The Doctor wrote on 3/6/22 8:49 am:

<Snip>

> Looks like you forgot who the you was in this thread.

Gobble-de-gook!!

Oh! And by the way, clown .... (AKJV) Luke 6:42 Either how canst thou
say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine
eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then
shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.
--
Daniel

On 2022-06-02 4:49 p.m., The Doctor wrote:
> In article <t7b91m$8jo$3@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t7ad71$6jn$3@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t79kjr$kvt$5@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <t78t2v$iab$4@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Loved the Pip and Jane Twitter post the other day.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gibberish.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well too bad you are not in Twitter MM!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And again, Dave, your assumption that everyone must have seen exactly
>>>>>> the same things you have, in a huge world of information and
>>>>>> disinformation, proves useless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don’t just say there WAS a “post” (you mean “tweet” but OK)
>>>> - quote one
>>>>>> or link to it. The ostensible source you give must be wrong - Pip and
>>>>>> Jane Baker didn’t tweet anything. They couldn’t.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So how am I supposed to know what random inanity you’re going on about?
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore you never got the reference.
>>>>
>>>> No, I didn’t and am unlikely to do without more information. All I can say
>>>> with confidence is that any “Pip and Jane” tweet wasn’t by Pip
>> and Jane.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The picture of the tweet was from on Air.
>>>
>>> The tweet asked for a witty caption.
>>>
>>> Witty caption -" #chrischibnall you are rude and show no promise".
>>>
>> Right. And what was witty about that?
>>
>
> IT is the truth!

No, IT's an opinion and opinions are neither truth nor lies, just opinions.

Learn to tell the difference binky boyo.

--
The very powerful and very stupid have one thing in common. They don't
alter their views to match the facts.

They alter the facts to match their views.

Doctor Who The Face of Evil, Part 4, January 22, 1977
(Binky couldn't name the episode)

If The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7b91l$8jo$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> You disrespect Hartnell every time you support the Timeless child.
>>
>> I don’t support it. I merely acknowledge that it exists. But how or why
>> would “supporting” the Timeless Child disrespect Hartnell?
>>
>
> Hartnell is the original.
>
> There is no one before him.

Hartnell was the first actor to play the Doctor.
There are no episodes of Doctor Who that aired prior to 23 November 1963.
The mannerisms, the accent, the mercurial charisma of the first Doctor on
TV were Hartnell’s masterstrokes.

The Timeless Child doesn’t change any of those facts.

Peter Cushing’s take on the Doctor could be deemed as disrespectful to
Hartnell.

Hurndall’s impersonation probably couldn’t, it just highlighted how good
Hartnell at his best was.

Bradley’s could certainly be taken as disrespectful but mainly due to
Moffat’s writing of the character as a stereotype of human sixties
attitudes, which wasn’t quite the character Hartnell had played. Bradley’s
interpretation of the character managed to follow the main quirks of
Hartnell’s, but with its own distinctive feel that has only grown more
pronounced in audio.

On audio, both William Russell and Peter Purves have channeled Hartnell’s
Doctor as faithfully as they could, occasionally quite effectively in
Purves’s case.

The most recent voice actor to play the character, Stephen Noonan, has done
a masterful job of picking up on Hartnell’s accent, emotionality and vocal
tics. Listening to him you don’t hear Hartnell - the timbre of voice is
quite different - but in my opinion, you do hear the “first Doctor”.

The Timeless Child doesn’t change or affect any of that work - so how could
it be disrespectful to Hartnell?

All it does is alter the backstory so that the “first Doctor” becomes “the
first Doctor after a reset button has been pressed, and reveal a “true
past” of Gallifrey that is different from what we imagined but, and this is
key, not different from anything ever stated explicitly in the show.

I wish it hadn’t been done, but it has. And with so much respect, indeed
reverence, for existing canon that it’s become ludicrously convoluted
fitting in.

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7b91l$8jo$2@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t7ad70$6jn$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t79kjq$kvt$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> My comments were about the viewership, not the show.
>>>>>
>>>>> And imdb are grass roots reviews.
>>>>
>>>> From a limited base. Most people don’t review on iMDB. Mostly dedicated
>>>> haters as well - the star profile of the reviews is VERY different from the
>>>> star profile of the general ratings. Which is also a limited base.
>>>
>>> "Limited base" - real meaning- I hate grass roots.
>>
>> Gibberish.
>
> Mike McKeown - "I deny therefore I am"

In addition to not addressing comments to others that would be better
addressed to you, you should stop lying by preventing to quote others.
Particularly quotes that would only be accurate if you were the one
speaking them.

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7b91m$8jo$3@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t7ad71$6jn$3@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t79kjr$kvt$5@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <t78t2v$iab$4@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Loved the Pip and Jane Twitter post the other day.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gibberish.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well too bad you are not in Twitter MM!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And again, Dave, your assumption that everyone must have seen exactly
>>>>>> the same things you have, in a huge world of information and
>>>>>> disinformation, proves useless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don’t just say there WAS a “post” (you mean “tweet” but OK)
>>>> - quote one
>>>>>> or link to it. The ostensible source you give must be wrong - Pip and
>>>>>> Jane Baker didn’t tweet anything. They couldn’t.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So how am I supposed to know what random inanity you’re going on about?
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore you never got the reference.
>>>>
>>>> No, I didn’t and am unlikely to do without more information. All I can say
>>>> with confidence is that any “Pip and Jane” tweet wasn’t by Pip
>> and Jane.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The picture of the tweet was from on Air.
>>>
>>> The tweet asked for a witty caption.
>>>
>>> Witty caption -" #chrischibnall you are rude and show no promise".
>>>
>> Right. And what was witty about that?
>>
>
> IT is the truth!

I didn’t ask if it was the truth - though of course, it’s only an opinion
rather than “the truth”.

I asked what was supposed to be witty about it.

But I’m asking the wrong person. You’re only an expert on things that are
halfwitty.

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7b91m$8jo$4@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t7ad72$6jn$4@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t79kjr$kvt$4@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <t78t2v$iab$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <t77v5l$dpc$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There’s no poll that proves the
>>>>>>>>>> downfall or destruction of Doctor Who, is there? You can’t link to
>>>>>>>> it, can you?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, mikeMcK, you do have an inch of sanity in you!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you’re agreeing that you were lying and there’s no downfall or
>>>>>>>> destruction of Doctor Who. Good.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lies the insane MikeMcK!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, silly me. When I said “there’s no such poll and you can’t link
>>>>>> to it”,
>>>>>> and you replied “yes, you have an inch of sanity”, I assumed that
>>>> by saying
>>>>>> “yes” to what I said and calling me sane, you were conceding
>> the truth. I
>>>>>> should have known better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I have an inch of sanity, clearly any sanity you might have would only
>>>>>> be detectable under a scanning electron microscope. And even then would be
>>>>>> subject to quantum uncertainty.
>>>>>
>>>>> You sir are insane!
>>>>>
>>>>> You sir area nitwit.
>>>>
>>>> Please don’t type a response while you’re addressing yourself in
>> a mirror.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was addressing MikeMcK.
>>
>> Well, I suggest you stop using phrases that apply to you and not to them
>> when trying to talk to your superiors then. Like a tree frog with brain
>> damage, it’s not big and it’s not clever.
>>
>
> Looks like you forgot who the you was in this thread.

Not at all. It’s just that you clearly forgot who you were addressing.

>
> MM suffers from brain damage.
>

I may have. But I can take comfort in that even if I’d suffered 99.9999%
total brain damage, I’d still be smarter than you.

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

The Last Doctor wrote on 3/6/22 7:59 pm:
> If The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>> In article <t7b91l$8jo$1@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
>> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You disrespect Hartnell every time you support the Timeless
>>>> child.
>>>
>>> I don’t support it. I merely acknowledge that it exists. But how
>>> or why would “supporting” the Timeless Child disrespect
>>> Hartnell?
>>>
>>
>> Hartnell is the original.
>>
>> There is no one before him.
>
> Hartnell was the first actor to play the Doctor. There are no
> episodes of Doctor Who that aired prior to 23 November 1963. The
> mannerisms, the accent, the mercurial charisma of the first Doctor
> on TV were Hartnell’s masterstrokes.
>
> The Timeless Child doesn’t change any of those facts.
>
> Peter Cushing’s take on the Doctor could be deemed as disrespectful
> to Hartnell.
>
> Hurndall’s impersonation probably couldn’t, it just highlighted how
> good Hartnell at his best was.
>
> Bradley’s could certainly be taken as disrespectful but mainly due
> to Moffat’s writing of the character as a stereotype of human
> sixties attitudes, which wasn’t quite the character Hartnell had
> played. Bradley’s interpretation of the character managed to follow
> the main quirks of Hartnell’s, but with its own distinctive feel that
> has only grown more pronounced in audio.
>
> On audio, both William Russell and Peter Purves have channeled
> Hartnell’s Doctor as faithfully as they could, occasionally quite
> effectively in Purves’s case.
>
> The most recent voice actor to play the character, Stephen Noonan,
> has done a masterful job of picking up on Hartnell’s accent,
> emotionality and vocal tics. Listening to him you don’t hear Hartnell
> - the timbre of voice is quite different - but in my opinion, you do
> hear the “first Doctor”.
>
> The Timeless Child doesn’t change or affect any of that work - so how
> could it be disrespectful to Hartnell?
>
> All it does is alter the backstory so that the “first Doctor” becomes
> “the first Doctor after a reset button has been pressed, and reveal a
> “true past” of Gallifrey that is different from what we imagined but,
> and this is key, not different from anything ever stated explicitly
> in the show.
>
> I wish it hadn’t been done, but it has. And with so much respect,
> indeed reverence, for existing canon that it’s become ludicrously
> convoluted fitting in.

And for the benefit of the clown, perhaps one should emphasis that Mike
typed "I wish it hadn’t been done, but it has."!!

Maybe he'll notice this time!!
--
Daniel

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7cm1r$4fs$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> If The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t7b91l$8jo$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You disrespect Hartnell every time you support the Timeless child.
>>>>
>>>> I don’t support it. I merely acknowledge that it exists. But how or why
>>>> would “supporting” the Timeless Child disrespect Hartnell?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hartnell is the original.
>>>
>>> There is no one before him.
>>
>> Hartnell was the first actor to play the Doctor.
>> There are no episodes of Doctor Who that aired prior to 23 November 1963.
>> The mannerisms, the accent, the mercurial charisma of the first Doctor on
>> TV were Hartnell’s masterstrokes.
>>
>> The Timeless Child doesn’t change any of those facts.
>>
>> Peter Cushing’s take on the Doctor could be deemed as disrespectful to
>> Hartnell.
>>
>> Hurndall’s impersonation probably couldn’t, it just highlighted how good
>> Hartnell at his best was.
>>
>> Bradley’s could certainly be taken as disrespectful but mainly due to
>> Moffat’s writing of the character as a stereotype of human sixties
>> attitudes, which wasn’t quite the character Hartnell had played. Bradley’s
>> interpretation of the character managed to follow the main quirks of
>> Hartnell’s, but with its own distinctive feel that has only grown more
>> pronounced in audio.
>>
>> On audio, both William Russell and Peter Purves have channeled Hartnell’s
>> Doctor as faithfully as they could, occasionally quite effectively in
>> Purves’s case.
>>
>> The most recent voice actor to play the character, Stephen Noonan, has done
>> a masterful job of picking up on Hartnell’s accent, emotionality and vocal
>> tics. Listening to him you don’t hear Hartnell - the timbre of voice is
>> quite different - but in my opinion, you do hear the “first Doctor”.
>>
>> The Timeless Child doesn’t change or affect any of that work - so how could
>> it be disrespectful to Hartnell?
>>
>> All it does is alter the backstory so that the “first Doctor” becomes “the
>> first Doctor after a reset button has been pressed, and reveal a “true
>> past” of Gallifrey that is different from what we imagined but, and this is
>> key, not different from anything ever stated explicitly in the show.
>>
>> I wish it hadn’t been done, but it has. And with so much respect, indeed
>> reverence, for existing canon that it’s become ludicrously convoluted
>> fitting in.
>>
>
> That logic hold no water.

It’s not meant to hold water. It’s logic, not a bucket.

And just naysaying something, Dave, doesn’t make it not true.

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7cm1r$4fs$2@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> Mike McKeown - "I deny therefore I am"
>>
>> In addition to not addressing comments to others that would be better
>> addressed to you, you should stop lying by preventing to quote others.
>> Particularly quotes that would only be accurate if you were the one
>> speaking them.
>>
>
> Lies MM as usual.

Um, where was the lie? You deny reality the whole time. I accept reality.
As you can clearly see, even your response just now was something that
applies to you, not me. In falsely claiming “Lies MM as usual”, you were
lying. As usual.

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7cm1s$4fs$4@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t7b91m$8jo$4@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t7ad72$6jn$4@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <t79kjr$kvt$4@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <t78t2v$iab$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <t77v5l$dpc$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There’s no poll that proves the
>>>>>>>>>>>> downfall or destruction of Doctor Who, is there? You can’t link to
>>>>>>>>>> it, can you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, mikeMcK, you do have an inch of sanity in you!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you’re agreeing that you were lying and there’s no downfall or
>>>>>>>>>> destruction of Doctor Who. Good.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lies the insane MikeMcK!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, silly me. When I said “there’s no such poll and you can’t link
>>>>>>>> to it”,
>>>>>>>> and you replied “yes, you have an inch of sanity”, I assumed that
>>>>>> by saying
>>>>>>>> “yes” to what I said and calling me sane, you were conceding
>>>> the truth. I
>>>>>>>> should have known better.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I have an inch of sanity, clearly any sanity you might have would only
>>>>>>>> be detectable under a scanning electron microscope. And even then
>> would be
>>>>>>>> subject to quantum uncertainty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You sir are insane!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You sir area nitwit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please don’t type a response while you’re addressing yourself in
>>>> a mirror.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was addressing MikeMcK.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I suggest you stop using phrases that apply to you and not to them
>>>> when trying to talk to your superiors then. Like a tree frog with brain
>>>> damage, it’s not big and it’s not clever.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Looks like you forgot who the you was in this thread.
>>
>> Not at all. It’s just that you clearly forgot who you were addressing.
>>
>>>
>>> MM suffers from brain damage.
>>>
>>
>> I may have. But I can take comfort in that even if I’d suffered 99.9999%
>> total brain damage, I’d still be smarter than you.
>>
>
> You really are dumb, MM!

Maybe I am. But you’re a million times dumber. Look at how you keep
engaging in these silly exchanges despite making yourself look stupider and
stupider every time with your lies and inability to lose gracefully.

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7cm1s$4fs$3@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t7b91m$8jo$3@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t7ad71$6jn$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <t79kjr$kvt$5@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <t78t2v$iab$4@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Loved the Pip and Jane Twitter post the other day.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gibberish.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well too bad you are not in Twitter MM!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And again, Dave, your assumption that everyone must have seen exactly
>>>>>>>> the same things you have, in a huge world of information and
>>>>>>>> disinformation, proves useless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don’t just say there WAS a “post” (you mean “tweet” but OK)
>>>>>> - quote one
>>>>>>>> or link to it. The ostensible source you give must be wrong - Pip and
>>>>>>>> Jane Baker didn’t tweet anything. They couldn’t.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So how am I supposed to know what random inanity you’re going on about?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Therefore you never got the reference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I didn’t and am unlikely to do without more information. All
>> I can say
>>>>>> with confidence is that any “Pip and Jane” tweet wasn’t by Pip
>>>> and Jane.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The picture of the tweet was from on Air.
>>>>>
>>>>> The tweet asked for a witty caption.
>>>>>
>>>>> Witty caption -" #chrischibnall you are rude and show no promise".
>>>>>
>>>> Right. And what was witty about that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> IT is the truth!
>>
>> I didn’t ask if it was the truth - though of course, it’s only an opinion
>> rather than “the truth”.
>>
>> I asked what was supposed to be witty about it.
>>
>> But I’m asking the wrong person. You’re only an expert on things that are
>> halfwitty.
>>
>
> Said MM whose IQ and EQ are < 1.

You do not know what either of those things even mean Dave, let alone their
values in my case.

We can all observe your utter inability to answer direct questions or
explain your “thinking” though.

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7d899$nav$4@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t7cm1s$4fs$3@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> burbled:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The picture of the tweet was from on Air.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The tweet asked for a witty caption.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Witty caption -" #chrischibnall you are rude and show no promise".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right. And what was witty about that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IT is the truth!
>>>>
>>>> I didn’t ask if it was the truth - though of course, it’s only an opinion
>>>> rather than “the truth”.
>>>>
>>>> I asked what was supposed to be witty about it.
>>>>
>>>> But I’m asking the wrong person. You’re only an expert on things that are
>>>> halfwitty.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Said MM whose IQ and EQ are < 1.
>>
>> You do not know what either of those things even mean Dave, let alone their
>> values in my case.
>>
>> We can all observe your utter inability to answer direct questions or
>> explain your “thinking” though.
>>
>
> Therefore You have no idea of least upper bound.

QED. Your childish lie about me has no basis in mathematics and the
supremum is irrelevant to it. You’ve thrown a random concept you don’t
understand into a conversation you don’t understand. Normal for you.

Note how you neither answered the question posed (what you thought was
witty about a puerile insult aimed at Chris Chibnall) nor explained your
“thinking”, instead choosing to lie about and moronically insult me, then
tried to introduce an unrelated mathematical concept in a misguided attempt
not to look stupid.

Hint: if you don’t want to look stupid, don’t write stupid things.

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7d899$nav$3@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> You really are dumb, MM!
>>
>> Maybe I am. But you’re a million times dumber. Look at how you keep
>> engaging in these silly exchanges despite making yourself look stupider
>> and stupider every time with your lies and inability to lose gracefully.
>
> Lies MM in his dumbness.

QED. Liar.

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7d898$nav$2@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t7cm1r$4fs$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike McKeown - "I deny therefore I am"
>>>>
>>>> In addition to not addressing comments to others that would be better
>>>> addressed to you, you should stop lying by preventing to quote others.
>>>> Particularly quotes that would only be accurate if you were the one
>>>> speaking them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lies MM as usual.
>>
>> Um, where was the lie? You deny reality the whole time. I accept reality.
>> As you can clearly see, even your response just now was something that
>> applies to you, not me. In falsely claiming “Lies MM as usual”, you were
>> lying. As usual.
>>
>
> Depends if you beleive anything verifiable.

Amazingly enough Dave, I believe in things that are verifiable and
verified. But whether or not you were lying doesn’t /depend/ on belief,
since you were self-evidently lying. As per usual.

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7d898$nav$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t7cm1r$4fs$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Timeless Child doesn’t change or affect any of that work - so how
>>>> could it be disrespectful to Hartnell?
>>>>
>>>> All it does is alter the backstory so that the “first Doctor” becomes
>>>> “the first Doctor after a reset button has been pressed”, and reveal a
>>>> “true past” of Gallifrey that is different from what we imagined but,
>>>> and this is key, not different from anything ever stated explicitly in the show.
>>>>
>>>> I wish it hadn’t been done, but it has. And with so much respect,
>>>> indeed reverence, for existing canon that it’s become ludicrously convoluted fitting in.
>>>
>>> That logic hold no water.
>>
>> It’s not meant to hold water. It’s logic, not a bucket.
>>
>> And just naysaying something, Dave, doesn’t make it not true.
>
> That settles it. MikeM is illogical.

Ha ha ha!!! Me saying that you idiotically denying facts doesn’t make them
untrue … is illogical?

Clearly you don’t understand logic. Or, indeed, facts.

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

The Last Doctor wrote:

> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> >
> > Depends if you beleive anything verifiable.
>
> Amazingly enough Dave, I believe in things that are verifiable and
> verified.

It's strange that Dave would use the word "verifiable" in a post
here... his opinions are often based on non-verifiable beliefs!

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7e0gn$tc1$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t7d899$nav$4@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t7cm1s$4fs$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> But I’m asking the wrong person. You’re only an expert on things that are halfwitty.
>>>>>
>>>>> Said MM whose IQ and EQ are < 1.
>>>>
>>>> You do not know what either of those things even mean Dave, let alone
>>>> their values in my case.
>>>>
>>>> We can all observe your utter inability to answer direct questions or
>>>> explain your “thinking” though.
>>>
>>> Therefore You have no idea of least upper bound.
>>
>> QED. Your childish lie about me has no basis in mathematics and the
>> supremum is irrelevant to it. You’ve thrown a random concept you don’t
>> understand into a conversation you don’t understand. Normal for you.
>>
>> Note how you neither answered the question posed (what you thought was
>> witty about a puerile insult aimed at Chris Chibnall) nor explained your
>> “thinking”, instead choosing to lie about and moronically insult me,
>> then tried to introduce an unrelated mathematical concept in a misguided
>> attempt not to look stupid.
>>
>> Hint: if you don’t want to look stupid, don’t write stupid things.
>
> Since when does EQ and IQ go below 0?

If mine were truly less than 1, the logical answer is “at least since the
day Dave Yadallee was born”, as yours are self evidently at least double
digits lower than mine. But you are continuing to deflect by wanting only
to elaborate on your lies.

You’ll now prove you have a negative IQ by responding to this post, which
is the last I will make in this absurd sequence.
--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7e0go$tc1$3@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t7d898$nav$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t7cm1r$4fs$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike McKeown - "I deny therefore I am"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition to not addressing comments to others that would be better
>>>>>> addressed to you, you should stop lying by preventing to quote others.
>>>>>> Particularly quotes that would only be accurate if you were the one
>>>>>> speaking them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lies MM as usual.
>>>>
>>>> Um, where was the lie? You deny reality the whole time. I accept reality.
>>>> As you can clearly see, even your response just now was something that
>>>> applies to you, not me. In falsely claiming “Lies MM as usual”, you were
>>>> lying. As usual.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Depends if you beleive anything verifiable.
>>
>> Amazingly enough Dave, I believe in things that are verifiable and
>> verified. But whether or not you were lying doesn’t /depend/ on belief,
>> since you were self-evidently lying. As per usual.
>>
>
> Evolution is not verifiable.

Bit of a curve ball there Dave, since you were “accusing” me of believing
in things that ARE verifiable.

It is not only verifiable, it is incontrovertibly proven to be true and can
directly be observed happening over generations in many organisms.

You won’t bother to read this link, but here is a CHRISTIAN take on the
proof of evolution:

https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-is-the-evidence-for-evolution

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7e0gp$tc1$4@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t7d898$nav$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And just naysaying something, Dave, doesn’t make it not true.
>>>
>>> That settles it. MikeM is illogical.
>>
>> Ha ha ha!!! Me saying that you idiotically denying facts doesn’t make
>> them untrue … is illogical?
>>
>> Clearly you don’t understand logic. Or, indeed, facts.
>>
>
> Said fact denier MikeMcK!

QED. Once again, you have made a statement that describes your belief
system and falsely ascribed it to me.

You will now deny facts by responding to this post, which is the last I
will make in this ludicrously daft exchange.

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7e0go$tc1$2@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t7d899$nav$3@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You really are dumb, MM!
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I am. But you’re a million times dumber. Look at how you keep
>>>> engaging in these silly exchanges despite making yourself look stupider
>>>> and stupider every time with your lies and inability to lose gracefully.
>>>
>>> Lies MM in his dumbness.
>>
>> QED. Liar.
>>
>
> Thus lies MM in conclusion.

I won this argument ages ago but you’re just too stupid to stop lying. A
fact you will now prove by lying in response to this comment.

--
There are some corners of the universe
which have bred the most terrible things.
Things which act against everything we believe in.

They must be /fought/.

Binky bleated:

> In article <t7a5dc$6la$1@dont-email.me>,
> solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Daniel declared:
>>
>>> The Doctor wrote on 2/6/22 12:03 am:
>>>
>>>> Tectuen was put it to detroy Rassilon and Omega, Dannyboy.
>>>
>>> "it"?? "detroy"??
>>
>> And also "Tectuen”??
>>
>>>
>>> How could Tectuem 'detroy' Rassilon and/or Omega if they weren't even
>>> mentioned in 'The Timeless Child' arc, clown??
>>
>> "Tectuem"?? That’s an even worse typo than "Tectuen".
>>
>
> Still retconn the Timeless Child!

"Retconn"??

--
solar penguin

The Doctor wrote on 4/6/22 9:40 am:
> In article <t7e0go$tc1$3@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t7d898$nav$2@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
>>> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t7cm1r$4fs$2@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
>>>>> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike McKeown - "I deny therefore I am"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition to not addressing comments to others that would
>>>>>> be better addressed to you, you should stop lying by
>>>>>> preventing to quote others. Particularly quotes that would
>>>>>> only be accurate if you were the one speaking them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lies MM as usual.
>>>>
>>>> Um, where was the lie? You deny reality the whole time. I
>>>> accept reality. As you can clearly see, even your response just
>>>> now was something that applies to you, not me. In falsely
>>>> claiming “Lies MM as usual”, you were lying. As usual.
>>>
>>> Depends if you beleive anything verifiable.
>>
>> Amazingly enough Dave, I believe in things that are verifiable and
>> verified. But whether or not you were lying doesn’t /depend/ on
>> belief, since you were self-evidently lying. As per usual.
>
> Evolution is not verifiable.

Lie, clown, lie ...... unless YOU, clown, look EXACTLY like YOUR Mother
or YOUR Father, clown!!

Evolution is change!!

Oh! And by the way, clown .... (AKJV) Luke 6:42 Either how canst thou
say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine
eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then
shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.
--
Daniel

The Doctor wrote on 4/6/22 12:04 am:
> In article <t7bqvo$r04$1@dont-email.me>,
> Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote on 2/6/22 9:29 pm:
>>> In article <t7a2o2$d4g$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
>>> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor wrote on 2/6/22 12:03 am:
>>>>> In article <t770p1$7jm$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
>>>>> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor wrote on 1/06/2022 8:02 am:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>>>>>> How about the bogus Tectuen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What was 'revised' about Tectuen, clown?? As I recall she had
>>>>>> not been mentioned previously, so how could anything about her
>>>>>> be 'revised', clown??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, and YOUR newsreader is corrupting the quoted text, clown!!
>>>>
>>>>> Tectuen was put it to detroy Rassilon and Omega, Dannyboy.
>>>>
>>>> "it"?? "detroy"??
>>>>
>>>> How could Tectuem 'detroy' Rassilon and/or Omega if they weren't
>>>> even mentioned in 'The Timeless Child' arc, clown??
>>
>>> CC's method of revisionism, Dannyboy!
>>
>> So .... by not mentioning something, you can retcon something!!
>>
>> Really??

> Well Dw is on a downwards trend with CC in charge, Dannyboy!

Oh!! Is that so, clown?? If so, best YOU, clown, change YOUR NYM, clown!!

Oh! And by the way, clown .... (AKJV) Luke 6:42 Either how canst thou
say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine
eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then
shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.
--
Daniel

The Doctor wrote on 4/6/22 12:47 am:
> In article <t7cr1c$b2v$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> The Last Doctor wrote on 3/6/22 7:59 pm:
>>> If The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> In article <t7b91l$8jo$1@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
>>>> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You disrespect Hartnell every time you support the
>>>>>> Timeless child.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don’t support it. I merely acknowledge that it exists.
>>>>> But how or why would “supporting” the Timeless Child
>>>>> disrespect Hartnell?
>>>>
>>>> Hartnell is the original.
>>>>
>>>> There is no one before him.
>>>
>>> Hartnell was the first actor to play the Doctor. There are no
>>> episodes of Doctor Who that aired prior to 23 November 1963. The
>>> mannerisms, the accent, the mercurial charisma of the first
>>> Doctor on TV were Hartnell’s masterstrokes.
>>>
>>> The Timeless Child doesn’t change any of those facts.
>>>
>>> Peter Cushing’s take on the Doctor could be deemed as
>>> disrespectful to Hartnell.
>>>
>>> Hurndall’s impersonation probably couldn’t, it just
>>> highlighted how good Hartnell at his best was.
>>>
>>> Bradley’s could certainly be taken as disrespectful but mainly
>>> due to Moffat’s writing of the character as a stereotype of
>>> human sixties attitudes, which wasn’t quite the character
>>> Hartnell had played. Bradley’s interpretation of the character
>>> managed to follow the main quirks of Hartnell’s, but with its
>>> own distinctive feel that has only grown more pronounced in
>>> audio.
>>>
>>> On audio, both William Russell and Peter Purves have channeled
>>> Hartnell’s Doctor as faithfully as they could, occasionally
>>> quite effectively in Purves’s case.
>>>
>>> The most recent voice actor to play the character, Stephen
>>> Noonan, has done a masterful job of picking up on Hartnell’s
>>> accent, emotionality and vocal tics. Listening to him you don’t
>>> hear Hartnell - the timbre of voice is quite different - but in
>>> my opinion, you do hear the “first Doctor”.
>>>
>>> The Timeless Child doesn’t change or affect any of that work -
>>> so how could it be disrespectful to Hartnell?
>>>
>>> All it does is alter the backstory so that the “first Doctor”
>>> becomes “the first Doctor after a reset button has been
>>> pressed, and reveal a “true past” of Gallifrey that is
>>> different from what we imagined but, and this is key, not
>>> different from anything ever stated explicitly in the show.
>>>
>>> I wish it hadn’t been done, but it has. And with so much
>>> respect, indeed reverence, for existing canon that it’s become
>>> ludicrously convoluted fitting in.
>>
>> And for the benefit of the clown, perhaps one should emphasis that
>> Mike typed "I wish it hadn’t been done, but it has."!!
>>
>> Maybe he'll notice this time!!

> Looks like Mike is confused.

'confused' about WHAT, clown??

Oh! And by the way, clown .... (AKJV) Luke 6:42 Either how canst thou
say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine
eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then
shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.
--
Daniel

The Doctor wrote on 4/6/22 12:06 am:
> In article <t7brc0$u4r$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote on 2/6/22 9:30 pm:
>>> In article <t7a46d$re1$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
>>> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor wrote on 2/6/22 11:42 am:
>>>>> In article <t78t2u$iab$1@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
>>>>> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <t77v5k$dpc$1@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
>>>>>>> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <Snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tectuen is a device to revise out both Rassilon and
>>>>>>>>> Omega.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is still no Tectuen, no matter how many times you
>>>>>>>> try to invent them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please QUOTE a line from the show where Tecteun (NOT
>>>>>>>> YOUR IMAGINARY “TECTUEN”)
>>>>>>>> is said to have done something that Rassilon or Omega
>>>>>>>> were previously have said to do in the show (with a
>>>>>>>> QUOTE showing that).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because as far as my knowledge of the show goes,
>>>>>>>> you’re just making it up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So is Chibnall.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In Chibnall’s case, as with other writers
>>>>>> paid by the BBC to do so, that was his job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you’re just lying because you
>>>>>> don’t like some of the things that have
>>>>>> been added. Which is childish and pointless.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Timeless Chiuld is disrespectful to William Hartnell.
>>>>
>>>> Was Patrick Troughton disrespectful to William Hartnell,
>>>> clown??
>>>>
>>>> I mean, William Hartnell presented the character "The Doctor"
>>>> for, what, three years .... and then disappeared and was
>>>> replaced by Patrick Troughton with no 'in story' reason for the
>>>> change of appearance 'cause, as I understand it, the idea of
>>>> 'regeneration' was written into the 'Doctor Who' storyline some
>>>> time later!!
>>>>
>>>> So was Patrick Troughton disrespectful to William Hartnell,
>>>> clown??
>>
>>> Never, Dannyboy!
>>
>> So, therefore, YOU, clown, are suggesting that the 'back-story'
>> can change without any 'in store' reason, clown!
>>
>> So why couldn't 'The Timeless Child' has existed without ever
>> having been mentioned before, clown??

> And do you recall the 4 more times line, Dannyboy?

I recall that I've got no idea what that gobble-de-gook means, clown!!

Oh! And by the way, clown .... (AKJV) Luke 6:42 Either how canst thou
say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine
eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then
shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.
--
Daniel