The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t7587s$bt8$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t7481n$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.
>>
>
> Tim did a pool, and got what he deserved,

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 <t7587t$bt8$2@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t7481o$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.
>>
>
> So that is why you do not get the Laugh Shack reference.

I got it Dave. It just a) doesn’t apply and b) is so out of use as to be
archaic anyway.

--
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/.

Hi The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t75k06$d2v$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t7587t$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.
>>
>
> Yet Mike favours the revisionism of the Timeless child.

Name one thing that the Timeless Child changes from the history of the
show. WITH A QUOTE, not just a delusional assertion.

And I don’t favour the story. How many times do I have to tell you I don’t
like it? Acknowledging that it’s now part of the landscape of the show
isn’t favouring it. It’s accepting the reality of the show as it is.

--
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 <t75k07$d2v$2@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t7587u$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?
>
> Said the deluded spin Doctor for Chinall, Mike McK!

Stop trying to deflect with your lies, and answer the questions, imbecile.

--
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 <t75k07$d2v$3@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t7587s$bt8$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t7481n$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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Tim did a poll, and got what he deserved,
>>
>> Gibberish.
>
> Tim felt he got mugged in the process.

Tim doesn’t seem to be saying anything, Dave. Are you sure you didn’t
imagine all this?

--
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 <t75k08$d2v$4@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t7587t$bt8$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t7481o$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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So that is why you do not get the Laugh Shack reference.
>>
>> I got it Dave. It just a) doesn’t apply and b) is so out of use as to be
>> archaic anyway.
>>
>
> The LaughShackers were rapid anti-McCoyers.

90% of fandom was anti McCoy, or to be fair, anti
JN-T. Most of us became so about three minutes into “Time and the Rani”. So
I guess that was fairly rapid. But I was never part of the Laugh Shack.

--
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 1/06/2022 12:25 am:

<Snip>

> Or are you scared of Tim's memroy process?

"memroy"?? Is your Spell-Checker on holidays or something, 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 1/06/2022 6:04 am:
> In article <t75k07$d2v$2@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:

<Snip>

>> 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?
>
> Said the deluded spin Doctor for Chinall, Mike McK!

"Chinall"?? WHO??

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 31/05/2022 11:56 pm:
> In article <t7481o$ia9$3@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:

<Snip>

>> 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.

Really?? I thought 'Writing' was 'Writing', clown, .... which might
later be revised to become 'revisionism', 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 1/06/2022 8:02 am:
> In article <t75vfd$l1$3@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> Hi The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t75k06$d2v$1@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
>>> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t7587t$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.
>>>
>>> Yet Mike favours the revisionism of the Timeless child.
>>
>> Name one thing that the Timeless Child changes from the history of
>> the show. WITH A QUOTE, not just a delusional assertion.
>>
>> And I don’t favour the story. How many times do I have to tell
>> you I don’t like it? Acknowledging that it’s now part of the
>> landscape of the show isn’t favouring it. It’s accepting the
>> reality of the show as it is.
>>
>
> How about the bogus Tectuen.

What was 'revised' about Tectuen, clown?? As I recall she had not been
mentioned previously, so how could anything about her be 'revised', clown??

Oh, and YOUR newsreader is corrupting the quoted text, clown!!

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 1/06/2022 12:02 am:
> In article <t74nsv$vb4$1@dont-email.me>,
> Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote on 30/5/22 11:49 pm:
>>> In article <t7240h$g2f$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
>>> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor wrote on 30/5/22 8:17 am:

<Snip>

>>>>> 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!!

> Looks like Dannyboy has no common sense.

Or *MY* Common Sense is somewhat different to YOUR 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 1/06/2022 12:20 am:
> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:

<Snip>

>> 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.

"self evident facts"?? Isn't that asking a bit to much of the clown, Mike??
--
Daniel

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t75vfd$l1$3@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> Hi The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t75k06$d2v$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t7587t$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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yet Mike favours the revisionism of the Timeless child.
>>
>> Name one thing that the Timeless Child changes from the history of the
>> show. WITH A QUOTE, not just a delusional assertion.
>>
>> And I don’t favour the story. How many times do I have to tell you I don’t
>> like it? Acknowledging that it’s now part of the landscape of the show
>> isn’t favouring it. It’s accepting the reality of the show as it is.
>>
>
> How about the bogus Tectuen.

You may or may not be aware Dave, but that’s not a quote, and you haven’t
said what it was supposed to contradict or change, so that was a poor
attempt to get a point across.

However:

There’s no Tectuen, bogus or otherwise. You’re imagining that one.

Tecteun is an integral part of the Timeless Child narrative. So I accept
that she’s part of the show without liking her introduction.

As a new character from the early days of Gallifrey, she is now deemed
responsible for developing the regeneration capabilities of Time Lords (in
a morally reprehensible way). As no one in the show before was credited
with this, nothing from the past is changed. This is a new addition and
contradicts nothing.

Tecteun is also credited with running the Division. As this is a secret
initiative never mentioned before, it is a new addition and contradicts
nothing from the past.

Tecteun is also noted as the discoverer of the immortal foundling later
known as the Doctor. Indirectly this child granted regeneration to the Time
Lords, and believed themselves to be a Gallifreyan. We were told about a
total memory wipe (and who knows how many more) that would explain why the
Doctor consciously recalls no incarnations prior to Hartnell. While this is
a bit of a stretch and requires other secret shenanigans among the Time
Lords for it to work, this is a new addition to chronology and contradicts
nothing from the past.

Since nothing shown in the show to date is altered by these revelations
(although the way we are expected to interpret a few things is), there is
no revisionism and no contradiction.

--
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 <t75vfe$l1$4@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t75k07$d2v$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Said the deluded spin Doctor for Chinall, Mike McK!
>>
>> Stop trying to deflect with your lies, and answer the questions, imbecile.
>
> Ask the Spin Doctor MikeMcK.

How can I ask “the Spin Doctor MikeMcK”? There’s no such individual.
Anyway, these are your claims, not theirs. Why don’t YOU support your
claims instead of deflecting onto others - especially imaginary others?

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/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t75vfe$l1$5@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t75k07$d2v$3@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t7587s$bt8$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <t7481n$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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim did a poll, and got what he deserved,
>>>>
>>>> Gibberish.
>>>
>>> Tim felt he got mugged in the process.
>>
>> Tim doesn’t seem to be saying anything, Dave. Are you sure you didn’t
>> imagine all this?
>>
>
> Check out Tim's wall on Facebook.

You’ve still presented no facts.

I don’t follow Tim (or you) on Facebook. Life’s too short.

It’s YOU that claims this poll demonstrates the downfall and destruction of
Doctor Who.

YOU (not Tim, who clearly isn’t getting involved) need to supply a link,
not try to send me on a wild goose chase for something that may well exist
- you need to do that, as it’s your claim.

If you can’t find and post a link, then you can’t use the poll as evidence.
Evidence means “that which can be seen”. “That which can’t be seen” has
other names - in this case “imaginary”.

Post the link and I’ll take a look. If it supports your claims then I’ll
acknowledge the fact.

--
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 <t75vff$l1$6@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> The LaughShackers were rapid anti-McCoyers.
>>
>> 90% of fandom was anti McCoy, or to be fair, anti
>> JN-T. Most of us became so about three minutes into “Time and the Rani”. So
>> I guess that was fairly rapid. But I was never part of the Laugh Shack.
>>
>
> i90% ? More like 10% and then there is chibnall
> and his stupid On Air Comments.

You’re way underestimating the hostility to McCoy Dave. Possibly because as
a foreign consumer you didn’t have the history of all Who as a comparative.
But in the U.K. we’d had four great Doctors, one OK Doctor, and one
patchily delivered mess of a Doctor. And then, tragically, a vaudeville
performer who had yet to learn to act, alongside all the other issues the
show had at the time.

Chibnall was a pompous teenager in the mid 80s but his comments fairly
related the zeitgeist of the times. The popularity of Doctor Who at the
time, which had been fading slowly ever since Tom’s final season, took a
nosedive with the introduction of McCoy from which it never recovered.

--
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/.

On 2022-06-01 12:13 a.m., Daniel65 wrote:
> The Doctor wrote on 1/06/2022 12:25 am:
>
> <Snip>
>
>> Or are you scared of Tim's memroy process?
>
> "memroy"?? Is your Spell-Checker on holidays or something, clown??
>

To use a spell checker effectively one has to have a rudimentary
knowledge of spelling to begin with. One also has to take a minute to
check a post instead of mashing the send key to rush into yet another
nonsense post.

Post count is everything for some idiots.

--
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 <t77g83$qb9$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> How about the bogus Tectuen.
>>
>> You may or may not be aware Dave, but that’s not a quote, and you haven’t
>> said what it was supposed to contradict or change, so that was a poor
>> attempt to get a point across.
>>
>> However:
>>
>> There’s no Tectuen, bogus or otherwise. You’re imagining that one.
>>
>> Tecteun is an integral part of the Timeless Child narrative. So I accept
>> that she’s part of the show without liking her introduction.
>>
>> As a new character from the early days of Gallifrey, she is now deemed
>> responsible for developing the regeneration capabilities of Time Lords (in
>> a morally reprehensible way). As no one in the show before was credited
>> with this, nothing from the past is changed. This is a new addition and
>> contradicts nothing.
>>
>> Tecteun is also credited with running the Division. As this is a secret
>> initiative never mentioned before, it is a new addition and contradicts
>> nothing from the past.
>>
>> Tecteun is also noted as the discoverer of the immortal foundling later
>> known as the Doctor. Indirectly this child granted regeneration to the Time
>> Lords, and believed themselves to be a Gallifreyan. We were told about a
>> total memory wipe (and who knows how many more) that would explain why the
>> Doctor consciously recalls no incarnations prior to Hartnell. While this is
>> a bit of a stretch and requires other secret shenanigans among the Time
>> Lords for it to work, this is a new addition to chronology and contradicts
>> nothing from the past.
>>
>> Since nothing shown in the show to date is altered by these revelations
>> (although the way we are expected to interpret a few things is), there is
>> no revisionism and no contradiction.
>>
>
> Tectuen is a device to revise out both Rassilon and Omega.

There is still no Tectuen, no matter how many times you try to invent them.

Please QUOTE a line from the show where Tecteun (NOT YOUR IMAGINARY
“TECTUEN”) is said to have done something that Rassilon or Omega were
previously have said to do in the show (with a QUOTE showing that).

Because as far as my knowledge of the show goes, you’re just making shit
up.

--
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 <t77g84$qb9$2@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t75vfe$l1$4@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t75k07$d2v$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> Said the deluded spin Doctor for Chinall, Mike McK!
>>>>
>>>> Stop trying to deflect with your lies, and answer the questions, imbecile.
>>>
>>> Ask the Spin Doctor MikeMcK.
>>
>> How can I ask “the Spin Doctor MikeMcK”? There’s no such individual.
>> Anyway, these are your claims, not theirs. Why don’t YOU support your
>> claims instead of deflecting onto others - especially imaginary others?
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
> No myth. People are turned off by the Timeless child.

That has nothing to do with your assertion. Your claim wasn’t that “ People
are turned off by the Timeless child”, it was that Doctor Who had suffered
a “downfall” and was being “destroyed”.

Those two things are not related.

Most viewers don’t care much about the Timeless Child. Some of the rest
think it’s brilliant. Some don’t like it but recognise that sometimes,
Doctor Who introduces some crappy ideas.

A tiny, tiny minority are up in arms but do you know what? Quite a lot of
even those people HAVEN’T STOPPED WATCHING. You and Aggie, for example.

Doctor Who fans are a small minority of the viewers. Doctor Who fans who
recall much of the classic series are a minority of Doctor Who fans. Doctor
Who fans who are apoplectic about the Timeless Child are a minority of that
minority.

We aren’t the target audience, Dave. We haven’t been for decades. If we
happen to like the show at all any more, that’s just a bonus.

--
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 <t77g84$qb9$3@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t75vfe$l1$5@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t75k07$d2v$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <t7587s$bt8$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <t7481n$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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tim did a poll, and got what he deserved,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gibberish.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim felt he got mugged in the process.
>>>>
>>>> Tim doesn’t seem to be saying anything, Dave. Are you sure you didn’t
>>>> imagine all this?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Check out Tim's wall on Facebook.
>>
>> You’ve still presented no facts.
>>
>> I don’t follow Tim (or you) on Facebook. Life’s too short.
>>
>> It’s YOU that claims this poll demonstrates the downfall and destruction of
>> Doctor Who.
>>
>> YOU (not Tim, who clearly isn’t getting involved) need to supply a link,
>> not try to send me on a wild goose chase for something that may well exist
>> - you need to do that, as it’s your claim.
>>
>> If you can’t find and post a link, then you can’t use the poll as evidence.
>> Evidence means “that which can be seen”. “That which can’t be
>> seen” has
>> other names - in this case “imaginary”.
>>
>> Post the link and I’ll take a look. If it supports your claims then I’ll
>> acknowledge the fact.
>>
>
> So you cannot find Tim's profile on Facebook?

I’m not going to. It’s your claim: SHOW THE EVIDENCE. Or shut the fuck up
about things that are clearly imagined. If you can’t point, PRECISELY, to
what think you’re talking about, given that your connection with reality is
so tenuous, then you evidence doesn’t exist. Telling someone to search the
internet for it is disingenuous.

For instance, I could say on here “there is incontrovertible absolute proof
that the whole Bible was fabricated by a club of Liars in the fifth century
AD.” And when you called me out on it, I could say “it’s on TikTok! Go find
it!”

That would be total bullshit and if you were to scour the whole Internet
you’d never find what I was talking about.

You’re trying to do the same thing. There’s no poll that proves the
downfall or destruction of Doctor Who, is there? You can’t link to it, can
you?

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

They must be /fought/.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t77g85$qb9$4@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t75vff$l1$6@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The LaughShackers were rapid anti-McCoyers.
>>>>
>>>> 90% of fandom was anti McCoy, or to be fair, anti
>>>> JN-T. Most of us became so about three minutes into “Time and the
>> Rani”. So
>>>> I guess that was fairly rapid. But I was never part of the Laugh Shack.
>>>>
>>>
>>> i90% ? More like 10% and then there is chibnall
>>> and his stupid On Air Comments.
>>
>> You’re way underestimating the hostility to McCoy Dave. Possibly because as
>> a foreign consumer you didn’t have the history of all Who as a comparative.
>> But in the U.K. we’d had four great Doctors, one OK Doctor, and one
>> patchily delivered mess of a Doctor. And then, tragically, a vaudeville
>> performer who had yet to learn to act, alongside all the other issues the
>> show had at the time.
>>
>> Chibnall was a pompous teenager in the mid 80s but his comments fairly
>> related the zeitgeist of the times. The popularity of Doctor Who at the
>> time, which had been fading slowly ever since Tom’s final season, took a
>> nosedive with the introduction of McCoy from which it never recovered.
>>
>
> Chibnall never changed from being a pompous Teenager, LaughShacker MikeMcK!

Maybe he didn’t. Doesn’t change the truth of what I wrote. And I’m still
not a “LaughShacker” Dave. There hasn’t BEEN a Laugh Shack for over 25
years, and I was never in it. Your attempts to troll are risible.

--
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 <t77v5k$dpc$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t77g83$qb9$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> How about the bogus Tectuen.
>>>>
>>>> You may or may not be aware Dave, but that’s not a quote, and you haven’t
>>>> said what it was supposed to contradict or change, so that was a poor
>>>> attempt to get a point across.
>>>>
>>>> However:
>>>>
>>>> There’s no Tectuen, bogus or otherwise. You’re imagining that one.
>>>>
>>>> Tecteun is an integral part of the Timeless Child narrative. So I accept
>>>> that she’s part of the show without liking her introduction.
>>>>
>>>> As a new character from the early days of Gallifrey, she is now deemed
>>>> responsible for developing the regeneration capabilities of Time Lords (in
>>>> a morally reprehensible way). As no one in the show before was credited
>>>> with this, nothing from the past is changed. This is a new addition and
>>>> contradicts nothing.
>>>>
>>>> Tecteun is also credited with running the Division. As this is a secret
>>>> initiative never mentioned before, it is a new addition and contradicts
>>>> nothing from the past.
>>>>
>>>> Tecteun is also noted as the discoverer of the immortal foundling later
>>>> known as the Doctor. Indirectly this child granted regeneration to the Time
>>>> Lords, and believed themselves to be a Gallifreyan. We were told about a
>>>> total memory wipe (and who knows how many more) that would explain why the
>>>> Doctor consciously recalls no incarnations prior to Hartnell. While this is
>>>> a bit of a stretch and requires other secret shenanigans among the Time
>>>> Lords for it to work, this is a new addition to chronology and contradicts
>>>> nothing from the past.
>>>>
>>>> Since nothing shown in the show to date is altered by these revelations
>>>> (although the way we are expected to interpret a few things is), there is
>>>> no revisionism and no contradiction.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Tectuen is a device to revise out both Rassilon and Omega.
>>
>> There is still no Tectuen, no matter how many times you try to invent them.
>>
>> Please QUOTE a line from the show where Tecteun (NOT YOUR IMAGINARY
>> “TECTUEN”) is said to have done something that Rassilon or Omega were
>> previously have said to do in the show (with a QUOTE showing that).
>>
>> Because as far as my knowledge of the show goes, you’re just making it
>> up.
>>
>
> So is Chibnall.

In Chibnall’s case, as with other writers paid by the BBC to do so, that
was his job.

But you’re just lying because you don’t like some of the things that have
been added. Which is childish and pointless.

--
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 <t77v5k$dpc$2@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t77g84$qb9$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t75vfe$l1$4@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <t75k07$d2v$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Said the deluded spin Doctor for Chinall, Mike McK!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stop trying to deflect with your lies, and answer the questions, imbecile.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ask the Spin Doctor MikeMcK.
>>>>
>>>> How can I ask “the Spin Doctor MikeMcK”? There’s no such individual.
>>>> Anyway, these are your claims, not theirs. Why don’t YOU support your
>>>> claims instead of deflecting onto others - especially imaginary others?
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No myth. People are turned off by the Timeless child.
>>
>> That has nothing to do with your assertion. Your claim wasn’t that “ People
>> are turned off by the Timeless child”, it was that Doctor Who had suffered
>> a “downfall” and was being “destroyed”.
>>
>> Those two things are not related.
>>
>> Most viewers don’t care much about the Timeless Child. Some of the rest
>> think it’s brilliant. Some don’t like it but recognise that sometimes,
>> Doctor Who introduces some crappy ideas.
>>
>> A tiny, tiny minority are up in arms but do you know what? Quite a lot of
>> even those people HAVEN’T STOPPED WATCHING. You and Aggie, for example.
>>
>> Doctor Who fans are a small minority of the viewers. Doctor Who fans who
>> recall much of the classic series are a minority of Doctor Who fans. Doctor
>> Who fans who are apoplectic about the Timeless Child are a minority of that
>> minority.
>>
>> We aren’t the target audience, Dave. We haven’t been for decades. If we
>> happen to like the show at all any more, that’s just a bonus.
>>
>
> Or are you jus ignoring the Backlash from the Timeless Chilren airing?

There is no noticeable backlash, Dave. You move in very limited virtual
social circles, accepting only things that offer confirmation bias to your
prejudices.

The core target audience for the show is 8 to 15 year olds and their
parents (say 25-45).

For the kids, that means their first Doctor was Smith, Capaldi or
Whittaker. None of them were even born when the show was revived.

Even the parents - the oldest ones never saw a Doctor before Colin Baker.
Any of them under 40 most likely never watched a single episode of classic
Who when it first aired. The younger ones weren’t born until after the show
was cancelled.

The name Rassilon probably means nothing to them. The name Omega almost
certainly doesn’t. To them, the Timeless Child story is just a new twist.
One they don’t mind or worry much about.

--
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 <t77v5l$dpc$3@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>
>> There’s no poll that proves the
>> downfall or destruction of Doctor Who, is there? You can’t link to it, can you?
>>
>
> Yes, mikeMcK, you do have an inch of sanity in you!

So you’re agreeing that you were lying and there’s no downfall or
destruction of Doctor Who. Good.

--
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 <t77veg$jq7$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t77g85$qb9$4@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:

>>>> Chibnall was a pompous teenager in the mid 80s but his comments fairly
>>>> related the zeitgeist of the times. The popularity of Doctor Who at
>>>> the time, which had been fading slowly ever since Tom’s final season,
>>>> took a nosedive with the introduction of McCoy from which it never recovered.
>>>
>>> Chibnall never changed from being a pompous Teenager, LaughShacker MikeMcK!
>>
>> Maybe he didn’t. Doesn’t change the truth of what I wrote. And I’m still
>> not a “LaughShacker” Dave. There hasn’t BEEN a Laugh Shack for over 25
>> years, and I was never in it. Your attempts to troll are risible.
>
> Trtuh is like Chibnall, you are nothing but spite.
>
> Loved the Pip and Jane Twitter post the other day.

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/.