The True Doctor wrote on 16/11/21 8:39 am:

<Snip>

> Black and white are exactly the same colour. Everyone should know that.
> Through technically they are not colours. Black is just an absence of
> light.

White is the presence of all the Visible Colours in an appropriate mixture.
Black is the absence of any reflected light!
--
Daniel

The Doctor wrote on 16/11/21 10:46 am:
> In article <FtKdnQq4GpOfDw_8nZ2dnUU78R_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
> The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:

<Snip>

>> --
>> 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
>
> Old maths joke.
>
WHAT?? 'They' used to joke about being 'woke' in Maths Class!!

Maybe, if they'd paid more attention .......!
--
Daniel

The Doctor wrote on 24/11/21 2:13 am:
> In article <snia3b$if4$1@dont-email.me>,
> Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote on 23/11/21 5:58 pm:
>>> In article <sni3ah$f8s$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor wrote on 23/11/21 2:05 am:
>>>>> In article <sng180$269$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>>>> solar penguin wrote on 15/11/21 9:36 am:
>>>>>>> The True Moron tried to maintain:
>>>>>>>> On 14/11/2021 19:52, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (-10/10) .
>>>>>>>>> Please RTD retcon the Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n))/10, where n
>>>>>>>> is an integer from n=0 -> n=positive infinity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As n tends to infinity, the Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n)
>>>>>>> also becomes infinity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + .... 2^(n-1)) also approaches infinity ......
>>>>>> so wouldn't (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n) actually approach twice
>>>>>> infinity?? ;-P
>>>>>
>>>>> IIRC the sum of (2^n) from 0 to N is (2^(N-1)-1)
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, ... so as 'n' or 'N' approaches infinity the SUMMATION is 2N!!
>>>> --
>>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> 2^N or 2^(N-1) ?
>>>
>> No difference .... for all intense!!
>
> You said 2N whihc is 2*N or 2xN.
>
Sorry!! Do YOU, Clown, want to have another go at explaining yourself,
Clown??
--
Daniel

The Doctor wrote on 15/11/21 11:05 am:
> In article <slrnsp37kk.164kf.andyl@azaal.plus.com>, Andy Leighton
> <andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 19:52:46 -0000 (UTC), The Doctor
>> <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> Doctor Who - Once , Upon Time
>>>
>>> After the Sontarans looking substandard we get this drivel.
>>>
>>> Start the plot. If you feel dizzy , that might be normal.
>>
>> Well only simpletons might have trouble with the plot. Looking at
>> what you have regurgitated then you had problems with the plot and
>> missed loads of stuff. Half the stuff you write aren't even
>> intelligible sentences.
>>
>>> Bel is out there surviving. Bel is Vinder's friend.
>>
>> Hmm a bit more than that. You did catch that she was pregnant
>> didn't you?
>>
>>> Why did Swarm want to spring this trap?
>>
>> What - do you mean ths trap in particular? Because it is obvious
>> why he wants to destroy the Doctor. The Doctor (in Jo Martin form
>> with Jodie Whittaker along as some sort of quantum leap presence
>> albeit a bit glitchy) bested him and Azure in the far past and
>> caused his imprisonment (which we saw in part 1).
>>
>>> WE Know Claire is a hosting from part 1.
>>
>> There was no character called Claire in this episode. Claire was
>> the woman attacked by the Weeping Angels in part 1.
>>
>>> Why did The Doctor not address the Weeping Angel issue?
>>
>> Because it is a 6 part story and if everything was addressed in 1
>> part then it would be very rushed and there would be 5 parts with
>> nothing to do.
>>
>>
>> So onto my thoughts.
>>
>> Structurally this is clear it is an epsiode that isn't a straight-
>> forward episode in terms of introduce threat or monster and deal
>> with it. It simultaneously introduces Bel and expands Vinder's
>> backstory so we know what has gone on that resulted in the shit
>> posting he had in episode 1. Through Bel's story we see Daleks and
>> Cybermen taking advantage of the Flux - so that is three time
>> capable races all trying to carve out their individual sectors.
>> This was very deftly done without requiring a Dalek and a Cyberman
>> episode. We also got to see how Swarm was defeated way back
>> (although we don't know who two of the Doctor's companions were at
>> that point, although we know one is a Lupari). We get hints of
>> Weeping Angels for the cliff-hanger and we know that they will
>> return for their episode. One interesting thing is that the Angels
>> seem to be able to travel from electronic device to reality - I
>> don't think we have seen that before.
>>
>> Finally we are also introduced to Awsok (the shady old lady played
>> by Barbara Flynn) who may well be ultimately pulling the strings.
>> She didn't seem to be a very sympathetic figure.
>>
>> If you haven't realised by now I liked this episode a lot and it is
>> some of the best story-telling we have seen for a long time.
>> Unfortunately I think the effects are uneven - some are really
>> good but at other times the CGI and matte work looks a little
>> obvious.
>
> The attempt to make The Timeless Child Doctor Who is the major factor
> why traditional DW fans are truned off of Chibnall.

"truned"??

I think a lot of "traditional DW fans are' having fun making sense of
all the new bits to the know 'Doctor Who' timeline!
--
Daniel

In article <snkie8$eno$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>The True Doctor wrote on 16/11/21 8:39 am:
>
><Snip>
>
>> Black and white are exactly the same colour. Everyone should know that.
>> Through technically they are not colours. Black is just an absence of
>> light.
>
>White is the presence of all the Visible Colours in an appropriate mixture.
>Black is the absence of any reflected light!
>--
>Daniel

Correction noted.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Merry Christmas 2021 and Happy New Year 2022 Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <snkima$fu1$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote on 16/11/21 10:46 am:
>> In article <FtKdnQq4GpOfDw_8nZ2dnUU78R_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
>> The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
><Snip>
>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>
>> Old maths joke.
>>
>WHAT?? 'They' used to joke about being 'woke' in Maths Class!!
>
>Maybe, if they'd paid more attention .......!
>--
>Daniel

And that was before 'woke' was popular.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Merry Christmas 2021 and Happy New Year 2022 Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <snkisi$glu$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote on 24/11/21 2:13 am:
>> In article <snia3b$if4$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>> The Doctor wrote on 23/11/21 5:58 pm:
>>>> In article <sni3ah$f8s$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>>> The Doctor wrote on 23/11/21 2:05 am:
>>>>>> In article <sng180$269$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> solar penguin wrote on 15/11/21 9:36 am:
>>>>>>>> The True Moron tried to maintain:
>>>>>>>>> On 14/11/2021 19:52, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (-10/10) .
>>>>>>>>>> Please RTD retcon the Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n))/10, where n
>>>>>>>>> is an integer from n=0 -> n=positive infinity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As n tends to infinity, the Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n)
>>>>>>>> also becomes infinity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + .... 2^(n-1)) also approaches infinity ......
>>>>>>> so wouldn't (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n) actually approach twice
>>>>>>> infinity?? ;-P
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IIRC the sum of (2^n) from 0 to N is (2^(N-1)-1)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, ... so as 'n' or 'N' approaches infinity the SUMMATION is 2N!!
>>>>> --
>>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>> 2^N or 2^(N-1) ?
>>>>
>>> No difference .... for all intense!!
>>
>> You said 2N whihc is 2*N or 2xN.
>>
>Sorry!! Do YOU, Clown, want to have another go at explaining yourself,
>Clown??
>--
>Daniel

Dan's definition of clown comes from
http://www.chakoteya.net/DoctorWho/10-1.htm

JO: Look.
(The scanner shows William inside a pyramid shape. He was too ill to act, bless
him.)
DOCTOR 1: [on scanner] Ah, there you are. I seem to be stuck up here. Hmm? Hmm?
Oh, so you're my replacements. Huh. A dandy and a clown. Have you done anything?
DOCTOR 2: Well, we've, er, assessed the situation.
DOCTOR 1 [on scanner]: Just as I thought. Nothing.
DOCTOR: Well it's not easy, you know.

Get out of chronic hysteresis mode Dannyboy!

Dannyboy just wants his post count to increase.

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Merry Christmas 2021 and Happy New Year 2022 Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <snl6u6$2o2$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote on 15/11/21 11:05 am:
>> In article <slrnsp37kk.164kf.andyl@azaal.plus.com>, Andy Leighton
>> <andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 19:52:46 -0000 (UTC), The Doctor
>>> <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> Doctor Who - Once , Upon Time
>>>>
>>>> After the Sontarans looking substandard we get this drivel.
>>>>
>>>> Start the plot. If you feel dizzy , that might be normal.
>>>
>>> Well only simpletons might have trouble with the plot. Looking at
>>> what you have regurgitated then you had problems with the plot and
>>> missed loads of stuff. Half the stuff you write aren't even
>>> intelligible sentences.
>>>
>>>> Bel is out there surviving. Bel is Vinder's friend.
>>>
>>> Hmm a bit more than that. You did catch that she was pregnant
>>> didn't you?
>>>
>>>> Why did Swarm want to spring this trap?
>>>
>>> What - do you mean ths trap in particular? Because it is obvious
>>> why he wants to destroy the Doctor. The Doctor (in Jo Martin form
>>> with Jodie Whittaker along as some sort of quantum leap presence
>>> albeit a bit glitchy) bested him and Azure in the far past and
>>> caused his imprisonment (which we saw in part 1).
>>>
>>>> WE Know Claire is a hosting from part 1.
>>>
>>> There was no character called Claire in this episode. Claire was
>>> the woman attacked by the Weeping Angels in part 1.
>>>
>>>> Why did The Doctor not address the Weeping Angel issue?
>>>
>>> Because it is a 6 part story and if everything was addressed in 1
>>> part then it would be very rushed and there would be 5 parts with
>>> nothing to do.
>>>
>>>
>>> So onto my thoughts.
>>>
>>> Structurally this is clear it is an epsiode that isn't a straight-
>>> forward episode in terms of introduce threat or monster and deal
>>> with it. It simultaneously introduces Bel and expands Vinder's
>>> backstory so we know what has gone on that resulted in the shit
>>> posting he had in episode 1. Through Bel's story we see Daleks and
>>> Cybermen taking advantage of the Flux - so that is three time
>>> capable races all trying to carve out their individual sectors.
>>> This was very deftly done without requiring a Dalek and a Cyberman
>>> episode. We also got to see how Swarm was defeated way back
>>> (although we don't know who two of the Doctor's companions were at
>>> that point, although we know one is a Lupari). We get hints of
>>> Weeping Angels for the cliff-hanger and we know that they will
>>> return for their episode. One interesting thing is that the Angels
>>> seem to be able to travel from electronic device to reality - I
>>> don't think we have seen that before.
>>>
>>> Finally we are also introduced to Awsok (the shady old lady played
>>> by Barbara Flynn) who may well be ultimately pulling the strings.
>>> She didn't seem to be a very sympathetic figure.
>>>
>>> If you haven't realised by now I liked this episode a lot and it is
>>> some of the best story-telling we have seen for a long time.
>>> Unfortunately I think the effects are uneven - some are really
>>> good but at other times the CGI and matte work looks a little
>>> obvious.
>>
>> The attempt to make The Timeless Child Doctor Who is the major factor
>> why traditional DW fans are truned off of Chibnall.
>
>"truned"??
>
>I think a lot of "traditional DW fans are' having fun making sense of
>all the new bits to the know 'Doctor Who' timeline!
>--
>Daniel

Yes, turned off. This is nihilistic styled revisionism Chibnall
is going!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Merry Christmas 2021 and Happy New Year 2022 Beware https://mindspring.com

On 11/24/2021 3:16 AM, Daniel65 wrote:
> The Doctor wrote on 15/11/21 11:05 am:
>>
>> The attempt to make The Timeless Child Doctor Who is the major factor
>> why traditional DW fans are truned off of Chibnall.
>
> "truned"??
>
> I think a lot of "traditional DW fans are' having fun making sense of
> all the new bits to the know 'Doctor Who' timeline!

You make fun of his typo, while making one of your own. What's 'know'
mean in this context?

On 24/11/2021 14:04, The Doctor wrote:
>
> And that was before 'woke' was popular.

Woke was *always* popular... When I was a kid the alarm clock went off
and woke me!

In article <snmed2$dt9$1@dont-email.me>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>On 24/11/2021 14:04, The Doctor wrote:
>>
>> And that was before 'woke' was popular.
>
>Woke was *always* popular... When I was a kid the alarm clock went off
>and woke me!
>

Wrong woke.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Merry Christmas 2021 and Happy New Year 2022 Beware https://mindspring.com

The Doctor wrote on 25/11/2021 1:05 am:
> In article <snkisi$glu$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote on 24/11/21 2:13 am:
>>> In article <snia3b$if4$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
>>> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor wrote on 23/11/21 5:58 pm:
>>>>> In article <sni3ah$f8s$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
>>>>> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor wrote on 23/11/21 2:05 am:
>>>>>>> In article <sng180$269$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
>>>>>>> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> solar penguin wrote on 15/11/21 9:36 am:
>>>>>>>>> The True Moron tried to maintain:
>>>>>>>>>> On 14/11/2021 19:52, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (-10/10) . Please RTD retcon the
>>>>>>>>>>> Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ...
>>>>>>>>>> + 2^n))/10, where n is an integer from n=0 ->
>>>>>>>>>> n=positive infinity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As n tends to infinity, the Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 +
>>>>>>>>> 16 + ... + 2^n) also becomes infinity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + .... 2^(n-1)) also approaches
>>>>>>>> infinity ...... so wouldn't (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... +
>>>>>>>> 2^n) actually approach twice infinity?? ;-P
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IIRC the sum of (2^n) from 0 to N is (2^(N-1)-1)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, ... so as 'n' or 'N' approaches infinity the SUMMATION
>>>>>> is 2N!! -- Daniel
>>>>>
>>>>> 2^N or 2^(N-1) ?
>>>>>
>>>> No difference .... for all intense!!
>>>
>>> You said 2N whihc is 2*N or 2xN.
>>>
>> Sorry!! Do YOU, Clown, want to have another go at explaining
>> yourself, Clown??

Ah!! So not even YOU, Clown, can explain yourself, as usual, Clown!
--
Daniel

In article <snne62$k7n$2@dont-email.me>,
Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote on 25/11/2021 1:05 am:
>> In article <snkisi$glu$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
>> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>> The Doctor wrote on 24/11/21 2:13 am:
>>>> In article <snia3b$if4$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
>>>> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>>> The Doctor wrote on 23/11/21 5:58 pm:
>>>>>> In article <sni3ah$f8s$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
>>>>>> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> The Doctor wrote on 23/11/21 2:05 am:
>>>>>>>> In article <sng180$269$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
>>>>>>>> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> solar penguin wrote on 15/11/21 9:36 am:
>>>>>>>>>> The True Moron tried to maintain:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/11/2021 19:52, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (-10/10) . Please RTD retcon the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chibnall/Whittaker Era once you have taken over!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I gave it (1 + The Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ...
>>>>>>>>>>> + 2^n))/10, where n is an integer from n=0 ->
>>>>>>>>>>> n=positive infinity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As n tends to infinity, the Sum of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 +
>>>>>>>>>> 16 + ... + 2^n) also becomes infinity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + .... 2^(n-1)) also approaches
>>>>>>>>> infinity ...... so wouldn't (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... +
>>>>>>>>> 2^n) actually approach twice infinity?? ;-P
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IIRC the sum of (2^n) from 0 to N is (2^(N-1)-1)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, ... so as 'n' or 'N' approaches infinity the SUMMATION
>>>>>>> is 2N!! -- Daniel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2^N or 2^(N-1) ?
>>>>>>
>>>>> No difference .... for all intense!!
>>>>
>>>> You said 2N whihc is 2*N or 2xN.
>>>>
>>> Sorry!! Do YOU, Clown, want to have another go at explaining
>>> yourself, Clown??
>
>Ah!! So not even YOU, Clown, can explain yourself, as usual, Clown!
>--
>Daniel

Dan's definition of clown comes from
http://www.chakoteya.net/DoctorWho/10-1.htm

JO: Look.
(The scanner shows William inside a pyramid shape. He was too ill to act, bless
him.)
DOCTOR 1: [on scanner] Ah, there you are. I seem to be stuck up here. Hmm? Hmm?
Oh, so you're my replacements. Huh. A dandy and a clown. Have you done anything?
DOCTOR 2: Well, we've, er, assessed the situation.
DOCTOR 1 [on scanner]: Just as I thought. Nothing.
DOCTOR: Well it's not easy, you know.

Get out of chronic hysteresis mode Dannyboy!

Dannyboy just wants his post count to increase.

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Merry Christmas 2021 and Happy New Year 2022 Beware https://mindspring.com

On 24/11/2021 23:20, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <snmed2$dt9$1@dont-email.me>,
> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>> On 24/11/2021 14:04, The Doctor wrote:
>>>
>>> And that was before 'woke' was popular.
>>
>> Woke was *always* popular... When I was a kid the alarm clock went off
>> and woke me!
>
> Wrong woke.

Splecial flied rice plize