The asswipe asserted:

> In article <ujcm7c$3p104$1@dont-email.me>,
> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people
>>
>> "Semitic people or Semites is an obsolete term for an ethnic, cultural
>> or racial group[2][3][4][5] associated with people of the Middle East,
>> *including Arabs* , Jews, Akkadians, and Phoenicians."
>
> Welcome to Orwell's nightmare!
>

Orwell had nightmares about Arabs, Jews, Akkadians, and
Phoenicians...?

In article <ujcvrd$3qcp6$1@dont-email.me>,
solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
>The asswipe asserted:
>
>> In article <ujcm7c$3p104$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people
>>>
>>> "Semitic people or Semites is an obsolete term for an ethnic, cultural
>>> or racial group[2][3][4][5] associated with people of the Middle East,
>>> *including Arabs* , Jews, Akkadians, and Phoenicians."
>>
>> Welcome to Orwell's nightmare!
>>
>
>Orwell had nightmares about Arabs, Jews, Akkadians, and
>Phoenicians...?

Birdie in a nosedive in his cut-and-lie!
--
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
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <ujcs8i$3psd5$1@dont-email.me>,
> solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > What makes good drama writing is constantly changing over
> > time. That’s obvious. Do you really want to pretend otherwise?
>
> As if Evolution is real.

+ + + BREAKING NEWS + + +

Evolution is real Dave. In life (1) as in fictional drama (2).

1) Your made up faith is just that, a made up faith.

2) If writing didn't evolve all dramas written in 2023 would still
use words like doth, forsooth, cozen and gallimaufry (etc.)

The evidence of evolution is all around you... even Stevie Wonder
sees it.

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <nnd$381e682e$711442dc@c3d37ee58a6494a7>,
> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
> >
> > Ask the local priest, aka Father Agamemnon of the 'Sacred Church
> > of RADW'... I'm sure he'll tell you how his rites and rituals
> > outside the local schools are going as he tries to recruit
> > children to come and light a candle in his church and be
> > exorcised of the evil spirit of wokeness from their souls.
>
> You need his services!

I think you'll find Father Agamemnon finds me to old for the services
he has on offer...

The Doctor wrote:
>
> You mean the REAL 14th Doctor, not the 15th Doctor.

Quite possibly actually... but not for the reasons that you mean.

I'm still to be convinced David Tennant isn't really playing a
timey-wimey version of the 10th Doctor. (The Children in Need episode
could easily have been a 10th Doctor episode based on David Tennant's
portrayal of this 'new' Doctor!)

On 2023-11-19 2:53 a.m., Daniel65 wrote:
> The Doctor wrote on 19/11/23 11:33 am:
>> In article <nnd$7e175254$344ed67a@c7a9147c7ad9c6f1>,
>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>> In article <nnd$5c15b658$747b690c@6996c75d232e1f67>,
>>>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>> In article <nnd$6f39878e$12f25af5@d02a294ecf2763e7>,
>>>>>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If people are going to get over-excited at a five minute
>>>>>>> episode for charity we had better get ready to batten down the
>>>>>>> hatches when the proper Doctor Who episodes air!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I await the main event in 8 days
>>>>>
>>>>> You probably won't even bother watching it... you'll just take
>>>>> your cue from one of Agamemnon's posts as usual.
>>>>
>>>> Depends if I post first!
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's a possibility... after all, you've probably written your
>>> review in advance anyway!
>>>
>>> At least Agamemnon watches the episodes.
>>
>> Wrongo BS!
>>
> WHAT!! Are YOU, asswipe, suggesting Aggy doesn't watch 'Doctor Who',
> asswipe??
>

Aggy has admitted to writing "reviews" based on other "reviews" rather
then "waste" his time actually watching the show.

--
"He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his
reason is weak." Michel Eyquem de Montaigne

On 19/11/2023 11:41, solar penguin wrote:
> The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>> On 19/11/2023 03:24, Blueshirt wrote:
>>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How about you grow up and adopt some intelligence instead of
>>>> praising woke bigotry being inserted into Doctor Who at the expense
>>>> of the story and principles of good writing.
>>>
>>> To be honest, I don't a damn about the principles of good writing...
>>> I am not an author. When I watch a TV show I want to be entertained
>>> for that hour (or whatever). I don't analyse the writing beyond did I
>>> find the show enjoyable, or not. If a show constantly pisses me off
>>> as I find it un-enjoyable time after time, then I switch it off and
>>> don't watch it again.
>>>
>>> I don't care about "woke" bigotry either... I have watched Doctor Who
>>> since "Day of the Daleks" in 1972 and since then
>>
>> I've watched it since Robot in 1974.
>>
>>> Doctor Who has evolved... it's 2023 and things are done
>>> differently when it comes to TV shows and films... in 2050
>>> things will be done differently again.
>>
>> That is absolute woke bullshit. The principles of good writing
>> have not changed or mutated over time since their forms were
>> discovered and studied in ancient Greece and Rome.
>> Dumas wrote no differently to Homer, Apollonius and Heliodorus.
>> Shakespeare followed the principles of Aeschylus, Sophocles,
>> Euripides, Menander, Terrance and Plutus (in fact he technically
>> ripped off the last 3).
>>
>>> The world changes, you have to move with it. You can't stop the world
>>
>> The principles of good writing will never change as they
>> are absolutes.
>
> They aren’t absolutes. What makes for good writing is just
> fashion. Nothing more.
>
> Let’s take writing for drama, since that’s the one that applies to
> Doctor Who.

Nope. Doctor Who spans multiple genres of writing, all of which are
based on their absolute form which is unchanging.

>
> The Ancient Greeks believed good drama should have a
> unity of setting. Plays should be long continuous scenes set
> in just one place and time.

Nope. That is a theatrical convention not a literary one. Events take
place in multiple settings and multiple times, but not all happen on
stage because it would need the sets to be changed too often. In fact
the ancient Greeks had a huge mechanical crane for lifting sets and
characters on and off stage as quickly as possible.

In most plays by Aristophanes there are at least 2 or 3 settings. In
Euripides Bachantes there are at least 2 settings. In Antigone there are
at least 2 settings. Also when drama was performed four plays were
performed together on the same day usually an interconnected trilogy
such as the Oedipus saga or Agamemnon, Orestes, and Iphigenia at Tauris,
followed by a comedy or Satyr play. Thus you are getting a complete
episodic story told, which is no different to classic Doctor Who where
the first episode takes place at one or two location and then the next a
two further locations not necessarily the same as the first two, and so on.

>
> By Shakespeare’s time, this had changed. The fashion was
> for lots of short scenes jumping from place to place and back
> again (e.g. Birnham Wood to Dunnsinaine.)
>

No it wasn't. Menander, Terrance, and Plautus all jumped all over the
place. Shakespeare wasn't doing anything new. A Midsummer Night's Dream
is basically one location. The Taming of the Shrew if you exclude the
framing story is just two locations at most, Petruchio accepting the bet
and everything else at Petruchio's home alongside Katerina. Nothing
changed in terms of actual writing since this was all set for the stage.
Ancient Greek dramas usually concentrated on one main event for each
play, set in as many locations as it needed. Then the next event of the
drama continued in another play. What Shakespeare did was that he took a
full story that would have lasted 6 hours if performed as a trilogy and
condensed it to 2 or 3 hours, thus there were more settings because the
play lasted 3 or 5 acts or whatever, which was basically no different to
ancient Greek plays except shorter. The absolute form of dramatic
writing, actually writing for the story didn't change one iota. Homer
set the Odyssey all over the place with Odysseus travelling back and
forth more than anyone. Sophocles' Philoctetes is just one episode in
the story of the Trojan war about getting Philotectes to fight at Troy.
Other plays centred on other episodes such as Andromache, Hecuba, and
The Trojan Women also exist. They're supposed to be performed together.
Nothing's changed except duration and don't tell me that novels are not
adapted differently for the duration of movies based on them compared to
TV series. The absolute forms of good writing still remain the same.

> Nowadays drama can include flashbacks, jumping about in
> time as well as space. The Ancient Greeks would’ve hated this.

Huuurrrrm... THE ANCIENT GREEKS DID THIS ALL THE TIME! Just look at
Homer jumping around back and forth in time and place in the Iliad,
including flashbacks. The Shield of Achilles is a massive aside. It was
no different for playwrights like Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides
where the flash backs and background stories and off stage action scenes
are narrated by the main protagonists and the chorus. Nothing has changed.

> They didn’t show the audience what happened in the past; they
> got the chorus to tell us about it!
>

Do you seriously think that Shakespeare's original production of Julius
Caesar contained huge on stage battle scenes with people on horses and
real archers and artillery dominating the second half of the play? Of
course it didn't because it was and still is impossible to do it on
stage. The scenes the chorus tells us about happened and if the ancient
Greece could have done so they shown it happening as would Shakespeare.
The absolute forms have never changed. All that has happened is that
modern film and TV production allows us to replicate these absolute
forms more closely.

> (That’s another change. How many modern dramas even have
> a chorus?)
>

Once again you are completely wrong. Almost every modern drama unless
it's something like a monologue, has a chorus. Do you even know what the
word chorus even means? It's everyone of the supporting characters that
makes up the whole. How many modern drams don't have a supporting cast?
The chorus in ancient Greek drama didn't all have to speak in unison
(equivalent to a crowd scene) they also spoke individually either to
move the plot along or to discuss a specific characters actions, past,
future, or present. It's exactly the same thing that happens in modern
drama all the time.

> What makes good drama writing is constantly changing over
> time. That’s obvious. Do you really want to pretend otherwise?
>

Wrong, wrong, and always wrong. Nothing has changed in the absolute
forms of writing good drama since ancient times. The absolute forms have
remained constant, unchanging, and absolute. The only difference is that
today we are able to replicate those absolute forms more closely. Unless
of course you're a woke retard like RTD who ignores almost all of the
rules for good writing in order to insert his vile, fascistic, woke,
hypocritical, far left wing politics and sexually groom children.

Just look at the retard's justification for having Davros walking on two
legs where the prejudiced bigot tries to virtue signal when story-wise
it was perfectly natural for him to be walking prior to Genesis of the
Daleks.

Instead of saying that, given that Davros has previously been seen as a
child walking through a mine field and being saved by the 12th Doctor
(in The Magician's Apprentice/The Witch's Familiar) and later on was
severely injured as a result of a lab accident (as described in the
Target novelization of Genesis of the Daleks) or an attempt on his life
(in the 6th Doctor Big Finish story Davros) Davies says this, "We had
long conversations about bringing Davros back because he's a fantastic
character," Davies began, but added that "time, society, culture and
taste has moved on, and there's a problem with Davros of old, in that
he's a wheelchair user, who is evil."

You can see exactly where this series is going. It's being flushed
further down the toilet than ever before.

Let's also not forget that the woke hypocrite himself needlessly created
a villain who was a wheelchair user in the form of John Lumic in Rise of
the Cybermen when he was previously show runner. Just look at these woke
retards change their tune the moment it's most convenient for their own
benefit just like the pigs in Animal Farm.

Idlehands wrote:

> On 2023-11-19 2:53 a.m., Daniel65 wrote:
> > >
> > WHAT!! Are YOU, asswipe, suggesting Aggy doesn't watch 'Doctor Who',
> > asswipe??
>
> Aggy has admitted to writing "reviews" based on other "reviews" rather
> then "waste" his time actually watching the show.

I thought Agamemnon continued to watch Doctor Who so other people didn't
have to... to save them all from "wokeness"!

Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
> Idlehands wrote:
>
>> On 2023-11-19 2:53 a.m., Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>
>>> WHAT!! Are YOU, asswipe, suggesting Aggy doesn't watch 'Doctor Who',
>>> asswipe??
>>
>> Aggy has admitted to writing "reviews" based on other "reviews" rather
>> then "waste" his time actually watching the show.
>
> I thought Agamemnon continued to watch Doctor Who so other people didn't
> have to... to save them all from "wokeness"!
>

Well he can stand down then. The government has appointed Esther McVey to
save us from wokeness, so Aggie doesn’t have to.

If she could save us from Aggie, she would have achieved one worthwhile
result …

--
“The timelines and … canon … are rupturing” - the Doctor

On 19/11/2023 12:42, solar penguin wrote:
> The asswipe asserted:
>
>> In article <ujcm7c$3p104$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people
>>>
>>> "Semitic people or Semites is an obsolete term for an ethnic, cultural
>>> or racial group[2][3][4][5] associated with people of the Middle East,
>>> *including Arabs* , Jews, Akkadians, and Phoenicians."
>>
>> Welcome to Orwell's nightmare!
>>
>
> Orwell had nightmares about Arabs, Jews, Akkadians, and
> Phoenicians...?

He had nightmares about Newspeak replacing real language with woke
politically correct degeneracy so that people could be more easily
controlled and could not find any words that still existed to use to
voice opposition to Ingsoc, the English Socialist Party, aka. English Nazis.

Now you can't call Semitic peoples Semitic any more because it's
offensive to the woke.

--
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

In article <nnd$20996be4$4ef53a03@e04ed4f4932912dd>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
>
>> In article <ujcs8i$3psd5$1@dont-email.me>,
>> solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > What makes good drama writing is constantly changing over
>> > time. That’s obvious. Do you really want to pretend otherwise?
>>
>> As if Evolution is real.
>
>+ + + BREAKING NEWS + + +
>
>Evolution is real Dave. In life (1) as in fictional drama (2).
>
>1) Your made up faith is just that, a made up faith.
>
>2) If writing didn't evolve all dramas written in 2023 would still
>use words like doth, forsooth, cozen and gallimaufry (etc.)
>
>The evidence of evolution is all around you... even Stevie Wonder
>sees it.
>

*** BREAKING NEWS ***

BS lives in the land of fiction.
--
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
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <nnd$50e576c1$4b7f3547@a2e570ac7b55824e>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
>
>> In article <nnd$381e682e$711442dc@c3d37ee58a6494a7>,
>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>> >
>> > Ask the local priest, aka Father Agamemnon of the 'Sacred Church
>> > of RADW'... I'm sure he'll tell you how his rites and rituals
>> > outside the local schools are going as he tries to recruit
>> > children to come and light a candle in his church and be
>> > exorcised of the evil spirit of wokeness from their souls.
>>
>> You need his services!
>
>I think you'll find Father Agamemnon finds me to old for the services
>he has on offer...

LOL!
--
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
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <nnd$238a640c$12ed21f8@fe1cf6c0c946b8f7>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
>>
>> You mean the REAL 14th Doctor, not the 15th Doctor.
>
>Quite possibly actually... but not for the reasons that you mean.
>
>I'm still to be convinced David Tennant isn't really playing a
>timey-wimey version of the 10th Doctor. (The Children in Need episode
>could easily have been a 10th Doctor episode based on David Tennant's
>portrayal of this 'new' Doctor!)

The real 13th Doctor looks like the 10th Doctor!
--
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
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <ujdpnt$3ufjq$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>On 19/11/2023 11:41, solar penguin wrote:
>> The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>> On 19/11/2023 03:24, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> How about you grow up and adopt some intelligence instead of
>>>>> praising woke bigotry being inserted into Doctor Who at the expense
>>>>> of the story and principles of good writing.
>>>>
>>>> To be honest, I don't a damn about the principles of good writing...
>>>> I am not an author. When I watch a TV show I want to be entertained
>>>> for that hour (or whatever). I don't analyse the writing beyond did I
>>>> find the show enjoyable, or not. If a show constantly pisses me off
>>>> as I find it un-enjoyable time after time, then I switch it off and
>>>> don't watch it again.
>>>>
>>>> I don't care about "woke" bigotry either... I have watched Doctor Who
>>>> since "Day of the Daleks" in 1972 and since then
>>>
>>> I've watched it since Robot in 1974.
>>>
>>>> Doctor Who has evolved... it's 2023 and things are done
>>>> differently when it comes to TV shows and films... in 2050
>>>> things will be done differently again.
>>>
>>> That is absolute woke bullshit. The principles of good writing
>>> have not changed or mutated over time since their forms were
>>> discovered and studied in ancient Greece and Rome.
>>> Dumas wrote no differently to Homer, Apollonius and Heliodorus.
>>> Shakespeare followed the principles of Aeschylus, Sophocles,
>>> Euripides, Menander, Terrance and Plutus (in fact he technically
>>> ripped off the last 3).
>>>
>>>> The world changes, you have to move with it. You can't stop the world
>>>
>>> The principles of good writing will never change as they
>>> are absolutes.
>>
>> They aren’t absolutes. What makes for good writing is just
>> fashion. Nothing more.
>>
>> Let’s take writing for drama, since that’s the one that applies to
>> Doctor Who.
>
>Nope. Doctor Who spans multiple genres of writing, all of which are
>based on their absolute form which is unchanging.
>
>>
>> The Ancient Greeks believed good drama should have a
>> unity of setting. Plays should be long continuous scenes set
>> in just one place and time.
>
>Nope. That is a theatrical convention not a literary one. Events take
>place in multiple settings and multiple times, but not all happen on
>stage because it would need the sets to be changed too often. In fact
>the ancient Greeks had a huge mechanical crane for lifting sets and
>characters on and off stage as quickly as possible.
>
>In most plays by Aristophanes there are at least 2 or 3 settings. In
>Euripides Bachantes there are at least 2 settings. In Antigone there are
>at least 2 settings. Also when drama was performed four plays were
>performed together on the same day usually an interconnected trilogy
>such as the Oedipus saga or Agamemnon, Orestes, and Iphigenia at Tauris,
>followed by a comedy or Satyr play. Thus you are getting a complete
>episodic story told, which is no different to classic Doctor Who where
>the first episode takes place at one or two location and then the next a
>two further locations not necessarily the same as the first two, and so on.
>
>>
>> By Shakespeare’s time, this had changed. The fashion was
>> for lots of short scenes jumping from place to place and back
>> again (e.g. Birnham Wood to Dunnsinaine.)
>>
>
>No it wasn't. Menander, Terrance, and Plautus all jumped all over the
>place. Shakespeare wasn't doing anything new. A Midsummer Night's Dream
>is basically one location. The Taming of the Shrew if you exclude the
>framing story is just two locations at most, Petruchio accepting the bet
>and everything else at Petruchio's home alongside Katerina. Nothing
>changed in terms of actual writing since this was all set for the stage.
>Ancient Greek dramas usually concentrated on one main event for each
>play, set in as many locations as it needed. Then the next event of the
>drama continued in another play. What Shakespeare did was that he took a
>full story that would have lasted 6 hours if performed as a trilogy and
>condensed it to 2 or 3 hours, thus there were more settings because the
>play lasted 3 or 5 acts or whatever, which was basically no different to
>ancient Greek plays except shorter. The absolute form of dramatic
>writing, actually writing for the story didn't change one iota. Homer
>set the Odyssey all over the place with Odysseus travelling back and
>forth more than anyone. Sophocles' Philoctetes is just one episode in
>the story of the Trojan war about getting Philotectes to fight at Troy.
>Other plays centred on other episodes such as Andromache, Hecuba, and
>The Trojan Women also exist. They're supposed to be performed together.
>Nothing's changed except duration and don't tell me that novels are not
>adapted differently for the duration of movies based on them compared to
>TV series. The absolute forms of good writing still remain the same.
>
>> Nowadays drama can include flashbacks, jumping about in
>> time as well as space. The Ancient Greeks would’ve hated this.
>
>Huuurrrrm... THE ANCIENT GREEKS DID THIS ALL THE TIME! Just look at
>Homer jumping around back and forth in time and place in the Iliad,
>including flashbacks. The Shield of Achilles is a massive aside. It was
>no different for playwrights like Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides
>where the flash backs and background stories and off stage action scenes
>are narrated by the main protagonists and the chorus. Nothing has changed.
>
>> They didn’t show the audience what happened in the past; they
>> got the chorus to tell us about it!
>>
>
>Do you seriously think that Shakespeare's original production of Julius
>Caesar contained huge on stage battle scenes with people on horses and
>real archers and artillery dominating the second half of the play? Of
>course it didn't because it was and still is impossible to do it on
>stage. The scenes the chorus tells us about happened and if the ancient
>Greece could have done so they shown it happening as would Shakespeare.
>The absolute forms have never changed. All that has happened is that
>modern film and TV production allows us to replicate these absolute
>forms more closely.
>
>> (That’s another change. How many modern dramas even have
>> a chorus?)
>>
>
>Once again you are completely wrong. Almost every modern drama unless
>it's something like a monologue, has a chorus. Do you even know what the
>word chorus even means? It's everyone of the supporting characters that
>makes up the whole. How many modern drams don't have a supporting cast?
>The chorus in ancient Greek drama didn't all have to speak in unison
>(equivalent to a crowd scene) they also spoke individually either to
>move the plot along or to discuss a specific characters actions, past,
>future, or present. It's exactly the same thing that happens in modern
>drama all the time.
>
>> What makes good drama writing is constantly changing over
>> time. That’s obvious. Do you really want to pretend otherwise?
>>
>
>Wrong, wrong, and always wrong. Nothing has changed in the absolute
>forms of writing good drama since ancient times. The absolute forms have
>remained constant, unchanging, and absolute. The only difference is that
>today we are able to replicate those absolute forms more closely. Unless
>of course you're a woke retard like RTD who ignores almost all of the
>rules for good writing in order to insert his vile, fascistic, woke,
>hypocritical, far left wing politics and sexually groom children.
>
>Just look at the retard's justification for having Davros walking on two
>legs where the prejudiced bigot tries to virtue signal when story-wise
>it was perfectly natural for him to be walking prior to Genesis of the
>Daleks.
>
>Instead of saying that, given that Davros has previously been seen as a
>child walking through a mine field and being saved by the 12th Doctor
>(in The Magician's Apprentice/The Witch's Familiar) and later on was
>severely injured as a result of a lab accident (as described in the
>Target novelization of Genesis of the Daleks) or an attempt on his life
>(in the 6th Doctor Big Finish story Davros) Davies says this, "We had
>long conversations about bringing Davros back because he's a fantastic
>character," Davies began, but added that "time, society, culture and
>taste has moved on, and there's a problem with Davros of old, in that
>he's a wheelchair user, who is evil."
>
>You can see exactly where this series is going. It's being flushed
>further down the toilet than ever before.
>
>Let's also not forget that the woke hypocrite himself needlessly created
>a villain who was a wheelchair user in the form of John Lumic in Rise of
>the Cybermen when he was previously show runner. Just look at these woke
>retards change their tune the moment it's most convenient for their own
>benefit just like the pigs in Animal Farm.
>
>What are the Cybermen anyway? People who replaced their lost or worn out
>limbs and organs with prosthetics so they could be like able bodied
>people, that was their original origin story. Is the retard going to
>stop writing Cybermen stories because there's a problem with Cybermen of
>old, in that they're people with disabilities? What's the woke newspeak
>term for them these days anyway?
>
>Why is the woke retard writing Dalek stories anyway, while virtue
>signalling his stupidity and hypocrisy, since the Dalek casing is
>basically a wheel chair come life-support system anyway. Why is this
>degenerate moron picking on people who have kidney failure and need to
>be attached to dialysis machines? Why is the clueless imbecile picking
>on people who need to carry insulin pumps attached them, or those that
>needs aids to help them breath?
>
>Russell T. Davies is nothing more than a stupid retarded virtue
>signalling hypocrite that instead of letting the principles of good
>writing dictate what he writes is letting degenerate woke ideology
>destroy Doctor Who completely in order to hide under its cover to
>indoctrinate children as to what he thinks their sexuality should be.
>

In article <xn0o9j3qu12po7n000@news.eternal-september.org>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>Idlehands wrote:
>
>> On 2023-11-19 2:53 a.m., Daniel65 wrote:
>> > >
>> > WHAT!! Are YOU, %, suggesting Aggy doesn't watch 'Doctor Who',
>> > %??
>>
>> Aggy has admitted to writing "reviews" based on other "reviews" rather
>> then "waste" his time actually watching the show.
>
>I thought Agamemnon continued to watch Doctor Who so other people didn't
>have to... to save them all from "wokeness"!

Even eternal-September should filter out Idlehands!
--
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
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <ujdr1s$3um71$1@dont-email.me>,
The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>> Idlehands wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-11-19 2:53 a.m., Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> WHAT!! Are YOU, %, suggesting Aggy doesn't watch 'Doctor Who',
>>>> %??
>>>
>>> Aggy has admitted to writing "reviews" based on other "reviews" rather
>>> then "waste" his time actually watching the show.
>>
>> I thought Agamemnon continued to watch Doctor Who so other people didn't
>> have to... to save them all from "wokeness"!
>>
>
>Well he can stand down then. The government has appointed Esther McVey to
>save us from wokeness, so Aggie doesn’t have to.
>
>If she could save us from Aggie, she would have achieved one worthwhile
>result …
>

Tories and Labour are mirror images of each other!

>--
>“The timelines and … canon … are rupturing” - the Doctor

--
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
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <ujdtl8$3usup$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>On 19/11/2023 12:42, solar penguin wrote:
>> The % asserted:
>>
>>> In article <ujcm7c$3p104$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people
>>>>
>>>> "Semitic people or Semites is an obsolete term for an ethnic, cultural
>>>> or racial group[2][3][4][5] associated with people of the Middle East,
>>>> *including Arabs* , Jews, Akkadians, and Phoenicians."
>>>
>>> Welcome to Orwell's nightmare!
>>>
>>
>> Orwell had nightmares about Arabs, Jews, Akkadians, and
>> Phoenicians...?
>
>He had nightmares about Newspeak replacing real language with woke
>politically correct degeneracy so that people could be more easily
>controlled and could not find any words that still existed to use to
>voice opposition to Ingsoc, the English Socialist Party, aka. English Nazis.
>
>Now you can't call Semitic peoples Semitic any more because it's
>offensive to the woke.
>

Exactly!

>--
>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
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

The Doctor wrote:
>
> The real 13th Doctor looks like the 10th Doctor!

No Dave, she didn't... and never will... because guess what, Jodie
Whittaker and David Tennant are two different people! Really! Ask
anyone and they will confirm this simple statement of fact.

Move on...

The bullshit-instead-of-True Doctor wrote another
bullshit-instead-of-truth:

> On 19/11/2023 11:41, solar penguin wrote:
>> The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:

BTW sorry I forgot the banter on that one.

>>>
>>> The principles of good writing will never change as they
>>> are absolutes.
>>
>> They aren’t absolutes. What makes for good writing is just
>> fashion. Nothing more.
>>
>> Let’s take writing for drama, since that’s the one that applies to
>> Doctor Who.
>
> Nope. Doctor Who spans multiple genres of writing, all of which are
> based on their absolute form which is unchanging.
>

You were discussing a televised DW mini-episode. That’s
drama. The fact that there are also DW novels and comic
strips, etc. is irrelevant.

(Although, now I think about it, you were originally discussing
the casting of one of the people in that mini-episode so
the whole question of good writing should also be irrelevant.
OTOH I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here,
just because I like discussing writing more than casting!)

>>
>> The Ancient Greeks believed good drama should have a
>> unity of setting. Plays should be long continuous scenes set
>> in just one place and time.
>
> Nope. That is a theatrical convention not a literary one. Events take
> place in multiple settings and multiple times, but not all happen on
> stage because it would need the sets to be changed too often.

It wasn’t a problem in Shakespeare’s day. I don’t think
technology had advanced all that much by then.

>
> In most plays by Aristophanes there are at least 2 or 3 settings.
>In Euripides Bachantes there are at least 2 settings. In Antigone there are
> at least 2 settings.

Interesting. I thought that Aristotle’s Poetics was supposed
to have said something about three dramatic principles
requiring:

1. limitation of the supposed time of a drama to that occupied
in acting it or to a single day (unity of time),

2. use of one scene throughout (unity of place), and

3. concentration on the development of a single plot (unity of action).

I always believed he was accurately describing the drama
fashion of his day. Are you saying he was just making up
any old shit as he went along instead?

If so, then what rules did you mean? Maybe you could
list them here for everyone, so we’re all on the same page
about what rules we’re supposed to be discussing?

(BTW the Destination: Skaro DW mini-episode does follow
all of Aristotle’sdramatic unities, so you could argue that it’s
technically good writing even if you think it was badly cast.)

>
>>
>> By Shakespeare’s time, this had changed. The fashion was
>> for lots of short scenes jumping from place to place and back
>> again (e.g. Birnham Wood to Dunnsinaine.)
>>

Sorry, that should be Birnam Wood and Dunsinane. I should’ve
double-checked the spelling before posting. (But it doesn’t
really matter because you chose to ignore this example
anyway. Maybe you’re superstitious about the Scottish
play?)

>
> Shakespeare wasn't doing anything new.

True. Like I said, he was following the fashion of his day.
Marlowe, Middleton, Jonson, Fletcher, etc. were all doing
the same thing.

> A Midsummer Night's Dream
> is basically one location.

The palace, the mechanicals’ house, the forest. That’s
three locations.

> The Taming of the Shrew if you exclude the
> framing story is just two locations at most, Petruchio
> accepting the bet and everything else at Petruchio's
> home alongside Katerina.

A street in Padua, Baptista’s house, Petruchio’s house, a
country road, Lucientio’s house. Five locations minimum.

(I once saw one production where they pushed free-standing
doors on wheels onto the for indoor scenes and removed
them again for outdoors.)

> What Shakespeare did was that he took a
> full story that would have lasted 6 hours if performed as a trilogy and
> condensed it to 2 or 3 hours, thus there were more settings because the
> play lasted 3 or 5 acts or whatever,

Yes, like I said, a different fashion of writing for a different era.

>which was basically no different to
> ancient Greek plays except shorter.

Really? That seems like quite a radical difference to me.
A definite paradigm shift.

(It’s like when miniskirts were introduced in the sixties.
They were a brand new fashion, even though they were
‘basically no different...except shorter.’)

> The absolute form of dramatic
> writing, actually writing for the story didn't change one iota. Homer
> set the Odyssey all over the place

The Odyssey isn’t a drama. It’s not relevant.

>
>> Nowadays drama can include flashbacks, jumping about in
>> time as well as space. The Ancient Greeks would’ve hated this.
>
> Huuurrrrm... THE ANCIENT GREEKS DID THIS ALL THE TIME! Just look at
> Homer jumping around back and forth in time and place in the Iliad,
> including flashbacks.

The Iliad isn’t a drama. It’s not relevant.

(And it would actually be improved a _lot_ if it didn’t jump
to that long pointless list of ships! I just plain don’t see how
that can ever be an example of good writing!)

> It was
> no different for playwrights like Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides
> where the flash backs and background stories and off stage action scenes
> are narrated by the main protagonists and the chorus. Nothing has changed.

Telling instead of showing. Like I said:

>> They didn’t show the audience what happened in the past; they
>> got the chorus to tell us about it!
>>

Thanks for proving my point.

>
> Do you seriously think that Shakespeare's original production of Julius
> Caesar contained huge on stage battle scenes with people on horses and
> real archers and artillery dominating the second half of the play?

Uh, no. I had moved on from Shakespeare and started
a new paragraph for a new topic. I clearly stated this was
about ‘nowadays’.

You’re right that Shakespeare didn’t use flashbacks (unless
you want to get really pedantic and argue that all of ‘Romeo
and Juliet’ is technically a flashback from the prologue.)

> The absolute forms have never changed. All that has happened is that
> modern film and TV production allows us to replicate these absolute
> forms more closely.

It’s not only film and TV. Just this year, I’ve been to see
not one but two plays that used flashbacks and out-of-sequence
scenes. (A ghost story called ‘When Darkness Falls’ and
a revival of Sondheim’s musical ‘Merrily We Roll Along.’)

There’s no reason the Ancient Greeks couldn’t do

>
>> (That’s another change. How many modern dramas even have
>> a chorus?)
>>
>
> Once again you are completely wrong. Almost every modern drama unless
> it's something like a monologue, has a chorus. Do you even know what the
> word chorus even means? It's everyone of the supporting characters that
> makes up the whole. How many modern drams don't have a supporting cast?

AIUI in modern theatrical jargon, they’re called the ensemble,
not the chorus.

Sorry for dragging us back to Shakespeare again, but if
you want a less modern example, look at the script for
Henry V. The chorus there doesn’t refer to the supporting
cast but the narrator.

>> What makes good drama writing is constantly changing over
>> time. That’s obvious. Do you really want to pretend otherwise?
>>
>
> Wrong, wrong, and always wrong. Nothing has changed in the absolute
> forms of writing good drama since ancient times. The absolute forms have
> remained constant, unchanging, and absolute. The only difference is that
> today we are able to replicate those absolute forms more closely. Unless
> of course you're a woke retard like RTD who ignores almost all of the
> rules

Like I said, perhaps you should list these rules for us, so
we can see for ourselves exactly what they are.

After all, if they really are fixed and eternal, it shouldn’t
be too hard for you, should it?

--
solar penguin

In article <uje75b$1mft$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
says...
>
> In article <nnd$20996be4$4ef53a03@e04ed4f4932912dd>,
> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
> >The Doctor wrote:
> >> As if Evolution is real.
> >
> >
> >Evolution is real Dave. In life (1) as in fictional drama (2).
> >
> >1) Your made up faith is just that, a made up faith.
> >
> >2) If writing didn't evolve all dramas written in 2023 would still
> >use words like doth, forsooth, cozen and gallimaufry (etc.)
> >
> >The evidence of evolution is all around you... even Stevie Wonder
> >sees it.
>
> *** BREAKING NEWS ***
>
> BS lives in the land of fiction.

Do you know what the difference is between a blind person and an idiot?

A blind person can't see because he is blind.

An idiot can't see because he refuses to look.

In article <nnd$178d63a5$749dc2c2@3572cad8837121e5>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
>>
>> The real 13th Doctor looks like the 10th Doctor!
>
>No Dave, she didn't... and never will... because guess what, Jodie
>Whittaker and David Tennant are two different people! Really! Ask
>anyone and they will confirm this simple statement of fact.
>
>Move on...

I said the REAL 13th doctor NOT the FAUX 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
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <uje94r$tnf$1@dont-email.me>,
solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The bull-instead-of-True Doctor wrote another
>bull-instead-of-truth:
>
>> On 19/11/2023 11:41, solar penguin wrote:
>>> The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>BTW sorry I forgot the banter on that one.
>
>>>>
>>>> The principles of good writing will never change as they
>>>> are absolutes.
>>>
>>> They aren’t absolutes. What makes for good writing is just
>>> fashion. Nothing more.
>>>
>>> Let’s take writing for drama, since that’s the one that applies to
>>> Doctor Who.
>>
>> Nope. Doctor Who spans multiple genres of writing, all of which are
>> based on their absolute form which is unchanging.
>>
>
>You were discussing a televised DW mini-episode. That’s
>drama. The fact that there are also DW novels and comic
>strips, etc. is irrelevant.
>
>(Although, now I think about it, you were originally discussing
>the casting of one of the people in that mini-episode so
>the whole question of good writing should also be irrelevant.
>OTOH I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here,
>just because I like discussing writing more than casting!)
>
>>>
>>> The Ancient Greeks believed good drama should have a
>>> unity of setting. Plays should be long continuous scenes set
>>> in just one place and time.
>>
>> Nope. That is a theatrical convention not a literary one. Events take
>> place in multiple settings and multiple times, but not all happen on
>> stage because it would need the sets to be changed too often.
>
>It wasn’t a problem in Shakespeare’s day. I don’t think
>technology had advanced all that much by then.
>
>>
>> In most plays by Aristophanes there are at least 2 or 3 settings.
>>In Euripides Bachantes there are at least 2 settings. In Antigone there are
>> at least 2 settings.
>
>Interesting. I thought that Aristotle’s Poetics was supposed
>to have said something about three dramatic principles
>requiring:
>
>1. limitation of the supposed time of a drama to that occupied
>in acting it or to a single day (unity of time),
>
>2. use of one scene throughout (unity of place), and
>
>3. concentration on the development of a single plot (unity of action).
>
>I always believed he was accurately describing the drama
>fashion of his day. Are you saying he was just making up
>any old shit as he went along instead?
>
>If so, then what rules did you mean? Maybe you could
>list them here for everyone, so we’re all on the same page
>about what rules we’re supposed to be discussing?
>
>(BTW the Destination: Skaro DW mini-episode does follow
>all of Aristotle’sdramatic unities, so you could argue that it’s
>technically good writing even if you think it was badly cast.)
>
>>
>>>
>>> By Shakespeare’s time, this had changed. The fashion was
>>> for lots of short scenes jumping from place to place and back
>>> again (e.g. Birnham Wood to Dunnsinaine.)
>>>
>
>Sorry, that should be Birnam Wood and Dunsinane. I should’ve
>double-checked the spelling before posting. (But it doesn’t
>really matter because you chose to ignore this example
>anyway. Maybe you’re superstitious about the Scottish
>play?)
>
>>
>> Shakespeare wasn't doing anything new.
>
>True. Like I said, he was following the fashion of his day.
>Marlowe, Middleton, Jonson, Fletcher, etc. were all doing
>the same thing.
>
>> A Midsummer Night's Dream
>> is basically one location.
>
>The palace, the mechanicals’ house, the forest. That’s
>three locations.
>
>> The Taming of the Shrew if you exclude the
>> framing story is just two locations at most, Petruchio
>> accepting the bet and everything else at Petruchio's
>> home alongside Katerina.
>
>A street in Padua, Baptista’s house, Petruchio’s house, a
>country road, Lucientio’s house. Five locations minimum.
>
>(I once saw one production where they pushed free-standing
>doors on wheels onto the for indoor scenes and removed
>them again for outdoors.)
>
>> What Shakespeare did was that he took a
>> full story that would have lasted 6 hours if performed as a trilogy and
>> condensed it to 2 or 3 hours, thus there were more settings because the
>> play lasted 3 or 5 acts or whatever,
>
>Yes, like I said, a different fashion of writing for a different era.
>
>>which was basically no different to
>> ancient Greek plays except shorter.
>
>Really? That seems like quite a radical difference to me.
>A definite paradigm shift.
>
>(It’s like when miniskirts were introduced in the sixties.
>They were a brand new fashion, even though they were
>‘basically no different...except shorter.’)
>
>> The absolute form of dramatic
>> writing, actually writing for the story didn't change one iota. Homer
>> set the Odyssey all over the place
>
>The Odyssey isn’t a drama. It’s not relevant.
>
>>
>>> Nowadays drama can include flashbacks, jumping about in
>>> time as well as space. The Ancient Greeks would’ve hated this.
>>
>> Huuurrrrm... THE ANCIENT GREEKS DID THIS ALL THE TIME! Just look at
>> Homer jumping around back and forth in time and place in the Iliad,
>> including flashbacks.
>
>The Iliad isn’t a drama. It’s not relevant.
>
>(And it would actually be improved a _lot_ if it didn’t jump
>to that long pointless list of ships! I just plain don’t see how
>that can ever be an example of good writing!)
>
>> It was
>> no different for playwrights like Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides
>> where the flash backs and background stories and off stage action scenes
>> are narrated by the main protagonists and the chorus. Nothing has changed.
>
>Telling instead of showing. Like I said:
>
>>> They didn’t show the audience what happened in the past; they
>>> got the chorus to tell us about it!
>>>
>
>Thanks for proving my point.
>
>>
>> Do you seriously think that Shakespeare's original production of Julius
>> Caesar contained huge on stage battle scenes with people on horses and
>> real archers and artillery dominating the second half of the play?
>
>Uh, no. I had moved on from Shakespeare and started
>a new paragraph for a new topic. I clearly stated this was
>about ‘nowadays’.
>
>You’re right that Shakespeare didn’t use flashbacks (unless
>you want to get really pedantic and argue that all of ‘Romeo
>and Juliet’ is technically a flashback from the prologue.)
>
>> The absolute forms have never changed. All that has happened is that
>> modern film and TV production allows us to replicate these absolute
>> forms more closely.
>
>It’s not only film and TV. Just this year, I’ve been to see
>not one but two plays that used flashbacks and out-of-sequence
>scenes. (A ghost story called ‘When Darkness Falls’ and
>a revival of Sondheim’s musical ‘Merrily We Roll Along.’)
>
>There’s no reason the Ancient Greeks couldn’t do
>
>>
>>> (That’s another change. How many modern dramas even have
>>> a chorus?)
>>>
>>
>> Once again you are completely wrong. Almost every modern drama unless
>> it's something like a monologue, has a chorus. Do you even know what the
>> word chorus even means? It's everyone of the supporting characters that
>> makes up the whole. How many modern drams don't have a supporting cast?
>
>AIUI in modern theatrical jargon, they’re called the ensemble,
>not the chorus.
>
>Sorry for dragging us back to Shakespeare again, but if
>you want a less modern example, look at the script for
>Henry V. The chorus there doesn’t refer to the supporting
>cast but the narrator.
>
>
>>> What makes good drama writing is constantly changing over
>>> time. That’s obvious. Do you really want to pretend otherwise?
>>>
>>
>> Wrong, wrong, and always wrong. Nothing has changed in the absolute
>> forms of writing good drama since ancient times. The absolute forms have
>> remained constant, unchanging, and absolute. The only difference is that
>> today we are able to replicate those absolute forms more closely. Unless
>> of course you're a woke retard like RTD who ignores almost all of the
>> rules
>
>Like I said, perhaps you should list these rules for us, so
>we can see for ourselves exactly what they are.
>
>After all, if they really are fixed and eternal, it shouldn’t
>be too hard for you, should it?
>

In article <MPG.3fc4bd4f77e0139d989695@news.eternal-september.org>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>In article <uje75b$1mft$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
>says...
>>
>> In article <nnd$20996be4$4ef53a03@e04ed4f4932912dd>,
>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>> >The Doctor wrote:
>> >> As if Evolution is real.
>> >
>> >
>> >Evolution is real Dave. In life (1) as in fictional drama (2).
>> >
>> >1) Your made up faith is just that, a made up faith.
>> >
>> >2) If writing didn't evolve all dramas written in 2023 would still
>> >use words like doth, forsooth, cozen and gallimaufry (etc.)
>> >
>> >The evidence of evolution is all around you... even Stevie Wonder
>> >sees it.
>>
>> *** BREAKING NEWS ***
>>
>> BS lives in the land of fiction.
>
>Do you know what the difference is between a blind person and an idiot?
>
>A blind person can't see because he is blind.
>
>An idiot can't see because he refuses to look.

You are willfully blind BS.
--
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
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

On 20/11/2023 00:27, solar penguin wrote:
>
> The bullshit-instead-of-True Doctor wrote another
> bullshit-instead-of-truth:
>
>> On 19/11/2023 11:41, solar penguin wrote:
>>> The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> BTW sorry I forgot the banter on that one.
>
>>>>
>>>> The principles of good writing will never change as they
>>>> are absolutes.
>>>
>>> They aren’t absolutes. What makes for good writing is just
>>> fashion. Nothing more.
>>>
>>> Let’s take writing for drama, since that’s the one that applies to
>>> Doctor Who.
>>
>> Nope. Doctor Who spans multiple genres of writing, all of which are
>> based on their absolute form which is unchanging.
>>
>
> You were discussing a televised DW mini-episode. That’s
> drama. The fact that there are also DW novels and comic
> strips, etc. is irrelevant.

I was discussing the absolute form of good writing. Stop trying to
dissemble that facts. Yet another Squealer infesting this group treating
its readers as if they are all stupid.

Besides which the episode in question was written as comedy and absolute
forms still apply.

>
> (Although, now I think about it, you were originally discussing
> the casting of one of the people in that mini-episode so
> the whole question of good writing should also be irrelevant.

What? Casting a Nazi-of-colour in order to make Asians feel included by
depicting them as Nazis is the creation of a diseased mind. It defies
not only ever principle of good writing but all common sense given what
the Nazis stood for.

> OTOH I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here,
> just because I like discussing writing more than casting!)
>
>>>
>>> The Ancient Greeks believed good drama should have a
>>> unity of setting. Plays should be long continuous scenes set
>>> in just one place and time.
>>
>> Nope. That is a theatrical convention not a literary one. Events take
>> place in multiple settings and multiple times, but not all happen on
>> stage because it would need the sets to be changed too often.
>
> It wasn’t a problem in Shakespeare’s day. I don’t think
> technology had advanced all that much by then.

I cite Julius Caesar. Do you seriously think Shakespeare had massed
cavalry attacking each other on stage and archers, catapults and
ballistas? Same goes for Henry V without the ballistas.

Shakespeare's productions were limited by what you could achieve on
stage and writing wise were no different to how ancient Greek drama was
written, except that the scenes in Shakespeare were shorter as they told
longer stories in a lesser time than ancient Greek drama.

>>
>> In most plays by Aristophanes there are at least 2 or 3 settings.
>> In Euripides Bachantes there are at least 2 settings. In Antigone there are
>> at least 2 settings.
>
> Interesting. I thought that Aristotle’s Poetics was supposed
> to have said something about three dramatic principles
> requiring:
>
> 1. limitation of the supposed time of a drama to that occupied
> in acting it or to a single day (unity of time),
>
> 2. use of one scene throughout (unity of place), and
>
> 3. concentration on the development of a single plot (unity of action).
>
> I always believed he was accurately describing the drama
> fashion of his day. Are you saying he was just making up
> any old shit as he went along instead?

What I am saying is that you don't understand what he was actually
talking about. Alcestis takes place over several days since Herakles has
to travel to Hades and back, but is limited to the time it needs to act
it out so satisfies rule 1. The Frogs takes place over multiple days and
multiple settings but again is limited to the amount of time it takes to
act all the important scenes. The Knights, same thing. The Bachantes
spans more than a day but is limited to the amount of time it needs to
be acted. Multiple scenes take place either on or off stage.

Dramas were usually written as trilogies that were performed during a
single day so had to be limited to a total duration of about 6 hours of
daylight. Multiple scenes or settings could be included and there was
constant switching back and forth. The Persians takes place in one
location but the action is narrated as taking place over the whole of
Greece.

The limitations of what could be done in a stage play compared to a
movie of today dictated how it was written but made no difference to
story or plot. The absolute forms were the same then as they are today.
The only difference was how they were implemented for the genre in which
there were written or performed. The Odyssey takes place over a period
of 10 years, but is still just one main plot (Odysseus trying to return
home), with lots of sub-plots including the sub-plot of Penelope and the
suitors.

>
> If so, then what rules did you mean? Maybe you could
> list them here for everyone, so we’re all on the same page
> about what rules we’re supposed to be discussing?
>
> (BTW the Destination: Skaro DW mini-episode does follow
> all of Aristotle’sdramatic unities, so you could argue that it’s
> technically good writing even if you think it was badly cast.)
>

Aristotle is discussing how to write a drama given the constraints of
theatre in ancient Greece, which was performed outdoors, during day
light, based on a trilogy of plays having to be performed in a single
day, equivalent to a single 3 Acts play of today, as well as a comedy or
Satyr play to end it, all related by a single plot (and the comedy/Satyr
play related by theme).

The principles of the writing, that is the character interaction and
characterisation and development, the emotional climax, the plot
development and twists, and the overall message or moral, have not
chanced since ancient times since they are based on the absolute form of
good writing. That's why there's no difference between Euripides and
Homer even though they wrote more than 400 years apart. Both used
exactly the same principles of good writing but one did it using just
poetry and the other did it using poetry and dramatic prose. Also
there's there's not difference between either of them and Shakespeare or
even Doulas Adams. Take Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and it's no
different to Terrance or Plautus. Even the chorus is transformed by
Adams into the Guide.

>>
>>>
>>> By Shakespeare’s time, this had changed. The fashion was
>>> for lots of short scenes jumping from place to place and back
>>> again (e.g. Birnham Wood to Dunnsinaine.)
>>>
>
> Sorry, that should be Birnam Wood and Dunsinane. I should’ve
> double-checked the spelling before posting. (But it doesn’t
> really matter because you chose to ignore this example
> anyway. Maybe you’re superstitious about the Scottish
> play?)

I already told you Homer jumps all over the place in The Odyssey. Even
in the Iliad he jumps all over the place from Achaeans to Trojans, from
gods to men, from one hero fighting another, to another hero fighting
yet another, from the walls of Troy to the ships, from the ships to the
islands and from one camp to the other. Nothing has changed from that
even in modern times. I already explained to you how Homer and the story
of the Trojan War was spilt up into around 100 shorter episodes which
were written as dramatic plays performed in trilogies no different to
modern serialized television.

>>
>> Shakespeare wasn't doing anything new.
>
> True. Like I said, he was following the fashion of his day.
> Marlowe, Middleton, Jonson, Fletcher, etc. were all doing
> the same thing.

He was following the same principles of good writing that were used by
the ancient Greeks.

>
>> A Midsummer Night's Dream
>> is basically one location.
>
> The palace, the mechanicals’ house, the forest. That’s
> three locations.

The city of Athens. Basically one location.

>
>> The Taming of the Shrew if you exclude the
>> framing story is just two locations at most, Petruchio
>> accepting the bet and everything else at Petruchio's
>> home alongside Katerina.
>
> A street in Padua, Baptista’s house, Petruchio’s house, a
> country road, Lucientio’s house. Five locations minimum.
>

A house, a house, and a house, basically a house, one location. A street
and another street, basically a street, one location. Thus two sets, two
locations.

> (I once saw one production where they pushed free-standing
> doors on wheels onto the for indoor scenes and removed
> them again for outdoors.)
>

No different to how any ancient Greek play like The Frogs or The Birds
or The Knights would have been performed, all of which featured multiple
locations.

In article <ujegre$1sfm$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>On 20/11/2023 00:27, solar penguin wrote:
>>
>> The bull-instead-of-True Doctor wrote another
>> bull-instead-of-truth:
>>
>>> On 19/11/2023 11:41, solar penguin wrote:
>>>> The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>
>> BTW sorry I forgot the banter on that one.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The principles of good writing will never change as they
>>>>> are absolutes.
>>>>
>>>> They aren’t absolutes. What makes for good writing is just
>>>> fashion. Nothing more.
>>>>
>>>> Let’s take writing for drama, since that’s the one that applies to
>>>> Doctor Who.
>>>
>>> Nope. Doctor Who spans multiple genres of writing, all of which are
>>> based on their absolute form which is unchanging.
>>>
>>
>> You were discussing a televised DW mini-episode. That’s
>> drama. The fact that there are also DW novels and comic
>> strips, etc. is irrelevant.
>
>I was discussing the absolute form of good writing. Stop trying to
>dissemble that facts. Yet another Squealer infesting this group treating
>its readers as if they are all stupid.
>
>Besides which the episode in question was written as comedy and absolute
>forms still apply.
>
>>
>> (Although, now I think about it, you were originally discussing
>> the casting of one of the people in that mini-episode so
>> the whole question of good writing should also be irrelevant.
>
>What? Casting a Nazi-of-colour in order to make Asians feel included by
>depicting them as Nazis is the creation of a diseased mind. It defies
>not only ever principle of good writing but all common sense given what
>the Nazis stood for.
>
>> OTOH I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here,
>> just because I like discussing writing more than casting!)
>>
>>>>
>>>> The Ancient Greeks believed good drama should have a
>>>> unity of setting. Plays should be long continuous scenes set
>>>> in just one place and time.
>>>
>>> Nope. That is a theatrical convention not a literary one. Events take
>>> place in multiple settings and multiple times, but not all happen on
>>> stage because it would need the sets to be changed too often.
>>
>> It wasn’t a problem in Shakespeare’s day. I don’t think
>> technology had advanced all that much by then.
>
>I cite Julius Caesar. Do you seriously think Shakespeare had massed
>cavalry attacking each other on stage and archers, catapults and
>ballistas? Same goes for Henry V without the ballistas.
>
>Shakespeare's productions were limited by what you could achieve on
>stage and writing wise were no different to how ancient Greek drama was
>written, except that the scenes in Shakespeare were shorter as they told
>longer stories in a lesser time than ancient Greek drama.
>
>>>
>>> In most plays by Aristophanes there are at least 2 or 3 settings.
>>> In Euripides Bachantes there are at least 2 settings. In Antigone there are
>>> at least 2 settings.
>>
>> Interesting. I thought that Aristotle’s Poetics was supposed
>> to have said something about three dramatic principles
>> requiring:
>>
>> 1. limitation of the supposed time of a drama to that occupied
>> in acting it or to a single day (unity of time),
>>
>> 2. use of one scene throughout (unity of place), and
>>
>> 3. concentration on the development of a single plot (unity of action).
>>
>> I always believed he was accurately describing the drama
>> fashion of his day. Are you saying he was just making up
>> any old shit as he went along instead?
>
>What I am saying is that you don't understand what he was actually
>talking about. Alcestis takes place over several days since Herakles has
>to travel to Hades and back, but is limited to the time it needs to act
>it out so satisfies rule 1. The Frogs takes place over multiple days and
>multiple settings but again is limited to the amount of time it takes to
>act all the important scenes. The Knights, same thing. The Bachantes
>spans more than a day but is limited to the amount of time it needs to
>be acted. Multiple scenes take place either on or off stage.
>
>Dramas were usually written as trilogies that were performed during a
>single day so had to be limited to a total duration of about 6 hours of
>daylight. Multiple scenes or settings could be included and there was
>constant switching back and forth. The Persians takes place in one
>location but the action is narrated as taking place over the whole of
>Greece.
>
>The limitations of what could be done in a stage play compared to a
>movie of today dictated how it was written but made no difference to
>story or plot. The absolute forms were the same then as they are today.
>The only difference was how they were implemented for the genre in which
>there were written or performed. The Odyssey takes place over a period
>of 10 years, but is still just one main plot (Odysseus trying to return
>home), with lots of sub-plots including the sub-plot of Penelope and the
>suitors.
>
>>
>> If so, then what rules did you mean? Maybe you could
>> list them here for everyone, so we’re all on the same page
>> about what rules we’re supposed to be discussing?
>>
>> (BTW the Destination: Skaro DW mini-episode does follow
>> all of Aristotle’sdramatic unities, so you could argue that it’s
>> technically good writing even if you think it was badly cast.)
>>
>
>Aristotle is discussing how to write a drama given the constraints of
>theatre in ancient Greece, which was performed outdoors, during day
>light, based on a trilogy of plays having to be performed in a single
>day, equivalent to a single 3 Acts play of today, as well as a comedy or
>Satyr play to end it, all related by a single plot (and the comedy/Satyr
>play related by theme).
>
>The principles of the writing, that is the character interaction and
>characterisation and development, the emotional climax, the plot
>development and twists, and the overall message or moral, have not
>chanced since ancient times since they are based on the absolute form of
>good writing. That's why there's no difference between Euripides and
>Homer even though they wrote more than 400 years apart. Both used
>exactly the same principles of good writing but one did it using just
>poetry and the other did it using poetry and dramatic prose. Also
>there's there's not difference between either of them and Shakespeare or
>even Doulas Adams. Take Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and it's no
>different to Terrance or Plautus. Even the chorus is transformed by
>Adams into the Guide.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> By Shakespeare’s time, this had changed. The fashion was
>>>> for lots of short scenes jumping from place to place and back
>>>> again (e.g. Birnham Wood to Dunnsinaine.)
>>>>
>>
>> Sorry, that should be Birnam Wood and Dunsinane. I should’ve
>> double-checked the spelling before posting. (But it doesn’t
>> really matter because you chose to ignore this example
>> anyway. Maybe you’re superstitious about the Scottish
>> play?)
>
>I already told you Homer jumps all over the place in The Odyssey. Even
>in the Iliad he jumps all over the place from Achaeans to Trojans, from
>gods to men, from one hero fighting another, to another hero fighting
>yet another, from the walls of Troy to the ships, from the ships to the
>islands and from one camp to the other. Nothing has changed from that
>even in modern times. I already explained to you how Homer and the story
>of the Trojan War was spilt up into around 100 shorter episodes which
>were written as dramatic plays performed in trilogies no different to
>modern serialized television.
>
>>>
>>> Shakespeare wasn't doing anything new.
>>
>> True. Like I said, he was following the fashion of his day.
>> Marlowe, Middleton, Jonson, Fletcher, etc. were all doing
>> the same thing.
>
>He was following the same principles of good writing that were used by
>the ancient Greeks.
>
>>
>>> A Midsummer Night's Dream
>>> is basically one location.
>>
>> The palace, the mechanicals’ house, the forest. That’s
>> three locations.
>
>The city of Athens. Basically one location.
>
>>
>>> The Taming of the Shrew if you exclude the
>>> framing story is just two locations at most, Petruchio
>>> accepting the bet and everything else at Petruchio's
>>> home alongside Katerina.
>>
>> A street in Padua, Baptista’s house, Petruchio’s house, a
>> country road, Lucientio’s house. Five locations minimum.
>>
>
>A house, a house, and a house, basically a house, one location. A street
>and another street, basically a street, one location. Thus two sets, two
>locations.
>
>> (I once saw one production where they pushed free-standing
>> doors on wheels onto the for indoor scenes and removed
>> them again for outdoors.)
>>
>
>No different to how any ancient Greek play like The Frogs or The Birds
>or The Knights would have been performed, all of which featured multiple
>locations.
>
>>> What Shakespeare did was that he took a
>>> full story that would have lasted 6 hours if performed as a trilogy and
>>> condensed it to 2 or 3 hours, thus there were more settings because the
>>> play lasted 3 or 5 acts or whatever,
>>
>> Yes, like I said, a different fashion of writing for a different era.
>>
>
>A different fashion of writing plays but the same principles of good
>writing.
>
>>> which was basically no different to
>>> ancient Greek plays except shorter.
>>
>> Really? That seems like quite a radical difference to me.
>> A definite paradigm shift.
>>
>
>No it isn't. It's no different to adapting Harry Potter as 8 films from
>7 novels compared to adapting it as 7 or 8 eight to ten episode
>television serials. The same principles of good writing apply base on
>their absolute forms, with J K Rowlings novels as references.
>
>> (It’s like when miniskirts were introduced in the sixties.
>> They were a brand new fashion, even though they were
>> ‘basically no different...except shorter.’)
>
>Fashion makes no difference to the absolute form of good writing. You're
>just writing for a different format such as poetry, prose, drama,
>comedy, satire, but the absolute forms of the principles of writing them
>are all still the same.
>
>>
>>> The absolute form of dramatic
>>> writing, actually writing for the story didn't change one iota. Homer
>>> set the Odyssey all over the place
>>
>> The Odyssey isn’t a drama. It’s not relevant.
>>
>
>The Odyssey is a drama since many dramatic adaptations of it have been
>made. It servers as an example of the absolute form of good writing as
>changing the format in which it is presented makes no difference to the
>story, plot, characters, characterisation, character development,
>character motivation, plot motivation, ultimate goal, and sub plots, and
>over all coherence, resolution, and the heroic journey, all of which are
>base on the absolute form of good writing.
>
>>>
>>>> Nowadays drama can include flashbacks, jumping about in
>>>> time as well as space. The Ancient Greeks would’ve hated this.
>>>
>>> Huuurrrrm... THE ANCIENT GREEKS DID THIS ALL THE TIME! Just look at
>>> Homer jumping around back and forth in time and place in the Iliad,
>>> including flashbacks.
>>
>> The Iliad isn’t a drama. It’s not relevant.
>>
>
>See above.
>
>> (And it would actually be improved a _lot_ if it didn’t jump
>> to that long pointless list of ships! I just plain don’t see how
>> that can ever be an example of good writing!)
>
>It's there to set up the scene and reveal the identity of all the
>characters in advance to most of them being killed off.
>
>What's the point of showing all the Doctor's gathered together in The
>Day of the Doctor with Matt Smith standing in the middle?
>
>>
>>> It was
>>> no different for playwrights like Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides
>>> where the flash backs and background stories and off stage action scenes
>>> are narrated by the main protagonists and the chorus. Nothing has changed.
>>
>> Telling instead of showing. Like I said:
>>
>
>They did not have the option of cutting in flashbacks or side cuts. If
>they had it's clear from the writing that that is what they would have
>done. And you still can't tell the difference from the absolute form and
>they way it is translated to different genres of writing.
>
>
>>>> They didn’t show the audience what happened in the past; they
>>>> got the chorus to tell us about it!
>>>>
>>
>> Thanks for proving my point.
>>
>
>You mean proving that you don't understand the difference between idea
>form and translation of that form to different media.
>
>>>
>>> Do you seriously think that Shakespeare's original production of Julius
>>> Caesar contained huge on stage battle scenes with people on horses and
>>> real archers and artillery dominating the second half of the play?
>>
>> Uh, no. I had moved on from Shakespeare and started
>> a new paragraph for a new topic. I clearly stated this was
>> about ‘nowadays’.
>>
>> You’re right that Shakespeare didn’t use flashbacks (unless
>> you want to get really pedantic and argue that all of ‘Romeo
>> and Juliet’ is technically a flashback from the prologue.)
>>
>>> The absolute forms have never changed. All that has happened is that
>>> modern film and TV production allows us to replicate these absolute
>>> forms more closely.
>>
>> It’s not only film and TV. Just this year, I’ve been to see
>> not one but two plays that used flashbacks and out-of-sequence
>> scenes. (A ghost story called ‘When Darkness Falls’ and
>> a revival of Sondheim’s musical ‘Merrily We Roll Along.’)
>>
>> There’s no reason the Ancient Greeks couldn’t do
>>
>
>Since I've not seen these productions and how the did it I can't comment.
>
>Flashbacks in ancient Greek plays were done using narration. Flashbacks
>existed since the time of Homer. Homer's works are completely full of it.
>
>>>
>>>> (That’s another change. How many modern dramas even have
>>>> a chorus?)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Once again you are completely wrong. Almost every modern drama unless
>>> it's something like a monologue, has a chorus. Do you even know what the
>>> word chorus even means? It's everyone of the supporting characters that
>>> makes up the whole. How many modern drams don't have a supporting cast?
>>
>> AIUI in modern theatrical jargon, they’re called the ensemble,
>> not the chorus.
>>
>
>Whatever. The words mean exactly the same thing in Greek.
>
>> Sorry for dragging us back to Shakespeare again, but if
>> you want a less modern example, look at the script for
>> Henry V. The chorus there doesn’t refer to the supporting
>> cast but the narrator.
>>
>
>Ancient Greek plays had the chorus (which could consist of just one
>person) acting as the narrator as well.
>
>>
>>>> What makes good drama writing is constantly changing over
>>>> time. That’s obvious. Do you really want to pretend otherwise?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong, wrong, and always wrong. Nothing has changed in the absolute
>>> forms of writing good drama since ancient times. The absolute forms have
>>> remained constant, unchanging, and absolute. The only difference is that
>>> today we are able to replicate those absolute forms more closely. Unless
>>> of course you're a woke retard like RTD who ignores almost all of the
>>> rules
>>
>> Like I said, perhaps you should list these rules for us, so
>> we can see for ourselves exactly what they are.
>>
>> After all, if they really are fixed and eternal, it shouldn’t
>> be too hard for you, should it?
>>
>
>It would take forever to list all of the rules and the list would never
>be perfect as they are based on absolute forms, but I will deal the the
>ones pertaining to the pile of woke bilge that RTD wrote for CIN.
>
>First of all there is the principle of suspension of disbelief. For this
>to work a viewer's intelligence must not be underestimated or insulted.
>
>The Kaleds were created as a literal representation of the Nazis, which
>everyone with intelligence knows embodied absolute racism and
>intolerance for different cultures. Thus how can one suspend disbelief
>when a Nazi is portrayed by an Asian actor? Hitler who is represented by
>Davros made it abundantly clear that other races were inferior to the
>Germanic race, as well as other cultures. He states in Mein Kampf that
>he despised Germans assimilated foreign cultures and foreigners trying
>to emulated German culture thus an Asian trying to embody Kaled culture
>would never have been accepted by him. But by allowing retarded woke
>racist ideology to come before the principles of good writing in order
>to virtue signal by casting a Nazi-of-colour RTD not only shows that he
>is a degenerate racist himself who cannot tolerate other cultures just
>like Hitler could not, but he makes suspension of disbelief impossible.
>He could have appealed to the principles of humour to allow for the
>suspension of disbelief by mocking the idea of multicultural Nazis in
>the skit, but the woke retard doesn't even try to do that. All he's
>concerned about is not making Indian people feel left out; and thus also
>insults them, as well as insulting the audience in general and proving
>that he is a total retard.
>
>The stupid idiot then tries to virtue signal by saying that the reason
>he has Davros walking to two legs was so as not to offend wheelchair
>users (some of whom such as Ian Levine consider his justification to be
>a total insult to them instead). What he actually could have done is
>referred to Moffat showing Davros as a child walking on two legs and
>taking that into consideration advanced using the principles of good
>writing like Moffat did who foreshadowed Davros future as a wheelchair
>user by having him walk though a mine field and stop on a mine. Why
>didn't Retard T Davies do something similar? Foreshadow Davros' future
>by having him narrowly avoid the dangers of working in a weapons
>laboratory for humour? Once again he fails to do that because he is
>primarily motivated by his woke degeneracy in not wanting to offend a
>bunch of far left wing activists rather than actual disabled people,
>instead of following the principles of good writing.
>
>Doctor Who fans outraged after iconic villain Davros returns to the show
>but looks VERY different
>https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/24787513/doctor-who-fans-davros-show-standing-up/
>