of Hartnell's legacy.

--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
stands for." -William Shatner

On 21/10/2023 22:08, Blueshirt wrote:
> The True Doctor wrote:
>
>> On 21/10/2023 16:33, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>
>>> For most streamers an ad-supported lower priced tier is becoming the
>>> norm.
>>
>> The point of streaming is so that you don't have to watch adverts and
>> you can watch it at a time convenient to you without it being broken up.
>> It is not convenient to be forced to watch half an hour of mind numbing
>> commercials advertising products to dumb women who are stupid enough to
>> want to spend their money on something they do not need.
>
> I agree. If I am paying for a streaming service I don't want to watch
> adverts. They are acceptable on a free TV service but for me not on a paid
> service. I'll pay the extra if I have to, but they can shove their adverts!

Hear, Hear!

--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
stands for." -William Shatner

On 21/10/2023 21:58, Blueshirt wrote:
> The True Doctor wrote:
>
>> On 21/10/2023 19:45, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>
>>> YouTube channels can be entertaining but I think it's so much easier to
>>> watch a TV show and judge it yourself than base your opinions on what
>>> A.N.Other on YouTube says about it.
>>
>> What do you think reviews and reviewers are for? You find a reviewer
>> whose opinion you respect and then you know what you should watch or
>> read. Maybe you think all reviewers should be fired and their reviews
>> should not be published?
>
> YouTube channels are just ego trips... generally the more controversial
> the opinion the more viewers they get which in turn equals more money for
> that channel. You the viewer are the sucker if you put too much faith in
> them as they don't see you as their friend, they see you as the product!!!
> Your views monetise their videos.
>
> I will chance first episodes of a new TV show to see what I like or don't
> like.
>
>>> How can you respect somebody's opinion here about a TV show if it's
>>> based on what they've seen on a YouTube channel?
>>
>> You have clearly shown that you do not understand the concept of peer
>> review. But as demonstrated by Orwell in Animal Farm and 1984, woke far
>> leftists are brainwashed into suppressing all opinions contrary to the
>> official narrative,
>
> There is no official narrative for Doctor Who and/or Disney+
> programming... you watch it and like it or watch it and don't like it.
>
> Or trust some dude on the internet and don't watch it...

There is the official woke narrative with is supported by the access
media. If YouTubers treat you as a sucker, so does the access media who
are paid for their positive reviews of woke garbage and for whom a
climate of fear is created that they will lose their access if they call
out the degenerate wokery. It's just as in Orwell's Animal Farm where
the pigs put fear into the minds of the other animals that farmer Jones
will return and reclaim his farm and make them even lie to others to
that effect and that's he's in league with dissident spies among them.

Everyone should read Animal Farm as it shows workery for what it is.

--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
stands for." -William Shatner

άμυαλος <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> On 21/10/2023 16:33, The Last Doctor wrote:
>> ámyalos <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>> On 20/10/2023 02:58, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>> ámyalos <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>>>> On 16/10/2023 20:56, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>>>> Agadeluded <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> continued to hallucinate:

>>>> I concede that it’s possible that it would be ambiguous to someone without
>>>> a firm command of grammar and the English language.

>> That … is why I used the word “seem”. In English this usually
>> means that I am working on the basis of available evidence and am not
>> assuming the absolute rectitude of my conclusions. You should try using
>> such constructions sometimes instead of giving the absurd impression that
>> you believe you and only you have Truth on your side. This is almost
>> invariably not the case.
>
> On the contrary, over 90% of what I say turns out to be 100% correct
> compared to your 10%.

Case in point. You reversed the actual percentages. And I’m being generous.

>> I only have evidence that the only person who has interpreted it your way
>> is you. It’s always possible that if by some miracle another thousand
>
> That is enough evidence to show that it was ambiguous.

I already said it was ambiguous to you, and why.

>> people read this, as opposed to the dozen or so who actually have, then a
>> second person might take it the way you were determined to.
>>
>>> and you have conceded that it was ambiguous as I said.
>>
>> To someone without a firm grasp of grammar and the English, yes. Do try to
>
> You are adding false caveats after the fact.

Check the quoted text (you might want to refer to the original post to
confirm I haven’t altered it. The caveat was there in my initial response.
This is why you should try to learn to read the comments you are responding
to.

>>> You conceded that it was ambiguous so I am entitled to interpret it any
>>> way I want within that ambiguity.
>>
>> Absolutely. As I said, it was ambiguous to people without a grasp of
>> English grammar and usage so I agree that you’re welcome to believe it so.
>>
>
> It was ambiguous to EVERYONE with a full grasp of English grammar and
> usage.

Another case in point in re: your version of “Truth” almost invariably not
being the case. You are not the only person on this newsgroup with a full
grasp of English grammar and usage, and you have demonstrated hundreds of
times that you neither understand nor care about correct usage, inventing
unique “meanings” for words that no-one else accepts, and completely
failing to understand the meanings of so many words in English that the
list could well be a dictionary.

>> [Re: An Unearthly Cild being withheld from the iPlayer catalogue]
>>
>>>> They didn’t know that would be the case till a few days ago. That only
>>>> kicked off cos Stef Coburn is a money grabbing jerk. He already had a suit
>>>> to own the copyright to TARDIS kicked out in 2013. This time the impetus
>>>> (apart from another landmark anniversary) seems to be that he loathes the
>>>> idea of a black man as the Doctor.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How do you know it's not because he's gay? We've already had a black
>>> woman, so why isn't he complaining about that,
>>
>> He is complaining about every aspect of Doctor Who. He’s very much a fellow
>> traveller of yours in this regard.
>>
>
> He wouldn't need to be complaining if the show wasn't written and
> produced by woke bigots writing self serving agenda base fan fiction.

Yep, you are as big an asshole as him, with the same knee-jerk fascist
reactions to much of the modern world.

>
>>> except for the fact that
>>> the entire Chibnall era is not canon.
>>
>> Your stupid lies are not worthy of response.
>>
>
> I do not lie.

Yes, you do, continually and remorselessly, and on demonstrable points of
fact such as the existence of several seasons of televised Doctor Who from
2018-2022. Makes you look like a complete moron. And I’m being generous
adding “look like”.

>
>>>>> Maybe the Director Waris Hussein wants royalties too for his part in the
>>>>> writing.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Hussein went on record to point out that he never even met Coburn.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He still inserted stuff including various caveman grunts while he was
>>> filming it.
>>
>> Who did? Hussein? Well, he was the director. He never asked for a writing
>> credit though.
>
> Maybe he's asking for one now.

No, he isn’t. Why do you insist on making shit up when you have no clue?

>> For most streamers an ad-supported lower priced tier is becoming the norm.
>
> The point of streaming is so that you don't have to watch adverts and
> you can watch it at a time convenient to you without it being broken up.

No. Other than the BBC, all “free” streaming services have ads in their
programming - ITVX basic, All 4, My 5, Amazon FreeVee, UKTV Play.

Some paid streaming services (Sky / Now, for example) have also always
carried advertising.

What has changed is that other streamers are increasing their prices to
provide ad-free streaming and adding a lower tier which is cheaper but
supported by advertising.

ITVX premium is unique in wanting to provide an ad-free service but not
being totally able to do so due to legacy commercial agreements. Whether
they intend to retire those agreements to support a more truly ad free
premium experience is not yet known.

>
>>>>>> In the real world, the primary canon of Doctor Who is the whole
>>>>>> show commissioned by and broadcast by the BBC - note that this includes at
>>>>>> least some of the Big Finish Eight Doctor audio dramas (two “seasons” of
>>>>>> which were commissioned for and first aired on what was then BBC Radio 7).
>>
>>>>> Nope, that is not canon either. It totally humiliates the Eight Doctor
>>>>> by making him Whittaker's lackey and taking his radiance away from him
>>>>> to make her look better.
>>>>
>>>> How do radio episodes from 2007-2008 humiliate the Eighth Doctor and make
>>>> him Whittaker’s lackey? You’re being obtuse and demented (oh what am I
>>>> saying, that’s your usual mode).
>>>
>>> I was talking about Whittaker's last episode where she was replaced by
>>> David Tennant.
>>
>> Well I wasn’t.
>>
>
> But I was.

Yes, changing the subject and moving goalposts so you can have an
irrelevant rant is indeed what you were doing. But see above - you didn’t
say you were doing that - you appended your rant to my comment about the
2007-2008 run of Eighth Doctor Adventures being canon.

In English we have an unwritten rule that if you don’t explicitly change
the subject, you are talking about tha subject previously being discussed.
Hope that helps with your remedial English learning.

>
>>>>> It's not wonder Tom Baker refused to be in it,
>>>>> and good job too. It don't want to remember him that way, or any of the
>>>>> previous Doctors.
>>>>
>>>> He wanted to but was ill, actually.
>>>
>>> A likely story... I hope he is not really ill.
>>
>> He’s 89 and very, very frail. He’s even stopped doing Big Finish (and
>> they’ve been recording him at home for years) although there are still
>> about three years of episodes in the can of Fourth Doctor Adventures.
>>
>> [Snip a bunch of unsupported opinions and lies. If you want to argue for
>
> You mean undisputable truths.

So provide quotes, liar. Your suggested option for others to confirm your
lies is IMPOSSIBLE, because (see below):

>
>> any of the crap that seems only to be in your head, provide GENUINE QUOTES.
>
>> If you’re actually right about anything I’ll happily concede and apologise
>> for calling you a liar. Fortunately for me there’s absolutely zero chance
>> that you can do so, as almost everything you claim about series 12, 13 and
>> the final special is an absurd lie.
>
>> If you want to prove otherwise, you can’t just falsely claim (as you did
>> several times) that “the dialogue is there”. You have to provide the
>> genuine quoted dialogue. Otherwise everyone knows you are just being a
>> blustering liar.]
>
> Everyone is free to watch the episodes and see that the dialogue is
> there.

The Last Doctor wrote:
>
> Some paid streaming services (Sky / Now, for example) have also always
> carried advertising.
>
> What has changed is that other streamers are increasing their prices to
> provide ad-free streaming and adding a lower tier which is cheaper but
> supported by advertising.

Yes, the cheaper 'advert tiers' from the professional streamers (i.e. not
linked to standard TV channels) are a fairly recent addition to the
market. But for me the joys of the Prime Video/Netflix/Disney+ (etc.)
services was that they featured no adverts. Now that covid is over and
streaming isn't the be all and end all for passing away a month or two at
home these services are trying to find additional revenue streams to cover
their huge outlays on programming. I would rather pay the extra though as
I don't want to see adverts.

The True Doctor wrote:
>
> There is the official woke narrative which is supported by the access
> media.

There would be nothing to watch on any TV service if that was the case...
except maybe GB News!

What's fashion yesterday is out of date today, what's fashion today will
be out of date tomorrow. TV changes all the time, it doesn't stay the same.

The True Doctor wrote:

> On 21/10/2023 22:03, Blueshirt wrote:
> > The Last Doctor wrote:
> > >
> > > Before anyone asks, this is purely fanwank. I have no basis in the
> > > show to support either possibility, I just don’t like awkward
> > > continuity issues.
> >
> > Well, we can all come up with theories and as it wasn't explained
> > nobody can say if those theories are right or wrong!
> >
> > I assume Chris Chibnall had some idea behind making the Fugitive
> > Doctor's TARDIS a blue police box as he's not stupid, but it stands
> > out as something that is odd.
>
> Chibnall is completely stupid since he's a woke far left retard. He
> wanted to destroy Doctor Who in it's entirety so set about destroying
> Matt Smith's era, the Time Lords, replacing the Doctor's original origin
> story and wiping out all of Hartnell's legacy.

I don't believe that's what he set out to do. Chibnall had some ideas that
he thought were good for the show, the public at times didn't always
agree. But it's all part of the show... we can take it or leave it. Either
way, a new era is only a few weeks away.

On 10/21/2023 13:45, Blueshirt wrote:
> Hornplayer9599 wrote:
>
>> On 10/21/2023 13:13, Blueshirt wrote:xtent.
>>>
>>> Do you take all of your opinions from YouTube?
>>>
>>> Somebody saying something on YouTube doesn't make them correct yer
>>> know!
>>
>> Speaking as a subscriber to Nerdrotic's channel, Gary provides the
>> viewer with his opinion, and provides the material used to form said
>> opinion. He invites others to form their own opinion, and doesn't take
>> it personally when someone disagrees with him...and corrects the record
>> when new information shows that he is in error.
>
> YouTube channels can be entertaining but I think it's so much easier to
> watch a TV show and judge it yourself than base your opinions on what
> A.N.Other on YouTube says about it.

I don't disagree with you, but to be fair the same could also be said
about TV/film critics writing articles in the newspaper. People would
often decide weather or not to see a movie or TV show based solely on
what the critic said about it. And in many cases, the critic didn't
have a whole lot of experience in "the business". It's similar to what
I tell my band students: The audience doesn't have to have a master's
degree in music to know that a piece is being performed poorly (or
well). And if enough people share the same or similar negative
opinions, the performer should reassess their approach as opposed to
subscribing to the thought that the customer is always wrong.

>
> How can you respect somebody's opinion here about a TV show if it's based
> on what they've seen on a YouTube channel?

I'm not saying I do, as I watch a lot of TV when I'm home (my friends
may say I watch too much, lol). There's a lot of material out there
that has potential, but also has a large "hole" that puts the show in a
difficult position to reach that potential (I give you ST: Strange New
Worlds and Ahsoka as exhibits 1 & 2...both of which I have watched the
entire series to date). And if several people on YouTube are seeing the
same, or similar things as I am, then just maybe I'm on the right track
about the show in question...although I freely admit that I have been
known to be wrong in the past from time to time.

If I'm watching something, and it falls into the formula of: Bad writing
+ Miscast actors + Bad acting = Bad Show...then I stop watching. The
show has to hit all three of those before I turn it off. That's what I
did with the JW era; I got through the first season and a half of her
tenure and I couldn't watch anymore. The writing stunk on ice, the
acting on the whole was dreadful and not helped by the bad writing, and
while I don't think Jodie is a bad actor, I don't think she was a "good
fit" for the role, and if they insisted in having a woman play The
Doctor they could have found another woman better suited for the role.

Like I said above, if enough people aren't liking the product, then the
producers of said product have a problem (first season with JW as The
Doctor started with 10M viewers, by the end of the season the show had
settled into the 4M range. What happened to the other 6M? They can't
all have been misogynists, why couldn't the show hold onto them?).

--

Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
--Carl Sagan

On 21/10/2023 22:31, The Last Doctor wrote:
> άμυαλος <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>> On 21/10/2023 16:33, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>> ámyalos <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>>> On 20/10/2023 02:58, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>>> ámyalos <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/10/2023 20:56, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>> Agadeluded <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> continued to hallucinate:
>
>>>>> I concede that it’s possible that it would be ambiguous to someone without
>>>>> a firm command of grammar and the English language.
>
>>> That … is why I used the word “seem”. In English this usually
>>> means that I am working on the basis of available evidence and am not
>>> assuming the absolute rectitude of my conclusions. You should try using
>>> such constructions sometimes instead of giving the absurd impression that
>>> you believe you and only you have Truth on your side. This is almost
>>> invariably not the case.
>>
>> On the contrary, over 90% of what I say turns out to be 100% correct
>> compared to your 10%.
>
> Case in point. You reversed the actual percentages. And I’m being generous.

I reversed nothing.

>
>>> I only have evidence that the only person who has interpreted it your way
>>> is you. It’s always possible that if by some miracle another thousand
>>
>> That is enough evidence to show that it was ambiguous.
>
> I already said it was ambiguous to you, and why.
>
>>> people read this, as opposed to the dozen or so who actually have, then a
>>> second person might take it the way you were determined to.
>>>
>>>> and you have conceded that it was ambiguous as I said.
>>>
>>> To someone without a firm grasp of grammar and the English, yes. Do try to
>>
>> You are adding false caveats after the fact.
>
> Check the quoted text (you might want to refer to the original post to
> confirm I haven’t altered it. The caveat was there in my initial response.
> This is why you should try to learn to read the comments you are responding
> to.
>

It's a false caveat because those who understand grammar are the ones
most likely to pick up the ambiguity, not those who don't. You can't
black lack of grammar by the ready for falling for an ambiguity. You can
only blame the writer.

>>>> You conceded that it was ambiguous so I am entitled to interpret it any
>>>> way I want within that ambiguity.
>>>
>>> Absolutely. As I said, it was ambiguous to people without a grasp of
>>> English grammar and usage so I agree that you’re welcome to believe it so.
>>>
>>
>> It was ambiguous to EVERYONE with a full grasp of English grammar and
>> usage.
>
> Another case in point in re: your version of “Truth” almost invariably not
> being the case. You are not the only person on this newsgroup with a full
> grasp of English grammar and usage, and you have demonstrated hundreds of
> times that you neither understand nor care about correct usage, inventing

Wrong. If you write ambiguously then except to be read ambiguously too.
That's why you would be marked down for it by your tutor who sees it
both ways.

> unique “meanings” for words that no-one else accepts, and completely

I am using the historical meanings of words which is the correct way
they should be interpreted, not the woke brainwashed newspeak meaning of
words which they should not.

> failing to understand the meanings of so many words in English that the
> list could well be a dictionary.
>

You are the one who fails to understand the meaning of words. I know
Greek, Latin, and French so I know where the words came from and what
they really mean. You should stop using words you do not understand,
especially in any kind of historical context where they don't mean what
you think they mean. I had the same issue with imposing the meaning of
modern Greek words on their seeming equivalents in ancient Greek when I
was learning ancient Greek, but I learned how not to do it after about 2
or 3 weeks when I learned their true historical meanings. Also I can now
spot mistranslations in an instant where the translator or read doesn't
know what the ancient Greek word really means. Take for example the
"virgin Mary" from the bible. The ancient Greek word used is "parthenon"
which means a maiden. Virgin doesn't mean someone who has had sex in
English either. It means maiden as well. Only brainwashed imbeciles who
don't understand English correctly would think it meant a women who has
never been penetrated. It still means maiden, meaning a young girl, and
modern translations of the bible render it as that. You are the one who
needs to learn English correctly not me.

>
>
>>> [Re: An Unearthly Cild being withheld from the iPlayer catalogue]
>>>
>>>>> They didn’t know that would be the case till a few days ago. That only
>>>>> kicked off cos Stef Coburn is a money grabbing jerk. He already had a suit
>>>>> to own the copyright to TARDIS kicked out in 2013. This time the impetus
>>>>> (apart from another landmark anniversary) seems to be that he loathes the
>>>>> idea of a black man as the Doctor.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How do you know it's not because he's gay? We've already had a black
>>>> woman, so why isn't he complaining about that,
>>>
>>> He is complaining about every aspect of Doctor Who. He’s very much a fellow
>>> traveller of yours in this regard.
>>>
>>
>> He wouldn't need to be complaining if the show wasn't written and
>> produced by woke bigots writing self serving agenda base fan fiction.
>
> Yep, you are as big an asshole as him, with the same knee-jerk fascist
> reactions to much of the modern world.
>

It's the woke bigots who are the fascists. Learn where fascism came
from. It's a form of far left Marxism by definition of both Marxism and
Fascism by their founders Karl Marx and Benito Mussolini. If you'd read
1984 and understood it you'd know that. I am and have always been a
centrist and stand to the right of Marxism and it's derivative of fascism.

>>
>>>> except for the fact that
>>>> the entire Chibnall era is not canon.
>>>
>>> Your stupid lies are not worthy of response.
>>>
>>
>> I do not lie.
>
> Yes, you do, continually and remorselessly, and on demonstrable points of

No I do not.

> fact such as the existence of several seasons of televised Doctor Who from
> 2018-2022. Makes you look like a complete moron. And I’m being generous
> adding “look like”.

Doctor Who ended in 2017. The fan fic Chibnall wrote after that is not
Doctor Who, it's The Adventures of the Timeless Child Monster. You can't
completely change a characters origin story and turn him into a monster
and expect people to believe he is the same character as he was before.
Doctor Who ended in 2017.

>
>>
>>>>>> Maybe the Director Waris Hussein wants royalties too for his part in the
>>>>>> writing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. Hussein went on record to point out that he never even met Coburn.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He still inserted stuff including various caveman grunts while he was
>>>> filming it.
>>>
>>> Who did? Hussein? Well, he was the director. He never asked for a writing
>>> credit though.
>>
>> Maybe he's asking for one now.
>
> No, he isn’t. Why do you insist on making shit up when you have no clue?
>

I was asking a question and wondering if he was after reading an artivel
about him writing the dialogue for the cave men.

>>> For most streamers an ad-supported lower priced tier is becoming the norm.
>>
>> The point of streaming is so that you don't have to watch adverts and
>> you can watch it at a time convenient to you without it being broken up.
>
> No. Other than the BBC, all “free” streaming services have ads in their
> programming - ITVX basic, All 4, My 5, Amazon FreeVee, UKTV Play.
>

They're not real streaming services since they defeat the purpose of
convenience. I refuse to watch any of them including Amazon Feevee
unless they are made advert free.

> Some paid streaming services (Sky / Now, for example) have also always
> carried advertising.

In article <uh0r0t$1qt8k$1@dont-email.me>,
The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>ámyalos <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>> On 20/10/2023 02:58, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>> ámyalos <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>>> On 16/10/2023 20:56, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>>> Agadeluded <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> continued to hallucinate:
>
>[Re: catalogue list of Doctor Who Universe content to be added to iPlayer]
>
>>> I concede that it’s possible that it would be ambiguous to someone without
>>> a firm command of grammar and the English language. But only you seem to
>>> have suffered from this “ambiguity” - everyone else knew what was
>intended.
>>
>> You have not proof that everyone else interpreted it your way or will
>> interpret it you way
>
>That’s true, which is why I used the word “seem”. In English this usually
>means that I am working on the basis of available evidence and am not
>assuming the absolute rectitude of my conclusions. You should try using
>such constructions sometimes instead of giving the absurd impression that
>you believe you and only you have Truth on your side. This is almost
>invariably not the case.
>
>I only have evidence that the only person who has interpreted it your way
>is you. It’s always possible that if by some miracle another thousand
>people read this, as opposed to the dozen or so who actually have, then a
>second person might take it the way you were determined to.
>
>> and you have conceded that it was ambiguous as I said.
>
>To someone without a firm grasp of grammar and the English, yes. Do try to
>learn to read sentences before trying to take conclusions out of context.
>
>>> Stop trying to tell me what I was saying when what you mean is your unique
>>> interpretation of what I was saying, please.
>>
>> You conceded that it was ambiguous so I am entitled to interpret it any
>> way I want within that ambiguity.
>
>Absolutely. As I said, it was ambiguous to people without a grasp of
>English grammar and usage so I agree that you’re welcome to believe it so.
>
>[Re: An Unearthly Cild being withheld from the iPlayer catalogue]
>
>>> They didn’t know that would be the case till a few days ago. That only
>>> kicked off cos Stef Coburn is a money grabbing jerk. He already had a suit
>>> to own the copyright to TARDIS kicked out in 2013. This time the impetus
>>> (apart from another landmark anniversary) seems to be that he loathes the
>>> idea of a black man as the Doctor.
>>>
>>
>> How do you know it's not because he's gay? We've already had a black
>> woman, so why isn't he complaining about that,
>
>He is complaining about every aspect of Doctor Who. He’s very much a fellow
>traveller of yours in this regard.
>
>> except for the fact that
>> the entire Chibnall era is not canon.
>
>Your stupid lies are not worthy of response.
>
>>>> Maybe the Director Waris Hussein wants royalties too for his part in the
>>>> writing.
>>>
>>> Nope. Hussein went on record to point out that he never even met Coburn.
>>>
>>
>> He still inserted stuff including various caveman grunts while he was
>> filming it.
>
>Who did? Hussein? Well, he was the director. He never asked for a writing
>credit though.
>
>>
>>>>>> ITVX wants you to pay to watch all of them. They've got to be joking.
>>>>>
>>>>> To be fair, ITVX wants you to pay for their premium service which includes
>>>>> fewer ads (not none though) and all the BritBox content. For most people,
>>>>
>>>> Oh, so they want you to pay for ads too. They can fuck themselves if
>>>> they think I'm paying to watch commercials for tampons and other women's
>>>> products.
>
>Some of ITV’s contractual arrangements and sponsorships require them to
>carry those ads. All the regular advertising is removed.
>
>For most streamers an ad-supported lower priced tier is becoming the norm.
>Now that Netflix and Disney have both gone down this path, most othered
>will follow. But in this case, ITVX’s remaining advertising is that which
>it is legally obligated to carry.
>
>
>>> Oh poor you. Sadly they don’t advertise wank toys for incels, so you
>>> clearly can’t be targeted with the products you want.
>>
>> I don't need any wank toys.
>
>Got plenty, eh?
>
>> Maybe you do.
>
>No, been happily married for over 30 years, so not part of my needs.
>
>> What I currently need is an
>> RTX 4090. Why can't they advertise one of those at 1/3 of the rip off
>> price they are currently being sold at?
>
>Because bleeding edge technology is always sold at a premium to cover a
>higher proportion of the R&D costs. If you can’t afford to live at the high
>end, learn to live at the lower level. It’s pointless moaning about the
>price of a new Tesla when your income will only cope with a second hand
>Nissan Leaf.
>
>>>> Everyone say the Doctor die at the end of The Doctor Falls and the
>>>> screen go blank. Everything after that is the Doctor hallucinating in
>>>> his final milliseconds of life.
>>>
>>> No, only you and a few other outraged morons claim any of that.
>>>
>>
>> We are not morons and we form the majority given that the viewership of
>> the show has fallen from 10 million to only 2.2 million.
>
>7 is not a majority of 2.2 million, even in your mathematics.
>
>The average viewership of Series 13 was 4.95 million and the “regeneration
>episode” garnered 5.3 million viewers, so in any case you’re severely lying
>about the level of viewership the show is still getting, which continues to
>be very respectable for the BBC although not stellar.
>
>>>>> In the real world, the primary canon of Doctor Who is the whole
>>>>> show commissioned by and broadcast by the BBC - note that this includes at
>>>>> least some of the Big Finish Eight Doctor audio dramas (two
>“seasons” of
>>>>> which were commissioned for and first aired on what was then BBC Radio 7).
>
>>>> Nope, that is not canon either. It totally humiliates the Eight Doctor
>>>> by making him Whittaker's lackey and taking his radiance away from him
>>>> to make her look better.
>>>
>>> How do radio episodes from 2007-2008 humiliate the Eighth Doctor and make
>>> him Whittaker’s lackey? You’re being obtuse and demented (oh what am I
>>> saying, that’s your usual mode).
>>
>> I was talking about Whittaker's last episode where she was replaced by
>> David Tennant.
>
>Well I wasn’t.
>
>>>> It's not wonder Tom Baker refused to be in it,
>>>> and good job too. It don't want to remember him that way, or any of the
>>>> previous Doctors.
>>>
>>> He wanted to but was ill, actually.
>>
>> A likely story... I hope he is not really ill.
>
>He’s 89 and very, very frail. He’s even stopped doing Big Finish (and
>they’ve been recording him at home for years) although there are still
>about three years of episodes in the can of Fourth Doctor Adventures.
>
>[Snip a bunch of unsupported opinions and lies. If you want to argue for
>any of the crap that seems only to be in your head, provide GENUINE QUOTES.
>If you’re actually right about anything I’ll happily concede and apologise
>for calling you a liar. Fortunately for me there’s absolutely zero chance
>that you can do so, as almost everything you claim about series 12, 13 and
>the final special is an absurd lie.
>
>If you want to prove otherwise, you can’t just falsely claim (as you did
>several times) that “the dialogue is there”. You have to provide the
>genuine quoted dialogue. Otherwise everyone knows you are just being a
>blustering liar.]
>

MM in dizzy mode

>--
>Jodie Whittaker played the Thirteenth Doctor in Doctor Who.

#savedoctorwho #retconthetimelesschild #thetimelesschildisantidoctorwho
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Those who want mob rule are opposed to civilisation. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <uh1377$1slk3$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>On 21/10/2023 10:32, Daniel65 wrote:
>> The True Doctor wrote on 21/10/23 8:23 am:
>>> On 20/10/2023 22:06, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You are out of your mind. Disney+ is a babysitting service
>>>>
>>>> I love Disney+ ... it babysits me most evenings... if you don't
>>>> like it, fine, don't watch it. Simples!
>>>
>>> I don't watch it and have no intention of subscribing to it. All they
>>> do is make woke garbage created to sexually groom children.
>>
>> Umm! If you don't watch it, how do you know what it contains, Aggy??
>>
>> Chinese whispers, and all that!!
>
>Others have watched it so I don't have to. I thank YouTubers such as
>Nerdrotic for that service and I empathise with the trauma they have had
>to suffer to prevent me from suffering it to the same extent.
>

Nerdrotic rocks!

>--
>The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
>
>"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
>stands for." -William Shatner
>

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Those who want mob rule are opposed to civilisation. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <uh13qr$1srcv$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>On 21/10/2023 11:59, Blueshirt wrote:
>> Daniel65 wrote:
>>
>>> The True Doctor wrote on 21/10/23 8:23 am:
>>>> On 20/10/2023 22:06, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are out of your mind. Disney+ is a babysitting service
>>>>>
>>>>> I love Disney+ ... it babysits me most evenings... if you don't
>>>>> like it, fine, don't watch it. Simples!
>>>>
>>>> I don't watch it and have no intention of subscribing to it. All they
>>>> do is make woke garbage created to sexually groom children.
>>>
>>> Umm! If you don't watch it, how do you know what it contains, Aggy??
>>
>> Because people who say they don't watch something always end up watching
>> it anyway... a bit like porn. Nobody admits to watching it but we all
>> know how the 'story' goes! :-)
>
>Woke perverts such as the writers of Gen V are trying to inflict child
>pornography on children if you watch the latest episode (6) on Amazon
>Prime where two of the college students (probably underage in some US
>states, since they're not supposed to be post-grads, but I understand
>that the actors were probably of legal age) have unprotected sex. I
>don't want this amateur porn inflicted on me. Let the trauma inflicted
>on me stand as a warning to others so they don't have to watch it. If
>these woke perverts want to make port let them put on on Pornhub not
>Amazon. Why would someone write a scene showing two young students
>screwing each other unless their mind has rotted?
>

Bad writing is just that.

>--
>The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
>
>"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
>stands for." -William Shatner
>

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Those who want mob rule are opposed to civilisation. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <uh13uu$1srcv$3@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>On 21/10/2023 10:41, Daniel65 wrote:
>> The True Doctor wrote on 20/10/23 11:07 pm:
>>> On 20/10/2023 11:19, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>> The True Doctor wrote on 20/10/23 1:50 pm:
>>>>> On 20/10/2023 03:45, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>> In article <ugsecs$kf01$3@dont-email.me>, The True Doctor
>>>>>> <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19/10/2023 22:31, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <Snip>
>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone wants Chibnall to sink to the bottom of the Mersey.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did the name Mersey come from a combination of the French and
>>>>> English words for sea?
>>>>
>>>> Or is it a mis-heard/mis-spelt 'Merci', as in thankful for actually
>>>> making land??
>>>
>>> Possible.
>>>
>>> Thames is a corruption and consonantal shift of the Greek word
>>> Potamos which means river. Maybe it's related to the river Po which
>>> contains the part of Potamos that is missing from Thames.
>>>
>> "the Greek word Potamos which means river"?? Hmm Was it The Greeks that
>> named "The Hippopotamus" ... something like "Big Animal of the River" or
>> some such??
>
>Horse-of-the-River in Greek. It might be mentioned in Herodotus.
>

Remind me how to yes in Greek!

>--
>The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
>
>"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
>stands for." -William Shatner
>

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Those who want mob rule are opposed to civilisation. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <xn0o8cwx1ze8yqe000@reader.xsnews.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>The True Doctor wrote:
>
>> On 21/10/2023 10:32, Daniel65 wrote:
>> >
>> > Umm! If you don't watch it, how do you know what it contains, Aggy??
>>
>>
>> Others have watched it so I don't have to. I thank YouTubers such as
>> Nerdrotic for that service and I empathise with the trauma they have
>> had to suffer to prevent me from suffering it to the same extent.
>
>Do you take all of your opinions from YouTube?
>
>Somebody saying something on YouTube doesn't make them correct yer know!

IYIO!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Those who want mob rule are opposed to civilisation. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <uh14o5$1t21a$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>On 21/10/2023 11:05, Daniel65 wrote:
>> The True Doctor wrote on 21/10/23 1:28 pm:
>>> On 21/10/2023 03:04, The Doctor wrote:
>>>> In article <xn0o8bmz7y52qbg001@reader.xsnews.nl>, Blueshirt
>>>> <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Doctor was turned into a MONSTER, not just a female.
>>>>>
>>>>> But admit it, the female part bothered you the most first of all
>>>>> didn't it?
>>>>
>>>> Anyone for Joanne Lumley as the Doctor?
>>>
>>> Joanna Lumley would have made a good Doctor after Tom Baker, before
>>> the days of woke degeneracy began when the show was taken over by
>>> left wing extremist hacks. Whittaker was an still is a weak feeble
>>> actress who was completely unsuitable for the role of the Doctor, but
>>> the Timeless Child monster unlike Whittaker, who only lasted a few
>>> years, has totally destroyed the entire franchise.
>>>
>>> The Doctor is not a systematically abused child from another
>>> dimension that was repeatedly neglected, experimented on, and
>>> murdered by its abductor, and then brainwashed and turned into a mass
>>> murdering genocidal maniac who didn't lift a finger to stop injustice
>>> for countless millions of regenerations.
>>>
>>> And how come Matt Smith never spotted any of this after erasing all
>>> traces of the Doctor from history? How come Clara never saw this when
>>>  she went into the Space-Time Vortex? The vortex was never affected
>>> by any chameleon arch, nor was time itself. Why didn't Smith spot all
>>> of this millions of TARDISes that should not have been there?
>>>
>> Do we know, from the JodieDoctor episodes, that all those missing
>> thousands/millions of regenerated 'Doctors' actually HAD a TARDIS??
>
>Jo Martin has one and it was implied that is was the same TARDIS, which
>is totally ridiculous as we saw the real Doctor stealing the TARDIS in
>The Name of the Doctor. What a coincidence! Chibnall has totally
>destroyed Matt Smith's entire story arc.
>
>>
>> Or might the pre-Hartnell "Doctor" incarnations have just stayed on
>> Gallifrey??
>
>They were all working for Tekteun and the Division, probably its first
>recruited agent, and didn't we see one of these Timeless Child monsters
>at the table with her planning out its crimes? The black guy, or wait,
>the PC bigots won't let anyone call someone else black any more even if
>they're in a crowd of white people after they tried to cancel Fiona
>Bruce on Question Time. I mean the African American guy, even though he
>spoke in a British accent.
>
>>
>> (DoctorRuth may have been the incarnation that actually stole The TARDIS
>> ..... and just not been shown in the 'Clara in the Space-Time Vortex'
>> images!!)
>
>Clara asked if these were all the incarnation of the Doctor which she
>saw and them alone and Matt Smith said yes, including John Hurt.
>
>How did the TARDIS end up looking like a Police telephone box for Jo
>Martin and then go back into a cylinder in The Name of the Doctor? There
>are no police boxes in Britain today except the one outside Kensington
>High Street tube station, and it looks nothing like the Doctor's TARDIS.
>

The Timeless child Era is Bogus!
>--
>The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
>
>"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
>stands for." -William Shatner
>

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Those who want mob rule are opposed to civilisation. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <tFUYM.234226$s52e.199103@fx04.ams4>,
Hornplayer9599 <Hornplayer9599@aol.com> wrote:
>On 10/21/2023 13:13, Blueshirt wrote:
>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/10/2023 10:32, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Umm! If you don't watch it, how do you know what it contains, Aggy??
>>>
>>>
>>> Others have watched it so I don't have to. I thank YouTubers such as
>>> Nerdrotic for that service and I empathise with the trauma they have
>>> had to suffer to prevent me from suffering it to the same extent.
>>
>> Do you take all of your opinions from YouTube?
>>
>> Somebody saying something on YouTube doesn't make them correct yer know!
>
>Speaking as a subscriber to Nerdrotic's channel, Gary provides the
>viewer with his opinion, and provides the material used to form said
>opinion. He invites others to form their own opinion, and doesn't take
>it personally when someone disagrees with him...and corrects the record
>when new information shows that he is in error.
>
>Rather contrary to some people here.
>

He is damn good!

>--
>
>Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
>--Carl Sagan
>

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Those who want mob rule are opposed to civilisation. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <xn0o8cxitzf4ilw002@news.eternal-september.org>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>The True Doctor wrote:
>>
>> Jo Martin has one and it was implied that is was the same TARDIS, which
>> is totally ridiculous as we saw the real Doctor stealing the TARDIS in
>> The Name of the Doctor. What a coincidence! Chibnall has totally
>> destroyed Matt Smith's entire story arc.
>
>Why the "Fugitive" Doctor's TARDIS was a blue British Police box was
>something that was never explained. It was strange if she was
>pre-Hartnell, as a Gallifreyan TARDIS isn't a blue Police box by default.

Exactly why the Timeless child is BOGUS!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Those who want mob rule are opposed to civilisation. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <xn0o8cxpfzfe051003@news.eternal-september.org>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>Hornplayer9599 wrote:
>
>> On 10/21/2023 13:13, Blueshirt wrote:xtent.
>> >
>> > Do you take all of your opinions from YouTube?
>> >
>> > Somebody saying something on YouTube doesn't make them correct yer
>> > know!
>>
>> Speaking as a subscriber to Nerdrotic's channel, Gary provides the
>> viewer with his opinion, and provides the material used to form said
>> opinion. He invites others to form their own opinion, and doesn't take
>> it personally when someone disagrees with him...and corrects the record
>> when new information shows that he is in error.
>
>YouTube channels can be entertaining but I think it's so much easier to
>watch a TV show and judge it yourself than base your opinions on what
>A.N.Other on YouTube says about it.
>
>How can you respect somebody's opinion here about a TV show if it's based
>on what they've seen on a YouTube channel?

Ever visited the TARDIS Zone?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Those who want mob rule are opposed to civilisation. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <xn0o8cxyxzfrt9b004@news.eternal-september.org>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>The True Doctor wrote:
>>
>> How did the TARDIS end up looking like a Police telephone box for Jo
>> Martin and then go back into a cylinder in The Name of the Doctor? There
>> are no police boxes in Britain today except the one outside Kensington
>> High Street tube station, and it looks nothing like the Doctor's TARDIS.
>
>A plot hole?
>
>Something Chibnall was setting up for the future?
>
>Will we ever know?

More reasons to retconn the Timeless Child!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Those who want mob rule are opposed to civilisation. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com