The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t78t2u$iab$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t77v5k$dpc$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t77g83$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.
>
>
> The Timeless Chiuld is disrespectful to William Hartnell.

Not really, because Hartnell never claimed to be the first Doctor. Or
exactly how do you think it’s disrespectful?

But even if it somehow was, that doesn’t place the Timeless Child in
contradiction to the body of stories told on TV to date.

--
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 <t78t2u$iab$2@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t77v5k$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.
>>
>
> You really do have no respect for the Series as Whole MM
> just like CC!

Where do you get that from? What did I write that you thought was
disrespectful to the show? You’re off on another weird mental adventure
with that, Dave.

My comments were about the viewership, not the show.

--
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 <t78t2v$iab$3@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t77v5l$dpc$3@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There’s no poll that proves the
>>>> downfall or destruction of Doctor Who, is there? You can’t link to
>> it, can you?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, mikeMcK, you do have an inch of sanity in you!
>>
>> So you’re agreeing that you were lying and there’s no downfall or
>> destruction of Doctor Who. Good.
>>
>
> Lies the insane MikeMcK!

Oh, silly me. When I said “there’s no such poll and you can’t link to it”,
and you replied “yes, you have an inch of sanity”, I assumed that by saying
“yes” to what I said and calling me sane, you were conceding the truth. I
should have known better.

If I have an inch of sanity, clearly any sanity you might have would only
be detectable under a scanning electron microscope. And even then would be
subject to quantum uncertainty.

--
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 <t78t2v$iab$4@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t77veg$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.
>>>
>>> Truth is like Chibnall, you are nothing but spite.
>>>
>>> Loved the Pip and Jane Twitter post the other day.
>>
>> Gibberish.
>>
>
>
> Well too bad you are not in Twitter MM!

And again, Dave, your assumption that everyone must have seen exactly the
same things you have, in a huge world of information and disinformation,
proves useless.

Don’t just say there WAS a “post” (you mean “tweet” but OK) - quote one or
link to it. The ostensible source you give must be wrong - Pip and Jane
Baker didn’t tweet anything. They couldn’t.

So how am I supposed to know what random inanity you’re going on about?
--
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 2/6/22 8:13 am:
> 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?

"jus"??

*WHAT BACKLASH* , clown, *WHAT BACKLASH* ??

FACTS!! FIGURES!! Not opinion, clown!!

(Oh, and your news reader is again stuffing up the quoted material,
idiot!! Did YOU, clown, change fonts 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 2/6/22 12:02 am:
> In article <t7705v$pvm$2@dont-email.me>,
> Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote on 1/06/2022 6:04 am:

<Snip>

>>> Said the deluded spin Doctor for Chinall, Mike McK!
>>
>> "Chinall"?? WHO??
>
> a/Chinall/Chibnall/g

'a/'?? What's this crap, clown?? Where's YOUR 'SED', 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 2/6/22 12:03 am:
> In article <t770p1$7jm$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote on 1/06/2022 8:02 am:
>>> In article <t75vfd$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!!

> Tectuen was put it to detroy Rassilon and Omega, Dannyboy.

"it"?? "detroy"??

How could Tectuem 'detroy' Rassilon and/or Omega if they weren't even
mentioned in 'The Timeless Child' arc, clown??

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 2/6/22 1:04 am:
> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>> In article <t77g83$qb9$1@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
>> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:

<Snip>

>>> 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.

Hey, Mike, do you know how the English language has a spelling rule "
'i' before 'e' unless after 'c' (with over a thousand exemptions)!'??

Could the clown be trying to enforce his own 'Doctor Who' rule .... "
'u' before 'e' when following 'ct'!!" or some such ..... and has just
forgotten to tell the rest of us about this rule?? ;-P
--
Daniel

The Doctor wrote on 2/6/22 11:42 am:
> In article <t78t2u$iab$1@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t77v5k$dpc$1@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
>>> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:

<Snip>

>>>>> Tectuen is a device to revise out both Rassilon and Omega.
>>>>
>>>> There is still no Tectuen, no matter how many times you try to
>>>> invent them.
>>>>
>>>> Please QUOTE a line from the show where Tecteun (NOT YOUR
>>>> IMAGINARY “TECTUEN”) is said to have done something that
>>>> Rassilon or Omega were previously have said to do in the show
>>>> (with a QUOTE showing that).
>>>>
>>>> Because as far as my knowledge of the show goes, you’re just
>>>> making it up.
>>>
>>> So is Chibnall.
>>
>> In Chibnall’s case, as with other writers paid by the BBC to do
>> so, that was his job.
>>
>> But you’re just lying because you don’t like some of the things
>> that have been added. Which is childish and pointless.
>
> The Timeless Chiuld is disrespectful to William Hartnell.

Was Patrick Troughton disrespectful to William Hartnell, clown??

I mean, William Hartnell presented the character "The Doctor" for, what,
three years .... and then disappeared and was replaced by Patrick
Troughton with no 'in story' reason for the change of appearance 'cause,
as I understand it, the idea of 'regeneration' was written into the
'Doctor Who' storyline some time later!!

So was Patrick Troughton disrespectful to William Hartnell, clown??

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 2/6/22 12:04 am:
> In article <t770vr$be7$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote on 1/06/2022 12:02 am:
>>> In article <t74nsv$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!!

> Ever read the dead of common Sense, Dannyboy, in the Times?

The WHAT in the WHERE, 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 2/6/22 8:14 am:
> In article <t77veg$jq7$1@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:

<Snip>

>>> 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.

"Trtuh"??

The WHAT, WHEN, 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 2/6/22 11:44 am:
> In article <t78t2v$iab$4@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t77veg$jq7$1@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor

<Snip>

>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Truth is like Chibnall, you are nothing but spite.
>>>
>>> Loved the Pip and Jane Twitter post the other day.
>>
>> Gibberish.
>
> Well too bad you are not in Twitter MM!

"in Twitter"?? I thought 'Twitter' was something that you might be 'ON',
not 'in', 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

Daniel declared:

> The Doctor wrote on 2/6/22 12:03 am:
>
>> Tectuen was put it to detroy Rassilon and Omega, Dannyboy.
>
> "it"?? "detroy"??

And also "Tectuen”??

>
> How could Tectuem 'detroy' Rassilon and/or Omega if they weren't even
> mentioned in 'The Timeless Child' arc, clown??

"Tectuem"?? That’s an even worse typo than "Tectuen".

--
solar penguin

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <t79kjq$kvt$2@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t78t2u$iab$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t77v5k$dpc$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <t77g83$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.
>>>
>>>
>>> The Timeless Chiuld is disrespectful to William Hartnell.
>>
>> Not really, because Hartnell never claimed to be the first Doctor. Or
>> exactly how do you think it’s disrespectful?
>>
>> But even if it somehow was, that doesn’t place the Timeless Child in
>> contradiction to the body of stories told on TV to date.
>>
>
> MikeMcK is with CC and the Revisionists.

Nothing has been changed, Dave. So there’s no revisionism.

I notice you didn’t address your drivel about “disrespect”.

--
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 <t79kjq$kvt$3@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t78t2u$iab$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t77v5k$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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You really do have no respect for the Series as Whole MM
>>> just like CC!
>>
>> Where do you get that from? What did I write that you thought was
>> disrespectful to the show? You’re off on another weird mental adventure
>> with that, Dave.
>>
>> My comments were about the viewership, not the show.
>>
>
> And imdb are grass roots reviews.

From a limited base. Most people don’t review on iMDB. Mostly dedicated
haters as well - the star profile of the reviews is VERY different from the
star profile of the general ratings. Which is also a limited base.

--
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 <t79kjr$kvt$5@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t78t2v$iab$4@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Loved the Pip and Jane Twitter post the other day.
>>>>
>>>> Gibberish.
>>>
>>> Well too bad you are not in Twitter MM!
>>
>> And again, Dave, your assumption that everyone must have seen exactly
>> the same things you have, in a huge world of information and
>> disinformation, proves useless.
>>
>> Don’t just say there WAS a “post” (you mean “tweet” but OK) - quote one
>> or link to it. The ostensible source you give must be wrong - Pip and
>> Jane Baker didn’t tweet anything. They couldn’t.
>>
>> So how am I supposed to know what random inanity you’re going on about?
>
> Therefore you never got the reference.

No, I didn’t and am unlikely to do without more information. All I can say
with confidence is that any “Pip and Jane” tweet wasn’t by Pip and Jane.

--
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 <t79kjr$kvt$4@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t78t2v$iab$3@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t77v5l$dpc$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There’s no poll that proves the
>>>>>> downfall or destruction of Doctor Who, is there? You can’t link to
>>>> it, can you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, mikeMcK, you do have an inch of sanity in you!
>>>>
>>>> So you’re agreeing that you were lying and there’s no downfall or
>>>> destruction of Doctor Who. Good.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lies the insane MikeMcK!
>>
>> Oh, silly me. When I said “there’s no such poll and you can’t link
>> to it”,
>> and you replied “yes, you have an inch of sanity”, I assumed that by saying
>> “yes” to what I said and calling me sane, you were conceding the truth. I
>> should have known better.
>>
>> If I have an inch of sanity, clearly any sanity you might have would only
>> be detectable under a scanning electron microscope. And even then would be
>> subject to quantum uncertainty.
>
> You sir are insane!
>
> You sir area nitwit.

Please don’t type a response while you’re addressing yourself in a mirror.

--
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 <t7ad70$6jn$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t79kjq$kvt$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t78t2u$iab$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <t77v5k$dpc$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <t77g83$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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Timeless Chiuld is disrespectful to William Hartnell.
>>>>
>>>> Not really, because Hartnell never claimed to be the first Doctor. Or
>>>> exactly how do you think it’s disrespectful?
>>>>
>>>> But even if it somehow was, that doesn’t place the Timeless Child in
>>>> contradiction to the body of stories told on TV to date.
>>>>
>>>
>>> MikeMcK is with CC and the Revisionists.
>>
>> Nothing has been changed, Dave. So there’s no revisionism.
>>
>> I notice you didn’t address your drivel about “disrespect”.
>>
>
> You disrespect Hartnell every time you support the Timeless child.

I don’t support it. I merely acknowledge that it exists. But how or why
would “supporting” the Timeless Child disrespect Hartnell?

--
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 <t7ad70$6jn$2@dont-email.me>,
> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <t79kjq$kvt$3@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t78t2u$iab$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <t77v5k$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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You really do have no respect for the Series as Whole MM
>>>>> just like CC!
>>>>
>>>> Where do you get that from? What did I write that you thought was
>>>> disrespectful to the show? You’re off on another weird mental adventure
>>>> with that, Dave.
>>>>
>>>> My comments were about the viewership, not the show.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And imdb are grass roots reviews.
>>
>> From a limited base. Most people don’t review on iMDB. Mostly dedicated
>> haters as well - the star profile of the reviews is VERY different from the
>> star profile of the general ratings. Which is also a limited base.
>>
>
> "Limited base" - real meaning- I hate grass roots.

Gibberish.

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

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

Well, I suggest you stop using phrases that apply to you and not to them
when trying to talk to your superiors then. Like a tree frog with brain
damage, it’s not big and it’s not clever.

--
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 2022-06-02 4:40 p.m., tsbr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 3:48:17 PM UTC-7, netk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> In article <t7b91l$8jo$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> The Last Doctor <mi...@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>> The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> In article <t7ad70$6jn$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>>> The Last Doctor <mi...@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>> The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <t79kjq$kvt$2...@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mi...@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <t78t2u$iab$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mi...@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <t77v5k$dpc$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mi...@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <t77g83$qb9$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Last Doctor <mi...@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Doctor <doc...@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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Timeless Chiuld is disrespectful to William Hartnell.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not really, because Hartnell never claimed to be the first Doctor. Or
>>>>>>> exactly how do you think it’s disrespectful?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But even if it somehow was, that doesn’t place the Timeless Child in
>>>>>>> contradiction to the body of stories told on TV to date.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MikeMcK is with CC and the Revisionists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing has been changed, Dave. So there’s no revisionism.
>>>>>
>>>>> I notice you didn’t address your drivel about “disrespect”.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You disrespect Hartnell every time you support the Timeless child.
>>>
>>> I don’t support it. I merely acknowledge that it exists. But how or why
>>> would “supporting” the Timeless Child disrespect Hartnell?
>>>
>> Hartnell is the original.
>>
>> There is no one before him.
>
> Is he God?
>
no i am

The Doctor wrote on 2/6/22 9:29 pm:
> In article <t7a2o2$d4g$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote on 2/6/22 12:03 am:
>>> In article <t770p1$7jm$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
>>> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor wrote on 1/06/2022 8:02 am:

<Snip>

>>>>> How about the bogus Tectuen.
>>>>
>>>> What was 'revised' about Tectuen, clown?? As I recall she had
>>>> not been mentioned previously, so how could anything about her
>>>> be 'revised', clown??
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and YOUR newsreader is corrupting the quoted text, clown!!
>>
>>> Tectuen was put it to detroy Rassilon and Omega, Dannyboy.
>>
>> "it"?? "detroy"??
>>
>> How could Tectuem 'detroy' Rassilon and/or Omega if they weren't
>> even mentioned in 'The Timeless Child' arc, clown??

> CC's method of revisionism, Dannyboy!

So .... by not mentioning something, you can retcon something!!

Really??

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 2/6/22 9:30 pm:
> In article <t7a46d$re1$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote on 2/6/22 11:42 am:
>>> In article <t78t2u$iab$1@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
>>> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t77v5k$dpc$1@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
>>>>> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>>>>>> Tectuen is a device to revise out both Rassilon and
>>>>>>> Omega.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is still no Tectuen, no matter how many times you try
>>>>>> to invent them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please QUOTE a line from the show where Tecteun (NOT YOUR
>>>>>> IMAGINARY “TECTUEN”) is said to have done
>>>>>> something that Rassilon or Omega were previously have said
>>>>>> to do in the show (with a QUOTE showing that).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because as far as my knowledge of the show goes,
>>>>>> you’re just making it up.
>>>>>
>>>>> So is Chibnall.
>>>>
>>>> In Chibnall’s case, as with other writers paid by the
>>>> BBC to do so, that was his job.
>>>>
>>>> But you’re just lying because you don’t like some
>>>> of the things that have been added. Which is childish and
>>>> pointless.
>>>
>>> The Timeless Chiuld is disrespectful to William Hartnell.
>>
>> Was Patrick Troughton disrespectful to William Hartnell, clown??
>>
>> I mean, William Hartnell presented the character "The Doctor" for,
>> what, three years .... and then disappeared and was replaced by
>> Patrick Troughton with no 'in story' reason for the change of
>> appearance 'cause, as I understand it, the idea of 'regeneration'
>> was written into the 'Doctor Who' storyline some time later!!
>>
>> So was Patrick Troughton disrespectful to William Hartnell,
>> clown??

> Never, Dannyboy!

So, therefore, YOU, clown, are suggesting that the 'back-story' can
change without any 'in store' reason, clown!

So why couldn't 'The Timeless Child' has existed without ever having
been mentioned before, clown??

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 2/6/22 9:31 pm:
> In article <t7a4aq$re1$2@dont-email.me>,
> Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote on 2/6/22 12:04 am:
>>> In article <t770vr$be7$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
>>> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor wrote on 1/06/2022 12:02 am:
>>>>> In article <t74nsv$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!!
>>
>>> Ever read the dead of common Sense, Dannyboy, in the Times?
>>
>> The WHAT in the WHERE, clown??

> The Death of Common Sense, Dannyboy!

Ah!! So are YOU, clown, a devote of "The Death of Common Sense", clown??
Or are YOU, clown, an advocate of "The Death of 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