The Last Doctor wrote on 30/5/22 9:35 am:
> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, lied;
>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We were discussing YOUR lies Dave, not mine. Not that I’ve told any, of
>>> course - you can’t name even one. Because you’re lying. Again. Liar.
>>
>> Anyone defending The Timeless Child as part of Doctor Who lies about
>> themselves are a Doctor Who Fan.
>
> Gibberish. Who tells Doctor Who lies about themselves? And if they were
> telling Doctor Who lies about themselves, why would they defend the
> Timeless Child? More to the point, how could they do that? The people
> telling Doctor Who lies about themselves - and what IS a “Doctor Who lie”
> anyway? - are presumably real people. The Timeless Child is fictional.

Mike, did you notice who made this accusation about people telling
'Doctor Who' lies??

Some clown who calls himself "Doctor Who"!! The greatest 'Doctor Who'
lie of them all!!
--
Daniel

The Doctor wrote on 30/5/22 8:17 am:
> In article <t6vq1r$2cp$1@dont-email.me>,
> solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Binky bleated:
>>> In article <t6tbfd$p0t$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Binky bleated:
>>>>> In article <t6qmd2$nc9$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Binky bleated:
>>>>>>> In article <t6qlgk$gi5$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Binky bleated:
>>>>>>>>> In article <t6q8tb$nch$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>> solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Liar! The Angry Greek Atavist (AGA) hasn’t provided
>>>>>>>>>> numbers that show specific plot contradictions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If he has, then prove me wrong and quote the
>>>>>>>>>> posts where he did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Atavist?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Someone or something that’s very, very old-fashioned.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, stop trying to change the subject. Quote
>>>>>>>> those magic numbers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thoght you misspelled activist for a moment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that prevented you from quoting the numbers,
>>>>>> did it?
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought you were calling AGA Angry Greek Activist!
>>>>
>>>> And that prevented you from quoting the numbers,
>>>> did it?
>>>
>>> Do you recall the numbers he posted?
>>
>> I don’t recall them showing specifically how the Timeless
>> Child arc contradicts Omega or Rassilon.
>
> Bird has no common sense.

Bird is trying to read any sort of 'common sense' into YOUR response,
clown!!

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

The Doctor wrote on 30/5/22 11:13 am:
> In article <t71002$1fj$1@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> Binky went bananas and blathered:
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, lied;
>>>>> In article <t6snk0$k70$1@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
>>>>> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> But just to be clear: it could only be retconned out of
>>>>>> Doctor Who if it is a part of Doctor Who in the first
>>>>>> place. Therefore YOU insist that the Timeless Child is
>>>>>> Doctor Who.
>>>>>
>>>>> If RTD moves on accepting it.
>>>>
>>>> Gibberish.
>>>
>>> Failed Reading comprehension MikeMcK?
>>
>> No Dave. It’s you that fails on writing for comprehension. When I
>> write “Therefore YOU insist that the Timeless Child is Doctor
>> Who” (pointing out a fact that is made clear by your wanting to
>> retcon it OUT of the show’s continuity), a response like “If
>> RTD moves on accepting it” makes absolutely zero sense.
>>
>> You started a sentence with “If”, so trying to make a fact
>> conditional. You wrote about RTD “accepting it”. Why should RTD
>> care that you recognise the Timeless Child as being Doctor Who?
>> Where would he move to? Why would that change the very idea that
>> you realise the truth for once?
>>
>
> Then Doctor Who is dead if RTD accepts the Timeless Child.

Ah!! So now 'we' can take a pick between "Doctor Who ended in 2017" and
"Doctor Who ended in 2022", can we, clown??

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

Daniel65 wrote on 30/5/22 7:46 pm:
> The Last Doctor wrote on 30/5/22 9:35 am:
>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, lied;
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We were discussing YOUR lies Dave, not mine. Not that I’ve told
>>>> any, of course - you can’t name even one. Because you’re lying.
>>>> Again. Liar.
>>>
>>> Anyone defending The Timeless Child as part of Doctor Who lies
>>> about themselves are a Doctor Who Fan.
>>
>> Gibberish. Who tells Doctor Who lies about themselves? And if they
>> were telling Doctor Who lies about themselves, why would they
>> defend the Timeless Child? More to the point, how could they do
>> that? The people telling Doctor Who lies about themselves - and
>> what IS a “Doctor Who lie” anyway? - are presumably real people.
>> The Timeless Child is fictional.
>
> Mike, did you notice who made this accusation about people telling
> 'Doctor Who' lies??
>
> Some clown who calls himself "Doctor Who"!! The greatest 'Doctor Who'
> lie of them all!!

Bugger!! s/... who calls himself "Doctor Who"/... who calls himself
"The Doctor"
--
Daniel

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t723e0$c8v$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t71002$1fj$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> Binky went bananas and blathered:
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, lied;
>>>>>>> In article <t6snk0$k70$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> But just to be clear: it could only be retconned out of Doctor Who if
>>>>>>>> it is a part of Doctor Who in the first place. Therefore YOU insist
>>>>>>>> that the Timeless Child is Doctor Who.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If RTD moves on accepting it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gibberish.
>>>>>
>>>>> Failed Reading comprehension MikeMcK?
>>>>
>>>> No Dave. It’s you that fails on writing for comprehension. When I write
>>>> “Therefore YOU insist that the Timeless Child is Doctor Who”
>> (pointing out
>>>> a fact that is made clear by your wanting to retcon it OUT of the show’s
>>>> continuity), a response like “If RTD moves on accepting it” makes
>>>> absolutely zero sense.
>>>>
>>>> You started a sentence with “If”, so trying to make a fact
>> conditional. You
>>>> wrote about RTD “accepting it”. Why should RTD care that you
>> recognise the
>>>> Timeless Child as being Doctor Who? Where would he move to? Why would that
>>>> change the very idea that you realise the truth for once?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then Doctor Who is dead if RTD accepts the Timeless Child.
>>
>> That’s just a personal minority opinion. Here’s what RTD had to say on the
>> subject: "But now, the Thirteenth Doctor has shown us Doctors galore, with
>> infinite possibilities. All Doctors exist. All stories are true."
>>
>> And your opinion reflects only one of at least five possible routes RTD
>> could take.
>>
>> 1) RTD could reject the Timeless Child, somehow turning into a giant lie
>> planned by the Master (but which needs to explain the Fugitive Doctor and
>> Tecteun.)
>>
>> 2) RTD could fully embrace the Timeless Child, telling new stories about
>> the pre Hartnell era and pre Hartnell Doctors, and/or having the current
>> Doctors learn more about their own past and come to terms with not quite
>> being who they always thought they were
>>
>> 3) RTD could modify the Timeless Child narrrative, eg by showing how their
>> origin was Gallifreyan after all in some timey-wimey way and the unlimited
>> regenerations the Doctor has are an incidental or accidental of something
>> or other
>>
>> 4) RTD could go full multiverse and the Timeless Child could become just
>> one possible origin story for one lineage of Doctors - and it becomes lost
>> in an ever more complex set of narratives
>>
>> 5) (and this is by far the most likely) RTD ignores the Timeless Child
>> completely. Chris Chibnall has already laid the groundwork for that by
>> closing off Tectuen and the Division (in Flux) and depositing the Doctor’s
>> problems on this in the form of a fob watch deep in the heart of the
>> TARDIS. RTD (or another future show runner) then has the freedom to revisit
>> the narrative and choose one of options 1-4 (or another one I haven’t even
>> thought of) at a time of their own choosing, meanwhile telling a completely
>> new set of stories for the Doctor unconnected to the Timeless Child.
>>
>> But whichever of these five routes (or another) RTD takes, the show is far
>> from dead.
>>
>> To reiterate - even the mediocre “Legend of the Sea Devils”, coming after
>> three thinly spread seasons of Jodie Whittaker’s Doctor helmed by Chris
>> Chibnall, with all their flaws, was the most popular programme the BBC
>> showed on Easter Sunday. It was the second most viewed BBC drama of the
>> viewing week, and in the top ten most viewed BBC shows of the viewing week.
>>
>>
>> That’s not a dead show, it’s a strong winner for the BBC.
>>
>
> But the Timelss Child is getting high disapproval ratings.

Where? What disapproval rating is this, and is it representative of the
general British viewing public? If not, it’s meaningless. Fandom is a very
small part of viewership. International audiences are niche. Etc.

> This is wht ia destroying Doctor Who!

What is the objective indicator that Doctor Who is being “destroyed”? You
keep saying this but the facts don’t support your contention.

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

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t723e0$c8v$2@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t71003$1fj$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, lied:
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, lied:
>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> YOU are the liar. You wrote “War and Pace”. Then you wrote
>> “Ware and
>>>>>>>> PAce”. Now you want to lie about it. Liar. Liar. Liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chibnallite MikeMcK for you!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gibberish. And irrelevant to your continual lies. Liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Said Timelss Child Apologist MikeMcK!
>>>>
>>>> More gibberish. And irrelevant to your continual lies, except insofar as
>>>> you’ve added another one. I’m no “Timelss Child Apologist”.
>> Nor even a
>>>> “Timeless Child Apologist”. I’ve always said I don’t much like it.
>>>>
>>>> Liar. Liar. Liar.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then where do you stand? For or Against? No middle!
>>
>> Which part of “I don’t much like it” was too hard for you to understand?
>>
>> Your failing is that you seem unable to accept that I can dislike an aspect
>> of the show but recognise that it IS a part of the show.
>>
>> There is no “for” or “against”. There is only “liked it” or
>> “didn’t like
>> it”, with various degrees of enthusiasm. And of course there can be middle
>> ground. “Meh!” is middle ground.
>>
>> Im not “against” the Timeless Children any more than I’m
>> “against” seasons
>> 24-25. I didn’t care for those either, but they’re still part of the show.
>> You don’t see me going around chanting “save 80s Who! Retcon Sylvester
>> McCoy!” And those were worse, far worse than anything Chris Chibnall has
>> done. Even Orphan 55 or Praxeus.
>>
>
> Syl McCoy is far better than what anything Chibnall has but out!

Opinion, and I suspect a minority opinion. Most of the Doctor Who fans I
know still regard the televised McCoy era as the nadir of Who to date.

> Orphan 55 is the best Ever Chibnall Timelss Child.

What? You’re babbling nonsense.

Most objective AND subjective measures place Orphan 55 firmly in the “pile
of crap” bucket, the very worst of the Whittaker era. (Still better in most
respects than any of season 24, mind). And it had nothing to do with the
Timeless Child at ALL.

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

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t723e1$c8v$3@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t71003$1fj$3@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, lied;
>>>>
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We were discussing YOUR lies Dave, not mine. Not that I’ve told any, of
>>>>>> course - you can’t name even one. Because you’re lying. Again. Liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone defending The Timeless Child as part of Doctor Who lies about
>>>>> themselves are a Doctor Who Fan.
>>>>
>>>> Gibberish. Who tells Doctor Who lies about themselves? And if they were
>>>> telling Doctor Who lies about themselves, why would they defend the
>>>> Timeless Child? More to the point, how could they do that? The people
>>>> telling Doctor Who lies about themselves - and what IS a “Doctor Who lie”
>>>> anyway? - are presumably real people. The Timeless Child is fictional.
>>>
>>>
>>> Retcon the Timeless Child! Otherwise you are pro-Timeless Child!
>>
>> What arrant stupidity
>>
>> I’m not going to try to retcon Donald Trump. That doesn’t mean I am in
>> favour of him.
>>
>
> You would be a winnder in Tim Bruening's eyes.

Gibberish.

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

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t723e1$c8v$4@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t71003$1fj$4@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t6ti0b$8vm$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, lied;
>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, invented enemies:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All Chibnallites and All Timeless Child adherants must be FOUGHT!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you point to any such “Chibnallites” and “Timeless Child
>>>>>> adherents”
>>>>>>>> please? And explain why you want to fight them?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because they are causing the Downfall of Doctor Who, Liying MikeMcK!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who is Liying MikeMcK? It was me that you were exchanging responses with,
>>>>>> not this Liying person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you’re answering in the wrong order, then missing out an
>> important part
>>>>>> of your explanation, instead adding just another confusing lie. Please
>>>>>> answer ALL the questions in order.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Can you point to any such “Chibnallites” and “Timeless Child
>>>>>> adherents”
>>>>>> please?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Why do you want to fight them? (This part you sort of answered, but
>>>>>> without being able to name any of them - but your answer leads only to more
>>>>>> questions):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) How are these imaginary people causing the downfall of Doctor Who?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4) What are the indicators that there is a downfall of Doctor Who?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Downfall is due to Chris Chibnall injecting the the Timeless child
>>>>> into the Doctor Who lore.
>>>>
>>>> I asked you what indicators you had that there is a downfall, not what you
>>>> think caused it. We should try to work out whether something actually
>>>> exists before investigating its origin, surely.
>>>>
>>>> You failed to answer questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 there, instead answering a
>>>> fifth one that I didn’t ask.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or Like Daniel, you fail to accept the answer presented to you.
>>
>> I can’t accept an answer you haven’t given. I don’t believe that
>> there is a
>> downfall of Doctor Who and you’ve made no salient points to indicate that
>> there is one.
>>
>> If I was to say to you “the Atlantic Ocean is dry” and you say to me “why
>> do you think the Ocean has gone?”, I should be telling you how I know it’s
>> gone.
>>
>> Saying “God drank it!” isn’t an answer to the question, especially
>> if I can
>> check satellites and see that the ocean is still there.
>
> Your analogy holds no water.

Well, of course it doesn’t. That’s what “the Atlantic Ocean is dry” would
imply, that it holds no water. Well spotted.

It is, however, absolutely comparable to our previous exchange. You claimed
an absurdity, I asked you what evidence there is that the absurdity exists,
you ignored that and instead made weird assertions that assumed the
unproven absurdity to be factual.

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

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t72kac$6pm$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t723e0$c8v$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t71002$1fj$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Binky went bananas and blathered:
>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, lied;
>>>>>>>>> In article <t6snk0$k70$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> But just to be clear: it could only be retconned out of Doctor Who if
>>>>>>>>>> it is a part of Doctor Who in the first place. Therefore YOU insist
>>>>>>>>>> that the Timeless Child is Doctor Who.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If RTD moves on accepting it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gibberish.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Failed Reading comprehension MikeMcK?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No Dave. It’s you that fails on writing for comprehension. When I write
>>>>>> “Therefore YOU insist that the Timeless Child is Doctor Who”
>>>> (pointing out
>>>>>> a fact that is made clear by your wanting to retcon it OUT of the show’s
>>>>>> continuity), a response like “If RTD moves on accepting it” makes
>>>>>> absolutely zero sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You started a sentence with “If”, so trying to make a fact
>>>> conditional. You
>>>>>> wrote about RTD “accepting it”. Why should RTD care that you
>>>> recognise the
>>>>>> Timeless Child as being Doctor Who? Where would he move to? Why would that
>>>>>> change the very idea that you realise the truth for once?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then Doctor Who is dead if RTD accepts the Timeless Child.
>>>>
>>>> That’s just a personal minority opinion. Here’s what RTD had to
>> say on the
>>>> subject: "But now, the Thirteenth Doctor has shown us Doctors galore, with
>>>> infinite possibilities. All Doctors exist. All stories are true."
>>>>
>>>> And your opinion reflects only one of at least five possible routes RTD
>>>> could take.
>>>>
>>>> 1) RTD could reject the Timeless Child, somehow turning into a giant lie
>>>> planned by the Master (but which needs to explain the Fugitive Doctor and
>>>> Tecteun.)
>>>>
>>>> 2) RTD could fully embrace the Timeless Child, telling new stories about
>>>> the pre Hartnell era and pre Hartnell Doctors, and/or having the current
>>>> Doctors learn more about their own past and come to terms with not quite
>>>> being who they always thought they were
>>>>
>>>> 3) RTD could modify the Timeless Child narrrative, eg by showing how their
>>>> origin was Gallifreyan after all in some timey-wimey way and the unlimited
>>>> regenerations the Doctor has are an incidental or accidental of something
>>>> or other
>>>>
>>>> 4) RTD could go full multiverse and the Timeless Child could become just
>>>> one possible origin story for one lineage of Doctors - and it becomes lost
>>>> in an ever more complex set of narratives
>>>>
>>>> 5) (and this is by far the most likely) RTD ignores the Timeless Child
>>>> completely. Chris Chibnall has already laid the groundwork for that by
>>>> closing off Tectuen and the Division (in Flux) and depositing the Doctor’s
>>>> problems on this in the form of a fob watch deep in the heart of the
>>>> TARDIS. RTD (or another future show runner) then has the freedom to revisit
>>>> the narrative and choose one of options 1-4 (or another one I haven’t even
>>>> thought of) at a time of their own choosing, meanwhile telling a completely
>>>> new set of stories for the Doctor unconnected to the Timeless Child.
>>>>
>>>> But whichever of these five routes (or another) RTD takes, the show is far
>>>> from dead.
>>>>
>>>> To reiterate - even the mediocre “Legend of the Sea Devils”, coming after
>>>> three thinly spread seasons of Jodie Whittaker’s Doctor helmed by Chris
>>>> Chibnall, with all their flaws, was the most popular programme the BBC
>>>> showed on Easter Sunday. It was the second most viewed BBC drama of the
>>>> viewing week, and in the top ten most viewed BBC shows of the viewing week.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That’s not a dead show, it’s a strong winner for the BBC.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But the Timelss Child is getting high disapproval ratings.
>>
>> Where? What disapproval rating is this, and is it representative of the
>> general British viewing public? If not, it’s meaningless. Fandom is a very
>> small part of viewership. International audiences are niche. Etc.
>>
>>> This is wht ia destroying Doctor Who!
>>
>> What is the objective indicator that Doctor Who is being “destroyed”? You
>> keep saying this but the facts don’t support your contention.
>>
>
> You just want to ignore that facts around you MikeMcK!

You haven’t presented any of your imagined “facts” Dave. It’s not hard to
ignore something that you haven’t shown exists.

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

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t72kad$6pm$2@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t723e0$c8v$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t71003$1fj$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, lied:
>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, lied:
>>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> YOU are the liar. You wrote “War and Pace”. Then you wrote
>>>> “Ware and
>>>>>>>>>> PAce”. Now you want to lie about it. Liar. Liar. Liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chibnallite MikeMcK for you!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gibberish. And irrelevant to your continual lies. Liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Said Timelss Child Apologist MikeMcK!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More gibberish. And irrelevant to your continual lies, except insofar as
>>>>>> you’ve added another one. I’m no “Timelss Child Apologist”.
>>>> Nor even a
>>>>>> “Timeless Child Apologist”. I’ve always said I don’t much like it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Liar. Liar. Liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then where do you stand? For or Against? No middle!
>>>>
>>>> Which part of “I don’t much like it” was too hard for you to
>> understand?
>>>>
>>>> Your failing is that you seem unable to accept that I can dislike an aspect
>>>> of the show but recognise that it IS a part of the show.
>>>>
>>>> There is no “for” or “against”. There is only “liked it” or
>>>> “didn’t like
>>>> it”, with various degrees of enthusiasm. And of course there can be middle
>>>> ground. “Meh!” is middle ground.
>>>>
>>>> Im not “against” the Timeless Children any more than I’m
>>>> “against” seasons
>>>> 24-25. I didn’t care for those either, but they’re still part of
>> the show.
>>>> You don’t see me going around chanting “save 80s Who! Retcon Sylvester
>>>> McCoy!” And those were worse, far worse than anything Chris Chibnall has
>>>> done. Even Orphan 55 or Praxeus.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Syl McCoy is far better than what anything Chibnall has but out!
>>
>> Opinion, and I suspect a minority opinion. Most of the Doctor Who fans I
>> know still regard the televised McCoy era as the nadir of Who to date.
>>
>>
>>> Orphan 55 is the best Ever Chibnall Timelss Child.
>>
>> What? You’re babbling nonsense.
>>
>> Most objective AND subjective measures place Orphan 55 firmly in the “pile
>> of crap” bucket, the very worst of the Whittaker era. (Still better in most
>> respects than any of season 24, mind). And it had nothing to do with the
>> Timeless Child at ALL.
>>
>
> All of Chibnall is Junk.
>
> McCoy shines like an antique car in comparison to Chibnall!

That’s still just your opinion Dave. You’re entitled to your opinions, no
matter how wrongheaded. But don’t make the mistake of thinking you’re
automatically right.

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

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t72kad$6pm$3@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t723e1$c8v$3@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t71003$1fj$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, lied;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We were discussing YOUR lies Dave, not mine. Not that I’ve told any, of
>>>>>>>> course - you can’t name even one. Because you’re lying. Again. Liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone defending The Timeless Child as part of Doctor Who lies about
>>>>>>> themselves are a Doctor Who Fan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gibberish. Who tells Doctor Who lies about themselves? And if they were
>>>>>> telling Doctor Who lies about themselves, why would they defend the
>>>>>> Timeless Child? More to the point, how could they do that? The people
>>>>>> telling Doctor Who lies about themselves - and what IS a “Doctor
>> Who lie”
>>>>>> anyway? - are presumably real people. The Timeless Child is fictional.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Retcon the Timeless Child! Otherwise you are pro-Timeless Child!
>>>>
>>>> What arrant stupidity
>>>>
>>>> I’m not going to try to retcon Donald Trump. That doesn’t mean I am in
>>>> favour of him.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You would be a winner in Tim Bruening's eyes.
>>
>> Gibberish.
>
> Tim want to retcon Donald Turmp.

So? That doesn’t make what you originally wrote before you lied about it
make any more sense. Especially since I wrote that I WASN’T going to try to
retcon him. Liar.

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

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t72kae$6pm$4@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t723e1$c8v$4@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t71003$1fj$4@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <t6ti0b$8vm$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, lied;
>>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, invented enemies:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All Chibnallites and All Timeless Child adherants must be FOUGHT!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can you point to any such “Chibnallites” and “Timeless Child
>>>>>>>> adherents”
>>>>>>>>>> please? And explain why you want to fight them?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because they are causing the Downfall of Doctor Who, Liying MikeMcK!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who is Liying MikeMcK? It was me that you were exchanging responses with,
>>>>>>>> not this Liying person.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you’re answering in the wrong order, then missing out an
>>>> important part
>>>>>>>> of your explanation, instead adding just another confusing lie. Please
>>>>>>>> answer ALL the questions in order.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) Can you point to any such “Chibnallites” and “Timeless Child
>>>>>>>> adherents”
>>>>>>>> please?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) Why do you want to fight them? (This part you sort of answered, but
>>>>>>>> without being able to name any of them - but your answer leads
>> only to more
>>>>>>>> questions):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3) How are these imaginary people causing the downfall of Doctor Who?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4) What are the indicators that there is a downfall of Doctor Who?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Downfall is due to Chris Chibnall injecting the the Timeless child
>>>>>>> into the Doctor Who lore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I asked you what indicators you had that there is a downfall, not what you
>>>>>> think caused it. We should try to work out whether something actually
>>>>>> exists before investigating its origin, surely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You failed to answer questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 there, instead answering a
>>>>>> fifth one that I didn’t ask.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or Like Daniel, you fail to accept the answer presented to you.
>>>>
>>>> I can’t accept an answer you haven’t given. I don’t believe that
>>>> there is a
>>>> downfall of Doctor Who and you’ve made no salient points to indicate that
>>>> there is one.
>>>>
>>>> If I was to say to you “the Atlantic Ocean is dry” and you say to
>> me “why
>>>> do you think the Ocean has gone?”, I should be telling you how I
>> know it’s
>>>> gone.
>>>>
>>>> Saying “God drank it!” isn’t an answer to the question, especially
>>>> if I can
>>>> check satellites and see that the ocean is still there.
>>>
>>> Your analogy holds no water.
>>
>> Well, of course it doesn’t. That’s what “the Atlantic Ocean is
>> dry” would
>> imply, that it holds no water. Well spotted.
>>
>> It is, however, absolutely comparable to our previous exchange. You claimed
>> an absurdity, I asked you what evidence there is that the absurdity exists,
>> you ignored that and instead made weird assertions that assumed the
>> unproven absurdity to be factual.
>
>
> Chibnall is the biggest absurdity in Whodom.

In you opinion. You still haven’t put forward any evidence for this
imaginary “downfall” though.

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

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t73fgt$ss7$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t72kac$6pm$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t723e0$c8v$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <t71002$1fj$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Binky went bananas and blathered:
>>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, lied;
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <t6snk0$k70$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> But just to be clear: it could only be retconned out of Doctor Who if
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is a part of Doctor Who in the first place. Therefore YOU insist
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the Timeless Child is Doctor Who.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If RTD moves on accepting it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gibberish.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Failed Reading comprehension MikeMcK?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No Dave. It’s you that fails on writing for comprehension. When I write
>>>>>>>> “Therefore YOU insist that the Timeless Child is Doctor Who”
>>>>>> (pointing out
>>>>>>>> a fact that is made clear by your wanting to retcon it OUT of the
>> show’s
>>>>>>>> continuity), a response like “If RTD moves on accepting it” makes
>>>>>>>> absolutely zero sense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You started a sentence with “If”, so trying to make a fact
>>>>>> conditional. You
>>>>>>>> wrote about RTD “accepting it”. Why should RTD care that you
>>>>>> recognise the
>>>>>>>> Timeless Child as being Doctor Who? Where would he move to? Why
>> would that
>>>>>>>> change the very idea that you realise the truth for once?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then Doctor Who is dead if RTD accepts the Timeless Child.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That’s just a personal minority opinion. Here’s what RTD had to
>>>> say on the
>>>>>> subject: "But now, the Thirteenth Doctor has shown us Doctors galore, with
>>>>>> infinite possibilities. All Doctors exist. All stories are true."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And your opinion reflects only one of at least five possible routes RTD
>>>>>> could take.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) RTD could reject the Timeless Child, somehow turning into a giant lie
>>>>>> planned by the Master (but which needs to explain the Fugitive Doctor and
>>>>>> Tecteun.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) RTD could fully embrace the Timeless Child, telling new stories about
>>>>>> the pre Hartnell era and pre Hartnell Doctors, and/or having the current
>>>>>> Doctors learn more about their own past and come to terms with not quite
>>>>>> being who they always thought they were
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) RTD could modify the Timeless Child narrrative, eg by showing how their
>>>>>> origin was Gallifreyan after all in some timey-wimey way and the unlimited
>>>>>> regenerations the Doctor has are an incidental or accidental of something
>>>>>> or other
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4) RTD could go full multiverse and the Timeless Child could become just
>>>>>> one possible origin story for one lineage of Doctors - and it becomes lost
>>>>>> in an ever more complex set of narratives
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5) (and this is by far the most likely) RTD ignores the Timeless Child
>>>>>> completely. Chris Chibnall has already laid the groundwork for that by
>>>>>> closing off Tectuen and the Division (in Flux) and depositing the
>> Doctor’s
>>>>>> problems on this in the form of a fob watch deep in the heart of the
>>>>>> TARDIS. RTD (or another future show runner) then has the freedom to revisit
>>>>>> the narrative and choose one of options 1-4 (or another one I
>> haven’t even
>>>>>> thought of) at a time of their own choosing, meanwhile telling a completely
>>>>>> new set of stories for the Doctor unconnected to the Timeless Child.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But whichever of these five routes (or another) RTD takes, the show is far
>>>>>> from dead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To reiterate - even the mediocre “Legend of the Sea Devils”,
>> coming after
>>>>>> three thinly spread seasons of Jodie Whittaker’s Doctor helmed by Chris
>>>>>> Chibnall, with all their flaws, was the most popular programme the BBC
>>>>>> showed on Easter Sunday. It was the second most viewed BBC drama of the
>>>>>> viewing week, and in the top ten most viewed BBC shows of the viewing week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That’s not a dead show, it’s a strong winner for the BBC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But the Timelss Child is getting high disapproval ratings.
>>>>
>>>> Where? What disapproval rating is this, and is it representative of the
>>>> general British viewing public? If not, it’s meaningless. Fandom is a very
>>>> small part of viewership. International audiences are niche. Etc.
>>>>
>>>>> This is wht ia destroying Doctor Who!
>>>>
>>>> What is the objective indicator that Doctor Who is being “destroyed”? You
>>>> keep saying this but the facts don’t support your contention.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You just want to ignore that facts around you MikeMcK!
>>
>> You haven’t presented any of your imagined “facts” Dave. It’s
>> not hard to
>> ignore something that you haven’t shown exists.
>>
>
> And then there is Tim Bruening's poll.

Eh? Tim did a poll that somehow demonstrates the downfall of Doctor Who?
What did it say? What was its audience? How many thousands of responses did
it get?

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

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t73fgu$ss7$2@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t72kad$6pm$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> Orphan 55 is the best Ever Chibnall Timelss Child.
>>>>
>>>> What? You’re babbling nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Most objective AND subjective measures place Orphan 55 firmly in the “pile
>>>> of crap” bucket, the very worst of the Whittaker era. (Still better in most
>>>> respects than any of season 24, mind). And it had nothing to do with the
>>>> Timeless Child at ALL.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All of Chibnall is Junk.
>>>
>>> McCoy shines like an antique car in comparison to Chibnall!
>>
>> That’s still just your opinion Dave. You’re entitled to your opinions, no
>> matter how wrongheaded. But don’t make the mistake of thinking you’re
>> automatically right.
>>
>
>
> MikeMcK is just another LaughShacker.

Gibberish attempt at trolling.

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

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t73fgu$ss7$3@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t72kad$6pm$3@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t723e1$c8v$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <t71003$1fj$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, lied;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We were discussing YOUR lies Dave, not mine. Not that I’ve
>> told any, of
>>>>>>>>>> course - you can’t name even one. Because you’re lying.
>> Again. Liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyone defending The Timeless Child as part of Doctor Who lies about
>>>>>>>>> themselves are a Doctor Who Fan.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gibberish. Who tells Doctor Who lies about themselves? And if they were
>>>>>>>> telling Doctor Who lies about themselves, why would they defend the
>>>>>>>> Timeless Child? More to the point, how could they do that? The people
>>>>>>>> telling Doctor Who lies about themselves - and what IS a “Doctor
>>>> Who lie”
>>>>>>>> anyway? - are presumably real people. The Timeless Child is fictional.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Retcon the Timeless Child! Otherwise you are pro-Timeless Child!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What arrant stupidity
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’m not going to try to retcon Donald Trump. That doesn’t mean I am in
>>>>>> favour of him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You would be a winner in Tim Bruening's eyes.
>>>>
>>>> Gibberish.
>>>
>>> Tim want to retcon Donald Turmp.
>>
>> So? That doesn’t make what you originally wrote before you lied about it
>> make any more sense. Especially since I wrote that I WASN’T going to try to
>> retcon him. Liar.
>>
>
> Then look above.

Ok. I wrote “I’m not going to try to retcon Donald Trump.” To which you
responded “You would be a winnder in Tim Bruening's eyes.” Which is
gibberish, since Tim wasn’t in the conversation and nor were windows,
however pronounced. Then you once more showed you’re an incorrigible liar
by retconning the word “winnder” into “winner” and added a claim that “Tim
want to retcon Donald Turmp”. Which I assumed was a simple asinine error
on your part and you meant Trump, so I let that one slide.

So tell me Dave, how does NOT wanting to retcon Donald Trump make someone a
winner in the eyes of someone who DOES?

See? You still made no sense, and “looking above” didn’t change that.
Though it did prove you a liar again. Liar.

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

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t73fgv$ss7$4@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t72kae$6pm$4@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t723e1$c8v$4@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <t71003$1fj$4@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <t6ti0b$8vm$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, lied;
>>>>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, invented enemies:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All Chibnallites and All Timeless Child adherants must be FOUGHT!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you point to any such “Chibnallites” and “Timeless Child
>>>>>>>>>> adherents”
>>>>>>>>>>>> please? And explain why you want to fight them?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because they are causing the Downfall of Doctor Who, Liying MikeMcK!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Who is Liying MikeMcK? It was me that you were exchanging
>> responses with,
>>>>>>>>>> not this Liying person.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And you’re answering in the wrong order, then missing out an
>>>>>> important part
>>>>>>>>>> of your explanation, instead adding just another confusing lie. Please
>>>>>>>>>> answer ALL the questions in order.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1) Can you point to any such “Chibnallites” and “Timeless Child
>>>>>>>>>> adherents”
>>>>>>>>>> please?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2) Why do you want to fight them? (This part you sort of answered, but
>>>>>>>>>> without being able to name any of them - but your answer leads
>>>> only to more
>>>>>>>>>> questions):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3) How are these imaginary people causing the downfall of Doctor Who?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 4) What are the indicators that there is a downfall of Doctor Who?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Downfall is due to Chris Chibnall injecting the the Timeless child
>>>>>>>>> into the Doctor Who lore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I asked you what indicators you had that there is a downfall, not
>> what you
>>>>>>>> think caused it. We should try to work out whether something actually
>>>>>>>> exists before investigating its origin, surely.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You failed to answer questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 there, instead answering a
>>>>>>>> fifth one that I didn’t ask.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or Like Daniel, you fail to accept the answer presented to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can’t accept an answer you haven’t given. I don’t believe that
>>>>>> there is a
>>>>>> downfall of Doctor Who and you’ve made no salient points to indicate that
>>>>>> there is one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I was to say to you “the Atlantic Ocean is dry” and you say to
>>>> me “why
>>>>>> do you think the Ocean has gone?”, I should be telling you how I
>>>> know it’s
>>>>>> gone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Saying “God drank it!” isn’t an answer to the question, especially
>>>>>> if I can
>>>>>> check satellites and see that the ocean is still there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your analogy holds no water.
>>>>
>>>> Well, of course it doesn’t. That’s what “the Atlantic Ocean is
>>>> dry” would
>>>> imply, that it holds no water. Well spotted.
>>>>
>>>> It is, however, absolutely comparable to our previous exchange. You claimed
>>>> an absurdity, I asked you what evidence there is that the absurdity exists,
>>>> you ignored that and instead made weird assertions that assumed the
>>>> unproven absurdity to be factual.
>>>
>>>
>>> Chibnall is the biggest absurdity in Whodom.
>>
>> In you opinion. You still haven’t put forward any evidence for this
>> imaginary “downfall” though.
>>
>
> There was Tim's famous Facebook poll.

Famous? How many thousand responses did he get, again? And how can a
private FB poll demonstrate a “downfall” in Doctor Who?

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

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor wrote on 30/5/22 11:49 pm:
> In article <t7240h$g2f$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote on 30/5/22 8:17 am:
>>> In article <t6vq1r$2cp$1@dont-email.me>, solar penguin
>>> <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Binky bleated:
>>>>> In article <t6tbfd$p0t$1@dont-email.me>, solar penguin
>>>>> <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Binky bleated:
>>>>>>> In article <t6qmd2$nc9$1@dont-email.me>, solar penguin
>>>>>>> <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Binky bleated:
>>>>>>>>> In article <t6qlgk$gi5$1@dont-email.me>, solar
>>>>>>>>> penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Binky bleated:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <t6q8tb$nch$1@dont-email.me>, solar
>>>>>>>>>>> penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar! The Angry Greek Atavist (AGA)
>>>>>>>>>>>> hasn’t provided numbers that show
>>>>>>>>>>>> specific plot contradictions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If he has, then prove me wrong and quote the
>>>>>>>>>>>> posts where he did.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Atavist?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Someone or something that’s very, very
>>>>>>>>>> old-fashioned.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now, stop trying to change the subject. Quote those
>>>>>>>>>> magic numbers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I thoght you misspelled activist for a moment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And that prevented you from quoting the numbers, did
>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought you were calling AGA Angry Greek Activist!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that prevented you from quoting the numbers, did it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you recall the numbers he posted?
>>>>
>>>> I don’t recall them showing specifically how the
>>>> Timeless Child arc contradicts Omega or Rassilon.
>>>
>>> Bird has no common sense.
>>
>> Bird is trying to read any sort of 'common sense' into YOUR
>> response, clown!!

> Consider it is common sense that the The Timeless Child is
> anti-DoctorWho!

How is it "common sense that the The Timeless Child is anti-DoctorWho!",
clown??

And *NOTE* just because in YOUR opinion it's 'common sense' does not
actually make it 'common sense', clown!!

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

The Last Doctor wrote on 31/5/22 12:28 am:
> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:

<Snip>

>> Syl McCoy is far better than what anything Chibnall has but out!
>
> Opinion,

WHAT?? I read the above as "Gobble-de-gook!!', Mike!!
--
Daniel

On 2022-05-30 11:11 p.m., The Last Doctor wrote:
> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>> In article <t73fgv$ss7$4@dont-email.me>,
>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> In article <t72kae$6pm$4@dont-email.me>,
>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <t723e1$c8v$4@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <t71003$1fj$4@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <t6ti0b$8vm$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, lied;
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, invented enemies:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All Chibnallites and All Timeless Child adherants must be FOUGHT!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you point to any such “Chibnallites” and “Timeless Child
>>>>>>>>>>> adherents”
>>>>>>>>>>>>> please? And explain why you want to fight them?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they are causing the Downfall of Doctor Who, Liying MikeMcK!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Who is Liying MikeMcK? It was me that you were exchanging
>>> responses with,
>>>>>>>>>>> not this Liying person.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And you’re answering in the wrong order, then missing out an
>>>>>>> important part
>>>>>>>>>>> of your explanation, instead adding just another confusing lie. Please
>>>>>>>>>>> answer ALL the questions in order.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Can you point to any such “Chibnallites” and “Timeless Child
>>>>>>>>>>> adherents”
>>>>>>>>>>> please?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Why do you want to fight them? (This part you sort of answered, but
>>>>>>>>>>> without being able to name any of them - but your answer leads
>>>>> only to more
>>>>>>>>>>> questions):
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 3) How are these imaginary people causing the downfall of Doctor Who?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 4) What are the indicators that there is a downfall of Doctor Who?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Downfall is due to Chris Chibnall injecting the the Timeless child
>>>>>>>>>> into the Doctor Who lore.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I asked you what indicators you had that there is a downfall, not
>>> what you
>>>>>>>>> think caused it. We should try to work out whether something actually
>>>>>>>>> exists before investigating its origin, surely.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You failed to answer questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 there, instead answering a
>>>>>>>>> fifth one that I didn’t ask.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or Like Daniel, you fail to accept the answer presented to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can’t accept an answer you haven’t given. I don’t believe that
>>>>>>> there is a
>>>>>>> downfall of Doctor Who and you’ve made no salient points to indicate that
>>>>>>> there is one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I was to say to you “the Atlantic Ocean is dry” and you say to
>>>>> me “why
>>>>>>> do you think the Ocean has gone?”, I should be telling you how I
>>>>> know it’s
>>>>>>> gone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Saying “God drank it!” isn’t an answer to the question, especially
>>>>>>> if I can
>>>>>>> check satellites and see that the ocean is still there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your analogy holds no water.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, of course it doesn’t. That’s what “the Atlantic Ocean is
>>>>> dry” would
>>>>> imply, that it holds no water. Well spotted.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is, however, absolutely comparable to our previous exchange. You claimed
>>>>> an absurdity, I asked you what evidence there is that the absurdity exists,
>>>>> you ignored that and instead made weird assertions that assumed the
>>>>> unproven absurdity to be factual.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chibnall is the biggest absurdity in Whodom.
>>>
>>> In you opinion. You still haven’t put forward any evidence for this
>>> imaginary “downfall” though.
>>>
>>
>> There was Tim's famous Facebook poll.
>
> Famous? How many thousand responses did he get, again? And how can a
> private FB poll demonstrate a “downfall” in Doctor Who?
>

If it was "famous" how come nobody knows about it?

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

They alter the facts to match their views.

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

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7481n$ia9$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t73fgt$ss7$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You haven’t presented any of your imagined “facts” Dave. It’s not hard
>>>> to ignore something that you haven’t shown exists.
>>>
>>> And then there is Tim Bruening's poll.
>>
>> Eh? Tim did a poll that somehow demonstrates the downfall of Doctor Who?
>> What did it say? What was its audience? How many thousands of responses did it get?
>
> We let Tim do the explaining.

Um, this is YOUR imaginary “downfall” we’re talking about. Surely YOU can
explain YOUR evidence.

“I claim this!”

“My only evidence is an imaginary poll by Tim!”

“I want Tim to explain my imaginary evidence for me!”

Sounds like a mentally deficient web of lies you’re trying to weave.

I doubt Tim knows what you think you’re talking about - willing to bet long
odds he didn’t conduct a statistically valid poll of the general British
viewing public about any “downfall” or “destruction” of Doctor Who.

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

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7481o$ia9$2@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t73fgu$ss7$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t72kad$6pm$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> Orphan 55 is the best Ever Chibnall Timelss Child.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What? You’re babbling nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most objective AND subjective measures place Orphan 55 firmly in
>> the “pile
>>>>>> of crap” bucket, the very worst of the Whittaker era. (Still
>> better in most
>>>>>> respects than any of season 24, mind). And it had nothing to do with the
>>>>>> Timeless Child at ALL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All of Chibnall is Junk.
>>>>>
>>>>> McCoy shines like an antique car in comparison to Chibnall!
>>>>
>>>> That’s still just your opinion Dave. You’re entitled to your opinions, no
>>>> matter how wrongheaded. But don’t make the mistake of thinking you’re
>>>> automatically right.
>>>
>>> MikeMcK is just another LaughShacker.
>>
>> Gibberish attempt at trolling.
>>
>
> How long have you been around here MM?

Twenty five years or so. Late nineties. But used a work newsserver with no
external posting rights until 2003.

But since I said nothing funny or absurd in my last comment, merely a
statement of self evident facts, you were still talking gibberish with your
pathetic ad hominem attempt to troll using a long defunct term.

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

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7481o$ia9$3@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t73fgu$ss7$3@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t72kad$6pm$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <t723e1$c8v$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <t71003$1fj$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, lied;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We were discussing YOUR lies Dave, not mine. Not that I’ve
>>>> told any, of
>>>>>>>>>>>> course - you can’t name even one. Because you’re lying.
>>>> Again. Liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone defending The Timeless Child as part of Doctor Who lies about
>>>>>>>>>>> themselves are a Doctor Who Fan.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gibberish. Who tells Doctor Who lies about themselves? And if they were
>>>>>>>>>> telling Doctor Who lies about themselves, why would they defend the
>>>>>>>>>> Timeless Child? More to the point, how could they do that? The people
>>>>>>>>>> telling Doctor Who lies about themselves - and what IS a “Doctor
>>>>>> Who lie”
>>>>>>>>>> anyway? - are presumably real people. The Timeless Child is fictional.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Retcon the Timeless Child! Otherwise you are pro-Timeless Child!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What arrant stupidity
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I’m not going to try to retcon Donald Trump. That doesn’t
>> mean I am in
>>>>>>>> favour of him.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You would be a winner in Tim Bruening's eyes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gibberish.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim want to retcon Donald Turmp.
>>>>
>>>> So? That doesn’t make what you originally wrote before you lied about it
>>>> make any more sense. Especially since I wrote that I WASN’T going to try to
>>>> retcon him. Liar.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then look above.
>>
>> Ok. I wrote “I’m not going to try to retcon Donald Trump.” To which you
>> responded “You would be a winnder in Tim Bruening's eyes.” Which is
>> gibberish, since Tim wasn’t in the conversation and nor were windows,
>> however pronounced. Then you once more showed you’re an incorrigible liar
>> by retconning the word “winnder” into “winner” and added a claim
>> that “Tim
>> want to retcon Donald Turmp”. Which I assumed was a simple asinine error
>> on your part and you meant Trump, so I let that one slide.
>>
>> So tell me Dave, how does NOT wanting to retcon Donald Trump make someone a
>> winner in the eyes of someone who DOES?
>>
>> See? You still made no sense, and “looking above” didn’t change that.
>> Though it did prove you a liar again. Liar.
>>
>
> Writing is revisionism.

Gibberish.

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

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7481p$ia9$4@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t73fgv$ss7$4@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t72kae$6pm$4@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <t723e1$c8v$4@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <t71003$1fj$4@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <t6ti0b$8vm$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, lied;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Yadallee, the Lying Liar, invented enemies:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All Chibnallites and All Timeless Child adherants must be FOUGHT!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you point to any such “Chibnallites” and “Timeless Child
>>>>>>>>>>>> adherents”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please? And explain why you want to fight them?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they are causing the Downfall of Doctor Who, Liying MikeMcK!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Who is Liying MikeMcK? It was me that you were exchanging
>>>> responses with,
>>>>>>>>>>>> not this Liying person.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And you’re answering in the wrong order, then missing out an
>>>>>>>> important part
>>>>>>>>>>>> of your explanation, instead adding just another confusing
>> lie. Please
>>>>>>>>>>>> answer ALL the questions in order.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Can you point to any such “Chibnallites” and
>> “Timeless Child
>>>>>>>>>>>> adherents”
>>>>>>>>>>>> please?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Why do you want to fight them? (This part you sort of
>> answered, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> without being able to name any of them - but your answer leads
>>>>>> only to more
>>>>>>>>>>>> questions):
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) How are these imaginary people causing the downfall of Doctor Who?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) What are the indicators that there is a downfall of Doctor Who?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Downfall is due to Chris Chibnall injecting the the Timeless child
>>>>>>>>>>> into the Doctor Who lore.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I asked you what indicators you had that there is a downfall, not
>>>> what you
>>>>>>>>>> think caused it. We should try to work out whether something actually
>>>>>>>>>> exists before investigating its origin, surely.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You failed to answer questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 there, instead answering a
>>>>>>>>>> fifth one that I didn’t ask.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or Like Daniel, you fail to accept the answer presented to you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can’t accept an answer you haven’t given. I don’t believe that
>>>>>>>> there is a
>>>>>>>> downfall of Doctor Who and you’ve made no salient points to
>> indicate that
>>>>>>>> there is one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I was to say to you “the Atlantic Ocean is dry” and you say to
>>>>>> me “why
>>>>>>>> do you think the Ocean has gone?”, I should be telling you how I
>>>>>> know it’s
>>>>>>>> gone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Saying “God drank it!” isn’t an answer to the question, especially
>>>>>>>> if I can
>>>>>>>> check satellites and see that the ocean is still there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your analogy holds no water.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, of course it doesn’t. That’s what “the Atlantic Ocean is
>>>>>> dry” would
>>>>>> imply, that it holds no water. Well spotted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is, however, absolutely comparable to our previous exchange. You claimed
>>>>>> an absurdity, I asked you what evidence there is that the absurdity exists,
>>>>>> you ignored that and instead made weird assertions that assumed the
>>>>>> unproven absurdity to be factual.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Chibnall is the biggest absurdity in Whodom.
>>>>
>>>> In you opinion. You still haven’t put forward any evidence for this
>>>> imaginary “downfall” though.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There was Tim's famous Facebook poll.
>>
>> Famous? How many thousand responses did he get, again? And how can a
>> private FB poll demonstrate a “downfall” in Doctor Who?
>>
> We let Tim talk on that one.

Ag, so you’re using something you don’t know anything about (and probably
are lying about) as the sole basis for your arguments. Naturally. Real
evidence is beyond you (and more likely does not exist).

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

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7587t$bt8$3@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> ReWriting is revisionism. (*** LIAR ALERT! *** ORIGINAL TEXT WAS
>>> “WRITING IS REVISIONISM” WHICH WAS …
>>
>> Gibberish.
>
> Yes?

Yes, what you originally wrote was gibberish.

How ironic that you revisionistically rewrote your line to turn it into
“rewriting is revisionism”. But FYI - you calling your lies “revisionism”
doesn’t stop them being lies. Liar.

Particularly since I didn’t rewrite or revise one word - I merely
recapitulated. Liar.

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

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7587u$bt8$4@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t7481p$ia9$4@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t73fgv$ss7$4@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> Chibnall is the biggest absurdity in Whodom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In your opinion. You still haven’t put forward any evidence for this
>>>>>> imaginary “downfall” though.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was Tim's famous Facebook poll.
>>>>
>>>> Famous? How many thousand responses did he get, again? And how can a
>>>> private FB poll demonstrate a “downfall” in Doctor Who?
>>>>
>>> We let Tim talk on that one.
>>
>> Ah, so you’re using something you don’t know anything about (and probably
>> are lying about) as the sole basis for your arguments. Naturally. Real
>> evidence is beyond you (and more likely does not exist).
>
> Or are you scared of Tim's memroy process?

No. Your absurdities, gibberish and excuses only get more laughable. What
was the poll question? Can you at least remember that? If not, how do you
know the poll was about your mythical downfall and destruction of Doctor
Who?

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

They must be /fought/.