Discussion:
The Telegraph thinks Ophan 55 is clumsy writing
(too old to reply)
The True Doctor
2020-01-12 23:22:03 UTC
Permalink
<<Doctor Who: Orphan 55, series 12 episode 3 recap: let down by false
jeopardy, a seriously overstuffed story and clumsy moral lessons>>

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2020/01/12/doctor-orphan-55-series-12-episode-3-recap-let-false-jeopardy/

<<2/5>>

<<...

<<Clumsy eco-message was crowbarred in

<<Politically correct preaching has become a bugbear of Doctor Who’s
critics and before the credits rolled, it duly arrived.

<<The Doctor accessed the Dregs’ memories to learn how Earth got into
this desolate state. Cue a dystopian montage of climate change, food
shortages, mass migration and nuclear war. “The people who used to live
on this planet could have changed but they didn’t and lost everything,”
said the Time Lord.

<<Back in the Tardis, she drove the message home about how this was only
one possible future and it’s up to us whether it comes to pass. “In your
time, humanity is arguing about the washing-up while the house burns
down,” ranted the Doctor. “Unless people face facts and change,
catastrophe is coming.”

<<Just in case anyone had missed the moral, she then added: “People can
save planets or wreck them – that’s the choice.” Please stop
sermonising. I think we all get the idea.
The writing was a dog’s dinner

<<The overwhelming feeling here, apart from disappointment, was that
there was far too much going on. Ideas were touched upon but not
developed. Ruling elites. Terra-forming. Armageddon. All were mentioned
briefly, then tossed away.

<<Doctor Who has always had a tendency towards corridor chases and the
Doctor spouting exposition, but here it reached preposterous proportions
due to a plot which was so overcomplicated when it should have been
straightforward. Narrative clarity was badly needed.

<<Far too many family dynamics were introduced at breakneck pace,
meaning we weren’t emotionally invested in them. The Vilma-and-Benni
thread ended on a shockingly dark note, while Ryan's thumb-sucking
farewell to Bella felt saccharine and his subsequent shellshock unearned.

<<Characters were sketchily drawn with muddled motivations. Kane
initially seemed to be a security guard, then morphed into a dastardly
property developer and finally a kickass action heroine. And would Bella
really blow up an entire resort just to get her own back on her mother
for abandoning her?

<<There were some snappy one-liners – including “If I had crayons and
half a can of Spam, I could build you from scratch” and “It breathes in
carbon monoxide and breathes out oxygen, like a really angry tree” – but
the wider picture was a shambles.

<<“Timeless Child” arc was forgotten

...>>
--
The True Doctor

"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
stands for." -William Shatner
p***@conservation.org
2020-01-13 02:19:57 UTC
Permalink
The Telegraph writer is pretty dim if they think the plot of Planet of the Dregs was "overcomplicated". This is the closest to Classic Who we've had in years, right down to filming in quarries. It was a linear chase from start to finish; the girl playing terrorist and the kid running off were completely extraneous, and the former dropped essentially without any justification, but they didn't really add any "complications".

Far from being "politically correct" this is the first episode in many years, maybe even since Eccleston, to actually treat the Doctor as a character who tries to solve problems peacefully, but isn't opposed to the use of force to the point of absurdity as we've seen so many times with the 'pacifism at all costs' approach of Moffatt and most of RTD's era. Having a message isn't political correctness, any more than Planet of the Apes is politically correct because it contains a caution against nuclear war at the end of a story that could easily have been told without it. And evidently whatever happened to Earth happened far enough in the future that people had already left the planet - when looking at a couple of centuries down the line it's actually somewhat realistic to imagine that civilisation would become untenable on Earth. Obviously elements were exaggerated to make the plot work - it's hard to imagine anything that could remove most of the oxygen from the atmosphere, let alone increase carbon dioxide to concentrations that would allow a population of large vertebrates to evolve to breathe it - but it's Dr Who, not a documentary.
Tim Bruening
2020-01-13 03:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
The Telegraph writer is pretty dim if they think the plot of Planet of the Dregs was "overcomplicated". This is the closest to Classic Who we've had in years, right down to filming in quarries. It was a linear chase from start to finish; the girl playing terrorist and the kid running off were completely extraneous, and the former dropped essentially without any justification, but they didn't really add any "complications".
Far from being "politically correct" this is the first episode in many years, maybe even since Eccleston, to actually treat the Doctor as a character who tries to solve problems peacefully, but isn't opposed to the use of force to the point of absurdity as we've seen so many times with the 'pacifism at all costs' approach of Moffatt and most of RTD's era. Having a message isn't political correctness, any more than Planet of the Apes is politically correct because it contains a caution against nuclear war at the end of a story that could easily have been told without it. And evidently whatever happened to Earth happened far enough in the future that people had already left the planet - when looking at a couple of centuries down the line it's actually somewhat realistic to imagine that civilisation would become untenable on Earth. Obviously elements were exaggerated to make the plot work - it's hard to imagine anything that could remove most of the oxygen from the atmosphere, let alone increase carbon dioxide to concentrations that would allow a population of large vertebrates to evolve to breathe it - but it's Dr Who, not a documentary.
Shouldn't Earth be intolerably hot with that much CO2?
The Doctor
2020-01-13 03:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by p***@conservation.org
The Telegraph writer is pretty dim if they think the plot of Planet of
the Dregs was "overcomplicated". This is the closest to Classic Who
we've had in years, right down to filming in quarries. It was a linear
chase from start to finish; the girl playing terrorist and the kid
running off were completely extraneous, and the former dropped
essentially without any justification, but they didn't really add any
"complications".
Post by p***@conservation.org
Far from being "politically correct" this is the first episode in many
years, maybe even since Eccleston, to actually treat the Doctor as a
character who tries to solve problems peacefully, but isn't opposed to
the use of force to the point of absurdity as we've seen so many times
with the 'pacifism at all costs' approach of Moffatt and most of RTD's
era. Having a message isn't political correctness, any more than Planet
of the Apes is politically correct because it contains a caution against
nuclear war at the end of a story that could easily have been told
without it. And evidently whatever happened to Earth happened far enough
in the future that people had already left the planet - when looking at
a couple of centuries down the line it's actually somewhat realistic to
imagine that civilisation would become untenable on Earth. Obviously
elements were exaggerated to make the plot work - it's hard to imagine
anything that could remove most of the oxygen from the atmosphere, let
alone increase carbon dioxide to concentrations that would allow a
population of large vertebrates to evolve to breathe it - but it's Dr
Who, not a documentary.
Shouldn't Earth be intolerably hot with that much CO2?
In a nuclear winter.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill , Surrey, England.
Tim Bruening
2020-01-13 04:01:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by p***@conservation.org
The Telegraph writer is pretty dim if they think the plot of Planet of
the Dregs was "overcomplicated". This is the closest to Classic Who
we've had in years, right down to filming in quarries. It was a linear
chase from start to finish; the girl playing terrorist and the kid
running off were completely extraneous, and the former dropped
essentially without any justification, but they didn't really add any
"complications".
Post by p***@conservation.org
Far from being "politically correct" this is the first episode in many
years, maybe even since Eccleston, to actually treat the Doctor as a
character who tries to solve problems peacefully, but isn't opposed to
the use of force to the point of absurdity as we've seen so many times
with the 'pacifism at all costs' approach of Moffatt and most of RTD's
era. Having a message isn't political correctness, any more than Planet
of the Apes is politically correct because it contains a caution against
nuclear war at the end of a story that could easily have been told
without it. And evidently whatever happened to Earth happened far enough
in the future that people had already left the planet - when looking at
a couple of centuries down the line it's actually somewhat realistic to
imagine that civilisation would become untenable on Earth. Obviously
elements were exaggerated to make the plot work - it's hard to imagine
anything that could remove most of the oxygen from the atmosphere, let
alone increase carbon dioxide to concentrations that would allow a
population of large vertebrates to evolve to breathe it - but it's Dr
Who, not a documentary.
Shouldn't Earth be intolerably hot with that much CO2?
In a nuclear winter.
At times, I saw sunlight, and the Doctor spoke of solar blistering.
The Doctor
2020-01-13 15:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 6:19:58 PM UTC-8,
Post by p***@conservation.org
The Telegraph writer is pretty dim if they think the plot of Planet of
the Dregs was "overcomplicated". This is the closest to Classic Who
we've had in years, right down to filming in quarries. It was a linear
chase from start to finish; the girl playing terrorist and the kid
running off were completely extraneous, and the former dropped
essentially without any justification, but they didn't really add any
"complications".
Post by p***@conservation.org
Far from being "politically correct" this is the first episode in many
years, maybe even since Eccleston, to actually treat the Doctor as a
character who tries to solve problems peacefully, but isn't opposed to
the use of force to the point of absurdity as we've seen so many times
with the 'pacifism at all costs' approach of Moffatt and most of RTD's
era. Having a message isn't political correctness, any more than Planet
of the Apes is politically correct because it contains a caution against
nuclear war at the end of a story that could easily have been told
without it. And evidently whatever happened to Earth happened far enough
in the future that people had already left the planet - when looking at
a couple of centuries down the line it's actually somewhat realistic to
imagine that civilisation would become untenable on Earth. Obviously
elements were exaggerated to make the plot work - it's hard to imagine
anything that could remove most of the oxygen from the atmosphere, let
alone increase carbon dioxide to concentrations that would allow a
population of large vertebrates to evolve to breathe it - but it's Dr
Who, not a documentary.
Shouldn't Earth be intolerably hot with that much CO2?
In a nuclear winter.
At times, I saw sunlight, and the Doctor spoke of solar blistering.
And that could happen in a nuclear winter.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill , Surrey, England.
b***@topmail.co.nz
2020-01-18 01:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Bruening
Shouldn't Earth be intolerably hot with that much CO2?
well they were in Siberia, which became comfortably warm

The True Doctor
2020-01-13 03:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
The Telegraph writer is pretty dim if they think the plot of Planet
of the Dregs was "overcomplicated". This is the closest to Classic
Who we've had in years, right down to filming in quarries. It was a
Oh yes, the classic garbage of the Sylvester McCoy era which I already
commented on in my review. Paradise Towers and The Happiness Patrol came
to mind. The absolute nadir of Doctor Who, well up until Fear Her that
is, and this rubbish.
Post by p***@conservation.org
linear chase from start to finish; the girl playing terrorist and the
kid running off were completely extraneous, and the former dropped
essentially without any justification, but they didn't really add any
"complications".
The complications were the fact that the female head of security with a
gun had no sense of credibility and believability because the character
should have been played by a man (and was probably originally written
for a man given Heim's record of hatred against fatherhood), but was
gender swamped to satisfy Chibnall's sexist agenda; and the fact that
the black terrorist girl was this white woman's daughter, due to the
character being race swapped as a result of Chibnall's racist casting
rather than being played by a white woman like her mother or by someone
who actually looked mixed race. As a result it looked like the mother
abandoned her daughter because she was black.

Chibnall the sexist and racist bigot doesn't understand the connotations
of his disgusting PC agenda. Just as the Telegraph said of last week's
episode, Doctor Who has become even more offensive than ever because of
this agenda.

And of course lets not forget the old couple who were made to sacrifice
their lives for no reason, without any credible characterisation or
character motivation being depicted which would lead to this, other than
their use as offensive comic serotypes depicting the way old people
should be expected behave; and then there was the green haired father
and son who formed another comedy act. If the father needed his son to
help him set his own central heating timer at home or thermostat in his
room it would have been credible, but this person was supposed to be a
qualified engineer and he knew nothing about engineering, therefore
making that depiction offensive as well.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Far from being "politically correct" this is the first episode in
It was the political correctness which caused all of these problems.

Instead of good writing being at the heart of this episode it was the
sexist, racist, and extreme left wing ecoterrorist agenda that dominated
it and prevented proper characterisation and story telling. Women were
written as men and men were made to look stupid.
Post by p***@conservation.org
many years, maybe even since Eccleston, to actually treat the Doctor
as a character who tries to solve problems peacefully, but isn't
Solve? Whittaker didn't solve anything. All she did was talk to herself
spouting out ignorant nonsensical codswallop, and sounded as if she were
phoning everything in. She was totally disconnected from every other
character and the mystery which wasn't really a mystery since it was
never foreshadowed, was revealed by telepathy rather than investigation
and character interaction.
Post by p***@conservation.org
opposed to the use of force to the point of absurdity as we've seen
so many times with the 'pacifism at all costs' approach of Moffatt
and most of RTD's era. Having a message isn't political correctness,
Some would say that telepathy is even worse than using force since it's
an invasion of someone else's private thoughts and emotions, and it's a
cheap copout.
Post by p***@conservation.org
any more than Planet of the Apes is politically correct because it
contains a caution against nuclear war at the end of a story that
could easily have been told without it. And evidently whatever
Having a message which is completely one-sided and unchallenged is
political correctness, an ideology which won't accept criticism or
anyone who thinks differently.
Post by p***@conservation.org
happened to Earth happened far enough in the future that people had
already left the planet - when looking at a couple of centuries down
the line it's actually somewhat realistic to imagine that
civilisation would become untenable on Earth. Obviously elements were
Couple of centuries? It totally contradicts established Doctor Who
continuity since The Ark in Space, The Talons of Weng Chiang and The
Empty Child, which imply Earth is still inhabited and centuries are not
long enough for a new animal species to evolve that breaths CO2 instead
of O2. Hundreds of millions of years would need to pass and that
contradicts The End of the World.
Post by p***@conservation.org
exaggerated to make the plot work - it's hard to imagine anything
that could remove most of the oxygen from the atmosphere, let alone
increase carbon dioxide to concentrations that would allow a
population of large vertebrates to evolve to breathe it - but it's Dr
Who, not a documentary.
In the hundreds of millions of years it would have taken such a
creatures to evolve Earth would have several ice ages and periods of
global warming all of which would have occurred naturally. This episode
was an affront to genuine science and an attack on capitalism,
consumerism, and progress.
--
The True Doctor

"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
stands for." -William Shatner
Tim Bruening
2020-01-13 03:59:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
happened to Earth happened far enough in the future that people had
already left the planet - when looking at a couple of centuries down
the line it's actually somewhat realistic to imagine that
civilisation would become untenable on Earth. Obviously elements were
Couple of centuries? It totally contradicts established Doctor Who
continuity since The Ark in Space, The Talons of Weng Chiang and The
Empty Child, which imply Earth is still inhabited and centuries are not
long enough for a new animal species to evolve that breaths CO2 instead
of O2. Hundreds of millions of years would need to pass and that
contradicts The End of the World.
Who said that the Dregs had evolved naturally? They could have been created to stop global warming by removing CO2.
The Doctor
2020-01-13 15:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
happened to Earth happened far enough in the future that people had
already left the planet - when looking at a couple of centuries down
the line it's actually somewhat realistic to imagine that
civilisation would become untenable on Earth. Obviously elements were
Couple of centuries? It totally contradicts established Doctor Who
continuity since The Ark in Space, The Talons of Weng Chiang and The
Empty Child, which imply Earth is still inhabited and centuries are not
long enough for a new animal species to evolve that breaths CO2 instead
of O2. Hundreds of millions of years would need to pass and that
contradicts The End of the World.
Who said that the Dregs had evolved naturally? They could have been
created to stop global warming by removing CO2.
The are weebles from TW!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill , Surrey, England.
Tim Bruening
2020-01-13 15:38:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
happened to Earth happened far enough in the future that people had
already left the planet - when looking at a couple of centuries down
the line it's actually somewhat realistic to imagine that
civilisation would become untenable on Earth. Obviously elements were
Couple of centuries? It totally contradicts established Doctor Who
continuity since The Ark in Space, The Talons of Weng Chiang and The
Empty Child, which imply Earth is still inhabited and centuries are not
long enough for a new animal species to evolve that breaths CO2 instead
of O2. Hundreds of millions of years would need to pass and that
contradicts The End of the World.
Who said that the Dregs had evolved naturally? They could have been
created to stop global warming by removing CO2.
The are weebles from TW!
The Dregs have actually gone back in time to our era?
The Doctor
2020-01-13 15:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
happened to Earth happened far enough in the future that people had
already left the planet - when looking at a couple of centuries down
the line it's actually somewhat realistic to imagine that
civilisation would become untenable on Earth. Obviously elements were
Couple of centuries? It totally contradicts established Doctor Who
continuity since The Ark in Space, The Talons of Weng Chiang and The
Empty Child, which imply Earth is still inhabited and centuries are not
long enough for a new animal species to evolve that breaths CO2 instead
of O2. Hundreds of millions of years would need to pass and that
contradicts The End of the World.
Who said that the Dregs had evolved naturally? They could have been
created to stop global warming by removing CO2.
The are weebles from TW!
The Dregs have actually gone back in time to our era?
Date back you mean.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill , Surrey, England.
Tim Bruening
2020-01-13 20:28:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
happened to Earth happened far enough in the future that people had
already left the planet - when looking at a couple of centuries down
the line it's actually somewhat realistic to imagine that
civilisation would become untenable on Earth. Obviously elements were
Couple of centuries? It totally contradicts established Doctor Who
continuity since The Ark in Space, The Talons of Weng Chiang and The
Empty Child, which imply Earth is still inhabited and centuries are not
long enough for a new animal species to evolve that breaths CO2 instead
of O2. Hundreds of millions of years would need to pass and that
contradicts The End of the World.
Who said that the Dregs had evolved naturally? They could have been
created to stop global warming by removing CO2.
The are weebles from TW!
The Dregs have actually gone back in time to our era?
Date back you mean.
What's the difference between time travel and date back?
Tim Bruening
2020-01-14 00:00:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
happened to Earth happened far enough in the future that people had
already left the planet - when looking at a couple of centuries down
the line it's actually somewhat realistic to imagine that
civilisation would become untenable on Earth. Obviously elements were
Couple of centuries? It totally contradicts established Doctor Who
continuity since The Ark in Space, The Talons of Weng Chiang and The
Empty Child, which imply Earth is still inhabited and centuries are not
long enough for a new animal species to evolve that breaths CO2 instead
of O2. Hundreds of millions of years would need to pass and that
contradicts The End of the World.
Who said that the Dregs had evolved naturally? They could have been
created to stop global warming by removing CO2.
The are weebles from TW!
The Dregs have actually gone back in time to our era?
Date back you mean.
What's the difference between time travel and date back?
NO they have not.
You say no difference between time travel and date back?
The Doctor
2020-01-14 01:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
happened to Earth happened far enough in the future that people had
already left the planet - when looking at a couple of
centuries down
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
the line it's actually somewhat realistic to imagine that
civilisation would become untenable on Earth. Obviously
elements were
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
Couple of centuries? It totally contradicts established Doctor Who
continuity since The Ark in Space, The Talons of Weng Chiang and The
Empty Child, which imply Earth is still inhabited and
centuries are not
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
long enough for a new animal species to evolve that breaths
CO2 instead
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The True Doctor
of O2. Hundreds of millions of years would need to pass and that
contradicts The End of the World.
Who said that the Dregs had evolved naturally? They could have been
created to stop global warming by removing CO2.
The are weebles from TW!
The Dregs have actually gone back in time to our era?
Date back you mean.
What's the difference between time travel and date back?
NO they have not.
You say no difference between time travel and date back?
Hence involved into!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill , Surrey, England.
Daniel60
2020-01-17 07:03:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Siri Cruise
In article
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 7:50:22 AM UTC-8, The Doctor
Post by Siri Cruise
In article
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 7:10:54 AM UTC-8, The
Post by Siri Cruise
In article
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 7:24:29 PM UTC-8, The
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
happened to Earth happened far enough in the
future that people had already left the planet -
when looking at a couple of centuries down the line
it's actually somewhat realistic to imagine that
civilisation would become untenable on Earth.
Obviously elements were
Couple of centuries? It totally contradicts
established Doctor Who continuity since The Ark in
Space, The Talons of Weng Chiang and The Empty
Child, which imply Earth is still inhabited and
centuries are not long enough for a new animal
species to evolve that breaths CO2 instead of O2.
Hundreds of millions of years would need to pass and
that contradicts The End of the World.
Who said that the Dregs had evolved naturally? They
could have been created to stop global warming by
removing CO2.
The are weebles from TW!
The Dregs have actually gone back in time to our era?
Date back you mean.
What's the difference between time travel and date back?
NO they have not.
You say no difference between time travel and date back?
Hence involved into!
What are you on about, idiot?? Or What are you on, idiot?? And can we
all have some, idiot??
--
Daniel
Timothy Bruening
2020-01-17 07:07:40 UTC
Permalink
What does it mean to "date back "?
The Doctor
2020-01-17 15:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
What does it mean to "date back "?
Goes back to.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill , Surrey, England.
The Doctor
2020-01-17 15:49:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Siri Cruise
In article
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Siri Cruise
In article
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 7:10:54 AM UTC-8, The
Post by Siri Cruise
In article
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 7:24:29 PM UTC-8, The
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
happened to Earth happened far enough in the
future that people had already left the planet -
when looking at a couple of centuries down the line
it's actually somewhat realistic to imagine that
civilisation would become untenable on Earth.
Obviously elements were
Couple of centuries? It totally contradicts
established Doctor Who continuity since The Ark in
Space, The Talons of Weng Chiang and The Empty
Child, which imply Earth is still inhabited and
centuries are not long enough for a new animal
species to evolve that breaths CO2 instead of O2.
Hundreds of millions of years would need to pass and
that contradicts The End of the World.
Who said that the Dregs had evolved naturally? They
could have been created to stop global warming by
removing CO2.
The are weebles from TW!
The Dregs have actually gone back in time to our era?
Date back you mean.
What's the difference between time travel and date back?
NO they have not.
You say no difference between time travel and date back?
Hence involved into!
What are you on about, idiot?? Or What are you on, idiot?? And can we
all have some, idiot??
--
Daniel
Dregs looking like TW Weevels!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill , Surrey, England.
p***@conservation.org
2020-01-14 02:37:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
And of course lets not forget the old couple who were made to sacrifice
their lives for no reason, without any credible characterisation or
character motivation being depicted which would lead to this, other than
their use as offensive comic serotypes depicting the way old people
should be expected behave;
What was comic about them? I agree there wasn't any reason for the woman's self-sacrifice beyond her grief for her dead partner, but they were well-presented and the woman was presented as strong without falling into the stereotype of being an old nag, demanding the guards set out to find her partner and evidently expecting them to be mercenary enough to do so when given her valuable necklace.

and then there was the green haired father
Post by The True Doctor
and son who formed another comedy act. If the father needed his son to
help him set his own central heating timer at home or thermostat in his
room it would have been credible, but this person was supposed to be a
qualified engineer and he knew nothing about engineering, therefore
making that depiction offensive as well.
Why is comedy necessarily offensive? The joke got old fast, but I don't see anything offensive about it.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
any more than Planet of the Apes is politically correct because it
contains a caution against nuclear war at the end of a story that
could easily have been told without it. And evidently whatever
Having a message which is completely one-sided and unchallenged is
political correctness, an ideology which won't accept criticism or
anyone who thinks differently.
How does that describe anything in this episode? The final sequence described an exaggerated result of a concern rooted in scientific reality. Again, it's not doing anything Planet of the Apes didn't do decades ago. If there were a nuclear war would it result in the end of civilisation and the enslavement of surviving humans by other species of apes? Of course not. That doesn't imply that nuclear weapons don't exist or that using them could cause societal upheaval. Nor is it stopping people from believing nuclear weapons are a good idea if they want to - it's pointing out that that's a stupid thing to believe, but people are entitled to believe things however stupid they are.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
happened to Earth happened far enough in the future that people had
already left the planet - when looking at a couple of centuries down
the line it's actually somewhat realistic to imagine that
civilisation would become untenable on Earth. Obviously elements were
Couple of centuries? It totally contradicts established Doctor Who
continuity since The Ark in Space,
As far as I can tell it's fully consistent with the Ark in Space - that's a story set 10,000 years in the future after a ship departing a disaster on Earth had already been travelling for thousands of years. Whatever happened on Earth to cause the evacuation happened centuries to a millennium or two after the present - easily within the timeframe we could imagine for this story. Whatever happened to Earth seems to have happened not only after humans had interstellar travel, but after they'd had time to settle and then ruin 54 other planets.

The Talons of Weng Chiang and The
Post by The True Doctor
Empty Child, which imply Earth is still inhabited and centuries are not
long enough for a new animal species to evolve that breaths CO2 instead
of O2. Hundreds of millions of years would need to pass and that
contradicts The End of the World.
The dregs aren't a new species, they're mutants - and for all we know the results of genetic engineering to better-adapt surviving humans to worsening conditions. Somehow the alpha dreg actually had memories of events that happened during the destruction of Earth, which must therefore have happened recently enough for some knowledge of the event to have been passed on.
Timothy Bruening
2020-01-14 02:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Dreg memories passed down telepathically?
%
2020-01-14 02:59:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Dreg memories passed down telepathically?
did you ever thing
Timothy Bruening
2020-01-14 03:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by Timothy Bruening
Dreg memories passed down telepathically?
did you ever thing
How do you thing?
%
2020-01-14 03:03:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by %
Post by Timothy Bruening
Dreg memories passed down telepathically?
did you ever thing
How do you thing?
well first there you are and then you thing
Tim Bruening
2020-01-14 04:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by %
Post by Timothy Bruening
Dreg memories passed down telepathically?
did you ever thing
How do you thing?
well first there you are and then you thing
But how do you thing?
The Doctor
2020-01-14 15:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by %
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by %
Post by Timothy Bruening
Dreg memories passed down telepathically?
did you ever thing
How do you thing?
well first there you are and then you thing
But how do you thing?
Answer % !
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill , Surrey, England.
The Doctor
2020-01-14 03:32:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by %
Post by Timothy Bruening
Dreg memories passed down telepathically?
did you ever thing
How do you thing?
Just answer % !
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill , Surrey, England.
The Doctor
2020-01-14 03:31:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Dreg memories passed down telepathically?
You saw The Doctor accessing them.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill , Surrey, England.
Tim Bruening
2020-01-14 04:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Dreg memories passed down telepathically?
You saw The Doctor accessing them.
I was fanwanking a way for the Dregs to remember a nuclear war without it occurring in their life times.
The Doctor
2020-01-14 15:08:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Dreg memories passed down telepathically?
You saw The Doctor accessing them.
I was fanwanking a way for the Dregs to remember a nuclear war without
it occurring in their life times.
Than wank off!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill , Surrey, England.
The True Doctor
2020-01-14 03:35:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
And of course lets not forget the old couple who were made to
sacrifice their lives for no reason, without any credible
characterisation or character motivation being depicted which would
lead to this, other than their use as offensive comic serotypes
depicting the way old people should be expected behave;
What was comic about them? I agree there wasn't any reason for the
woman's self-sacrifice beyond her grief for her dead partner, but
Where was her grief ever shown, other than idiot boarded like everting
else in this badly written garbage? Laugh now, cry now, hold your breath
in suspense now, be afraid now... Garbage!
Post by p***@conservation.org
they were well-presented and the woman was presented as strong
without falling into the stereotype of being an old nag, demanding
the guards set out to find her partner and evidently expecting them
to be mercenary enough to do so when given her valuable necklace.
She was nothing more than a stock comedy serotype with no backstory and
no reason for the audience to empathise with her because they were never
taken on any kind of emotional or heroic journey. This was degrading
soap opera writing not a proper story.
Post by p***@conservation.org
and then there was the green haired father
Post by The True Doctor
and son who formed another comedy act. If the father needed his son
to help him set his own central heating timer at home or thermostat
in his room it would have been credible, but this person was
supposed to be a qualified engineer and he knew nothing about
engineering, therefore making that depiction offensive as well.
Why is comedy necessarily offensive? The joke got old fast, but I
don't see anything offensive about it.
The father was made to look like an idiot to serve Chibnall and Hime's
agenda. It's clear that both of them have father issues.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
any more than Planet of the Apes is politically correct because
it contains a caution against nuclear war at the end of a story
that could easily have been told without it. And evidently
whatever
Having a message which is completely one-sided and unchallenged is
political correctness, an ideology which won't accept criticism or
anyone who thinks differently.
How does that describe anything in this episode? The final sequence
described an exaggerated result of a concern rooted in scientific
reality.
No. It was a one-sided argument with no consideration of the other side
of the coin. There is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of
man made global warming or that it is detrimental to the planet's
welfare, and a credible scientist will tell you that. All the climate
change terrorists have is the opinion of a brainwashed Swedish
schoolgirl who skipped all of her lessons for over a year.

Climate change could be a good thing. It could free the third world from
dependency on the developed world. It could lead to new inventions. It
could bring people's fuel bills down and prevent famine and malnutrition
in Africa and turn the tables on the West. It could free up new land for
colonisation, cause glaciers to from to erode rock and produce fertile
soil, make the rich poor, and the poor rich. It's been a natural
occurrence for millions of years, and Earth has survived it every time.
Even human beings have been through several ice ages and periods of
global warming in the past.
Again, it's not doing anything Planet of the Apes didn't do
Post by p***@conservation.org
decades ago. If there were a nuclear war would it result in the end
Planet of the Apes didn't preach to people and insult their intelligence.
Post by p***@conservation.org
of civilisation and the enslavement of surviving humans by other
species of apes? Of course not. That doesn't imply that nuclear
The Apes in Planet of the Apes had already evolved intelligence and
learned to talk long before the nuclear war occurred. It was a virus
that killed off the humans and gave the Apes the advantage to set
themselves free from slavery. The nuclear war occurred to destroy them.
How many of the original films did you actually watch?
Post by p***@conservation.org
weapons don't exist or that using them could cause societal upheaval.
Nor is it stopping people from believing nuclear weapons are a good
idea if they want to - it's pointing out that that's a stupid thing
to believe, but people are entitled to believe things however stupid
they are.
The second film ended with the super bomb going off and destroying
everything. The humans who believed in the bomb got their victory. Both
sides of the argument were covered.

We don't see this ever happening in Doctor Woke. Let's take for example
the Rosa Parks story. Why wasn't the space racist's (who wasn't actually
a racist at all) side of the argument covered? Something happened in the
future that was detrimental for society it seems, and he went back in
time to change it. Why didn't Whittaker support him if this would have
brought about a better long-term future like stopping our reliance on
fossil fuels? Instead Whittaker gets on her pulpit and preaches to the
audience a load of crap about how Rosa Parks must be allowed to get on
the bus and refuse to give up her seat because she's black. This was
just one side of the argument because every white person is portrayed as
being racist. If Rosa Parks had been civil rights activist Edith Keeler
the space racist would have been allowed to win, despite the good she
might have done, because her death brought about a better future.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
happened to Earth happened far enough in the future that people
had already left the planet - when looking at a couple of
centuries down the line it's actually somewhat realistic to
imagine that civilisation would become untenable on Earth.
Obviously elements were
Couple of centuries? It totally contradicts established Doctor Who
continuity since The Ark in Space,
As far as I can tell it's fully consistent with the Ark in Space -
that's a story set 10,000 years in the future after a ship departing
a disaster on Earth had already been travelling for thousands of
years. Whatever happened on Earth to cause the evacuation happened
centuries to a millennium or two after the present - easily within
the timeframe we could imagine for this story. Whatever happened to
Earth seems to have happened not only after humans had interstellar
travel, but after they'd had time to settle and then ruin 54 other
planets.
The Ark in Space shows that the Earth has already underdone ecological
disaster in 10,000 year's time, and that it was specifically caused by
solar flares, and had absolutely nothing to do with anything man-made.

Why is Whittaker implying that humans a threat to the plant and
lecturing them to change their way's, when the Doctor already knows
Earths future, and whatever humans do it will make no difference to the
solar flares which already devastated the planet?

Chibnall doesn't give a shit about continuity as long as it serves his
sexist and racist agenda. He's already destroyed Gallifrey yet again,
insulting RTD and Moffat in the process, and he still can't adhere to
continuity when he has the Master state that Gallifrey is still in its
own bubble universe when we saw in Hell Bent that it had left it and is
now 5 million years in the future.
Post by p***@conservation.org
The Talons of Weng Chiang and The
Post by The True Doctor
Empty Child, which imply Earth is still inhabited and centuries are
not long enough for a new animal species to evolve that breaths CO2
instead of O2. Hundreds of millions of years would need to pass and
that contradicts The End of the World.
The dregs aren't a new species, they're mutants - and for all we know
Mutants that breath in CO2 and breath out O2. That's effectively more
than a new special, it's a new kingdom. It would have taken hundreds of
millions of year for such creatures to evolve or mutate as you might
call it, and it's effectively impossible for them to obtain energy from
CO2 without them relying on photosynthesis. Where are their leaves?
Where is their chlorophyll?
Post by p***@conservation.org
the results of genetic engineering to better-adapt surviving humans
to worsening conditions. Somehow the alpha dreg actually had memories
Yer, right, humans created monsters that would prey on them for food.
Post by p***@conservation.org
of events that happened during the destruction of Earth, which must
That is a result of lousy writing. I was expecting there to be a
revelation that the so-called Dregs were actually humans that had turned
into Mutants after being captured, and the old lady's husband was one of
them, like the Jon Pertwee story of the same name.
Post by p***@conservation.org
therefore have happened recently enough for some knowledge of the
event to have been passed on.
Like around 24 to 48 hours earlier before Chibnall realised that Hime
was plagiarising an existing story.
--
The True Doctor

"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
stands for." -William Shatner
p***@conservation.org
2020-01-14 13:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
And of course lets not forget the old couple who were made to
sacrifice their lives for no reason, without any credible
characterisation or character motivation being depicted which would
lead to this, other than their use as offensive comic serotypes
depicting the way old people should be expected behave;
What was comic about them? I agree there wasn't any reason for the
woman's self-sacrifice beyond her grief for her dead partner, but
Where was her grief ever shown, other than idiot boarded like everting
else in this badly written garbage?
It wasn't, I agree, but it can be inferred. I agree that it was a bit off that she's told Kane had killed Benni and her response, basically, was "That's a shame. I told you not to do that".
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
they were well-presented and the woman was presented as strong
without falling into the stereotype of being an old nag, demanding
the guards set out to find her partner and evidently expecting them
to be mercenary enough to do so when given her valuable necklace.
She was nothing more than a stock comedy serotype with no backstory and
no reason for the audience to empathise with her
Who cares if the author empathises with her? You aren't one of the current generation of kids with their fad that whether a character is 'relatable' is more important than whether they fill a useful story function. Shakespeare wouldn't have got very far if the only people who enjoyed Hamlet were ones who could relate to the dilemma of whether or not to kill their uncles.

because they were never
Post by The True Doctor
taken on any kind of emotional or heroic journey.
And how many of the bit characters in classic Who ever were?
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
and then there was the green haired father
Post by The True Doctor
and son who formed another comedy act. If the father needed his son
to help him set his own central heating timer at home or thermostat
in his room it would have been credible, but this person was
supposed to be a qualified engineer and he knew nothing about
engineering, therefore making that depiction offensive as well.
Why is comedy necessarily offensive? The joke got old fast, but I
don't see anything offensive about it.
The father was made to look like an idiot to serve Chibnall and Hime's
agenda.
In that case their agenda was to make a bad joke.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
any more than Planet of the Apes is politically correct because
it contains a caution against nuclear war at the end of a story
that could easily have been told without it. And evidently
whatever
Having a message which is completely one-sided and unchallenged is
political correctness, an ideology which won't accept criticism or
anyone who thinks differently.
How does that describe anything in this episode? The final sequence
described an exaggerated result of a concern rooted in scientific
reality.
No. It was a one-sided argument with no consideration of the other side
of the coin.
You mean you wanted someone to pop up complaining that there was no scientific evidence that humans need oxygen to breathe, as a counterpoint to the major plot point that the characters did - in fact - did need oxygen to breathe?

There is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of
Post by The True Doctor
man made global warming or that it is detrimental to the planet's
welfare, and a credible scientist will tell you that.
Okay, how about if they had considered it with the following dialogue after the Doctor's speech?

Yaz: I heard on Fox News that there is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of man made global warming or that it is detrimental to the planet's welfare, and a credible scientist will tell you that"

Doctor: Yaz, you're a moron.

Would that have made you happy?
Post by The True Doctor
Climate change could be a good thing.
The climate change you just said doesn't exist, that is?

It could free the third world from
Post by The True Doctor
dependency on the developed world. It could lead to new inventions. It
could bring people's fuel bills down and prevent famine and malnutrition
in Africa and turn the tables on the West.
Firstly, it won't. Secondly, the scenario in the episode wasn't about the impacts of climate change as a phenomenon, it was about the impacts of a war prompted by climate change stresses, and it was radiation rather than temperatures or water shortages making the place uninhabitable. You'll have noticed that the world didn't seem to be unusually hot in the episode - instead it seemed to be in the middle of a nuclear winter.
Post by The True Doctor
Again, it's not doing anything Planet of the Apes didn't do
Post by p***@conservation.org
decades ago. If there were a nuclear war would it result in the end
Planet of the Apes didn't preach to people and insult their intelligence.
Nor did this episode. It credited people with enough intelligence to understand the issue it raised. Sadly it was wrong in your case and likely in that of many other people.

People are entitled to have their opinions heard. They are not entitled to have therm taken seriously. The real issue with "political correctness" is a terror of offending anyone to the point that any opinion, however asinine or ill-informed, is treated as being as worthy of respect as any other.

If people don't want to be told that what they have to say is stupid and ignorant, there's an easy solution: they can make the effort to learn what they're talking about.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
of civilisation and the enslavement of surviving humans by other
species of apes? Of course not. That doesn't imply that nuclear
The Apes in Planet of the Apes had already evolved intelligence and
learned to talk long before the nuclear war occurred. It was a virus
that killed off the humans and gave the Apes the advantage to set
themselves free from slavery. The nuclear war occurred to destroy them.
How many of the original films did you actually watch?
I was only talking about the good one, which has to make sense within the context of only having seen that film. What they chose to retcon onto it later is irrelevant.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
weapons don't exist or that using them could cause societal upheaval.
Nor is it stopping people from believing nuclear weapons are a good
idea if they want to - it's pointing out that that's a stupid thing
to believe, but people are entitled to believe things however stupid
they are.
The second film ended with the super bomb going off and destroying
everything. The humans who believed in the bomb got their victory.
A victory that didn't do them any good.

Both
Post by The True Doctor
sides of the argument were covered.
By that measure, both sides of the argument were covered here - the Doctor specifically allowed that people could choose to carry on as normal and wreck the planet instead if they wanted.
Post by The True Doctor
We don't see this ever happening in Doctor Woke. Let's take for example
the Rosa Parks story. Why wasn't the space racist's (who wasn't actually
a racist at all) side of the argument covered? Something happened in the
future that was detrimental for society it seems, and he went back in
time to change it. Why didn't Whittaker support him if this would have
brought about a better long-term future like stopping our reliance on
fossil fuels?
Why would that be a better long-term future if the climate change that isn't happening isn't related to fossil fuels, and is a good thing anyway according to your rant above?

Having a motiveless villain is a common issue in Dr Who (the Spyfall story for instance) - having this one turn out just to be a random idiot who doesn't like black people wasn't very satisfying, certainly, but it's hardly egregious by Dr Who standards.

Instead Whittaker gets on her pulpit and preaches to the
Post by The True Doctor
audience a load of crap about how Rosa Parks must be allowed to get on
the bus and refuse to give up her seat because she's black.
The 'preaching' was that Rosa Parks must be allowed to get on the bus because that would restore the timeline.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
happened to Earth happened far enough in the future that people
had already left the planet - when looking at a couple of
centuries down the line it's actually somewhat realistic to
imagine that civilisation would become untenable on Earth.
Obviously elements were
Couple of centuries? It totally contradicts established Doctor Who
continuity since The Ark in Space,
As far as I can tell it's fully consistent with the Ark in Space -
that's a story set 10,000 years in the future after a ship departing
a disaster on Earth had already been travelling for thousands of
years. Whatever happened on Earth to cause the evacuation happened
centuries to a millennium or two after the present - easily within
the timeframe we could imagine for this story. Whatever happened to
Earth seems to have happened not only after humans had interstellar
travel, but after they'd had time to settle and then ruin 54 other
planets.
The Ark in Space shows that the Earth has already underdone ecological
disaster in 10,000 year's time, and that it was specifically caused by
solar flares, and had absolutely nothing to do with anything man-made.
Just imagine that the 'solar flares' were just the way the writers at the time would have described the 'sun blistering' that would have occurred on the unprotected Earth mentioned in this episode.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Chibnall doesn't give a shit about continuity as long as it serves his
sexist and racist agenda. He's already destroyed Gallifrey yet again,
insulting RTD and Moffat in the process, and he still can't adhere to
continuity when he has the Master state that Gallifrey is still in its
own bubble universe when we saw in Hell Bent that it had left it and is
now 5 million years in the future.
RTD was about the only showrunner in the history of Dr Who who has cared about continuity. Continuity isn't a strong point of Dr Who.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
The Talons of Weng Chiang and The
Post by The True Doctor
Empty Child, which imply Earth is still inhabited and centuries are
not long enough for a new animal species to evolve that breaths CO2
instead of O2. Hundreds of millions of years would need to pass and
that contradicts The End of the World.
The dregs aren't a new species, they're mutants - and for all we know
Mutants that breath in CO2 and breath out O2. That's effectively more
than a new special, it's a new kingdom. It would have taken hundreds of
millions of year for such creatures to evolve or mutate as you might
call it,
Not if it was an artificial adaptation.
solar penguin
2020-01-14 14:30:29 UTC
Permalink
On 14/01/2020 13:02, P Bowles pointed out...
Post by p***@conservation.org
RTD was about the only showrunner in the history of Dr Who who has
cared about continuity. Continuity isn't a strong point of Dr Who.
To be fair, JNT and Sward seemed to care about it too, although neither
of them was technically a showrunner in the modern sense.
The Doctor
2020-01-14 15:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by solar penguin
On 14/01/2020 13:02, P Bowles pointed out...
Post by p***@conservation.org
RTD was about the only showrunner in the history of Dr Who who has
cared about continuity. Continuity isn't a strong point of Dr Who.
To be fair, JNT and Sward seemed to care about it too, although neither
of them was technically a showrunner in the modern sense.
RTD, JNT and Sawrd are far better than Chris Chibnall!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill , Surrey, England.
The True Doctor
2020-01-14 23:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 10:24:29 PM UTC-5, The True
Post by The True Doctor
And of course lets not forget the old couple who were made to
sacrifice their lives for no reason, without any credible
characterisation or character motivation being depicted which
would lead to this, other than their use as offensive comic
serotypes depicting the way old people should be expected
behave;
What was comic about them? I agree there wasn't any reason for
the woman's self-sacrifice beyond her grief for her dead partner,
but
Where was her grief ever shown, other than idiot boarded like
everting else in this badly written garbage?
It wasn't, I agree, but it can be inferred. I agree that it was a bit
No it can't. You can't idiot board grief. You either portray it properly
or you don't have any of your main characters involved in any situation
where the should be grieving.
Post by p***@conservation.org
off that she's told Kane had killed Benni and her response,
basically, was "That's a shame. I told you not to do that".
And Whittaker's response to her people being exterminated was even
worse. Let's go on holiday. Chibnall doesn't have a clue how to write
anything. He thinks the entire audience are idiots.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
they were well-presented and the woman was presented as strong
without falling into the stereotype of being an old nag,
demanding the guards set out to find her partner and evidently
expecting them to be mercenary enough to do so when given her
valuable necklace.
She was nothing more than a stock comedy serotype with no backstory
and no reason for the audience to empathise with her
Who cares if the author empathises with her? You aren't one of the
Author?
Post by p***@conservation.org
current generation of kids with their fad that whether a character is
'relatable' is more important than whether they fill a useful story
function. Shakespeare wouldn't have got very far if the only people
who enjoyed Hamlet were ones who could relate to the dilemma of
whether or not to kill their uncles.
Shakespeare didn't insult people's intelligence. He made Hamlet
relatable to the entire audience, not like Chibnall who pick a sexist or
racist or other insulting stereotype from his soap-opera handbook and
expects people to feel for that character because they've probably seen
a similar character somewhere else. The man is a fool and a lazy
talentless writer. Either write the characters properly or don't include
such characters at all and stick to the principles of writing science
fiction.
Post by p***@conservation.org
because they were never
Post by The True Doctor
taken on any kind of emotional or heroic journey.
And how many of the bit characters in classic Who ever were?
Classic Doctor Who stuck to the principles of writing science fiction.
The supporting characters were there for exposition alone, not to
undergo emotional journeys.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
and then there was the green haired father
Post by The True Doctor
and son who formed another comedy act. If the father needed his
son to help him set his own central heating timer at home or
thermostat in his room it would have been credible, but this
person was supposed to be a qualified engineer and he knew
nothing about engineering, therefore making that depiction
offensive as well.
Why is comedy necessarily offensive? The joke got old fast, but
I don't see anything offensive about it.
The father was made to look like an idiot to serve Chibnall and
Hime's agenda.
In that case their agenda was to make a bad joke.
Chibnall and Hime's agendas was to make men look bad in order to make
women looks superior because they can't writer credible female
characters and they want to place women written a men in men's roles,
which is totally laughable.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
any more than Planet of the Apes is politically correct
because it contains a caution against nuclear war at the end
of a story that could easily have been told without it. And
evidently whatever
Having a message which is completely one-sided and unchallenged
is political correctness, an ideology which won't accept
criticism or anyone who thinks differently.
How does that describe anything in this episode? The final
sequence described an exaggerated result of a concern rooted in
scientific reality.
No. It was a one-sided argument with no consideration of the other
side of the coin.
You mean you wanted someone to pop up complaining that there was no
scientific evidence that humans need oxygen to breathe, as a
counterpoint to the major plot point that the characters did - in
fact - did need oxygen to breathe?
For a start they should have been a scientific discussion fully
explaining how an animal could obtain energy from breathing in CO2
without photosynthesis and explaining how such a creature could have
possibly evolved from human beings as they were claiming.

But most importantly since the main issue was climate change, there
should have been a discussion of how climate change has always existed
in the Earth's past, how it is inevitable, that it has been for the good
of mankind and for nature every time is has happened before, and that
man is not inevitably responsible for it and even it he is it's going to
happen any way so mankind should prepare for it properly and use it to
it's advantage. That's how you manage a fully balanced debate.
Post by p***@conservation.org
There is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of
Post by The True Doctor
man made global warming or that it is detrimental to the planet's
welfare, and a credible scientist will tell you that.
Okay, how about if they had considered it with the following dialogue
after the Doctor's speech?
Yaz: I heard on Fox News that there is no scientific evidence to
prove the existence of man made global warming or that it is
detrimental to the planet's welfare, and a credible scientist will
tell you that"
Doctor: Yaz, you're a moron.
Would that have made you happy?
No. See above. The Doctor should have taken a neutral stance as
mediator, and proper scientific opinions should have been discussed, not
the deranged propaganda being spouted out by a brainwashed Swedish
schoolgirl that failed to attend lessons, in response to other deranged
propaganda from Fox News.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Climate change could be a good thing.
The climate change you just said doesn't exist, that is?
My opinion is climate change is inevitable and should be used for the
advantage of mankind.
Post by p***@conservation.org
It could free the third world from
Post by The True Doctor
dependency on the developed world. It could lead to new inventions.
It could bring people's fuel bills down and prevent famine and
malnutrition in Africa and turn the tables on the West.
Firstly, it won't. Secondly, the scenario in the episode wasn't about
the impacts of climate change as a phenomenon, it was about the
impacts of a war prompted by climate change stresses, and it was
No. War had nothing to do with the emergence of the CO2 breathing
monster of the week as the apex predator. The very mention of CO2 lays
the blame squarely on human CO2 emissions.
Post by p***@conservation.org
radiation rather than temperatures or water shortages making the
place uninhabitable. You'll have noticed that the world didn't seem
What radiation? There was not mention of it at all. It was the fact that
the atmosphere was full of CO2 which is poisonous to humans and that O2
content had fallen to only about 1%. But with all that incoherent
nonsense Whittaker was spouting out and Chibnall's incompetent story
writing and stupid telepathic flash back it's not wonder you missed it.
Post by p***@conservation.org
to be unusually hot in the episode - instead it seemed to be in the
middle of a nuclear winter.
Post by The True Doctor
Again, it's not doing anything Planet of the Apes didn't do
decades ago. If there were a nuclear war would it result in the end
Planet of the Apes didn't preach to people and insult their
intelligence.
Nor did this episode. It credited people with enough intelligence to
Yes it did. Whittaker stood in her pulpit and lecture the audience at
the end, and there was lecturing all the way through the episode.
Post by p***@conservation.org
understand the issue it raised. Sadly it was wrong in your case and
likely in that of many other people.
It was insulting the audience, portraying them as being completely
stupid, attempted to brainwash them with one sided opinions instead of
using even handed, qualified, scientific discussion.
Post by p***@conservation.org
People are entitled to have their opinions heard. They are not
Not if they are the only opinions voiced.
Post by p***@conservation.org
entitled to have therm taken seriously. The real issue with
"political correctness" is a terror of offending anyone to the point
that any opinion, however asinine or ill-informed, is treated as
being as worthy of respect as any other.
The problem with political correctness is that it doesn't tolerate other
peoples opinions. It's a totalitarian ideology and it should not be
taught to children in schools or by the BBC. What the should be teaching
is tolerance, open debate and freedom of speech,
Post by p***@conservation.org
If people don't want to be told that what they have to say is stupid
and ignorant, there's an easy solution: they can make the effort to
learn what they're talking about.
Post by The True Doctor
of civilisation and the enslavement of surviving humans by other
species of apes? Of course not. That doesn't imply that nuclear
The Apes in Planet of the Apes had already evolved intelligence
and learned to talk long before the nuclear war occurred. It was a
virus that killed off the humans and gave the Apes the advantage to
set themselves free from slavery. The nuclear war occurred to
destroy them. How many of the original films did you actually
watch?
I was only talking about the good one, which has to make sense within
the context of only having seen that film. What they chose to retcon
onto it later is irrelevant.
The original backstory is already established in the first movie and
doesn't have anything to do with nuclear war. The Apes were kept as pets
after a virus destroyed cats and dogs and then they evolved
intelligence, with Caesar as their liberator. The bomb only appears in
the second movie and was to destroy the Apes. In the third movie they
retcon Caesar into being the son of the two Apes in the first movie
having been sent back in time before the world was destroyed by the
bomb. Then in the next movie Caesar leads the revolution after having
brought the virus which killed everyone's pets and the owners with him.
Then the final movie shows the nuclear war against the Apes.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
weapons don't exist or that using them could cause societal
upheaval. Nor is it stopping people from believing nuclear
weapons are a good idea if they want to - it's pointing out that
that's a stupid thing to believe, but people are entitled to
believe things however stupid they are.
The second film ended with the super bomb going off and destroying
everything. The humans who believed in the bomb got their victory.
A victory that didn't do them any good.
Both
Post by The True Doctor
sides of the argument were covered.
By that measure, both sides of the argument were covered here - the
Doctor specifically allowed that people could choose to carry on as
normal and wreck the planet instead if they wanted.
Whittaker has already taken sides and decided that climate change is
bad. The other side of the argument where developing countries have to
be allowed to use fossil fuels to industrialise and bring their people
out of poverty and make their lives better is not covered at all. Nor is
the argument that climate change is natural, nor the argument that it is
actually good for the planet. Whittaker and Chibnall have decided that
climate change is bad without considering any of the economics or other
facts.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
We don't see this ever happening in Doctor Woke. Let's take for
example the Rosa Parks story. Why wasn't the space racist's (who
wasn't actually a racist at all) side of the argument covered?
Something happened in the future that was detrimental for society
it seems, and he went back in time to change it. Why didn't
Whittaker support him if this would have brought about a better
long-term future like stopping our reliance on fossil fuels?
Why would that be a better long-term future if the climate change
that isn't happening isn't related to fossil fuels, and is a good
thing anyway according to your rant above?
Climate change drives evolution. It is a natural process. There is no
proof that it is man made or that it is bad. Glaciation erodes rocks and
produces new fertile soil. Third would countries could benefit from the
climate getting cooler. If the climate gets warmer then Antarctica could
be exploited when the ice melts. If land is submerged, the land owned by
people inshore would become more valuable, making the existing poor rich
and the existing rich poor. There are lots of good things about climate
change.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Having a motiveless villain is a common issue in Dr Who (the Spyfall
story for instance) - having this one turn out just to be a random
idiot who doesn't like black people wasn't very satisfying,
certainly, but it's hardly egregious by Dr Who standards.
My question was why should Whittaker try to stop him if the future he
came from is worse than the present, like he said, and stopping Rosa
Parks getting on a bus is a change for the better in the long term?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Instead Whittaker gets on her pulpit and preaches to the
Post by The True Doctor
audience a load of crap about how Rosa Parks must be allowed to get
on the bus and refuse to give up her seat because she's black.
The 'preaching' was that Rosa Parks must be allowed to get on the bus
because that would restore the timeline.
But the timeline leads to a shit future for everyone according to the
so-called villain, who indicates that Rose Parks getting on that bus
leads to the creation thought control and his imprisonment for what
seems to be engaging in free speech in a totalitarian state. Why should
Whittaker interfere and stop things from being better?
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
happened to Earth happened far enough in the future that
people had already left the planet - when looking at a couple
of centuries down the line it's actually somewhat realistic
to imagine that civilisation would become untenable on
Earth. Obviously elements were
Couple of centuries? It totally contradicts established Doctor
Who continuity since The Ark in Space,
As far as I can tell it's fully consistent with the Ark in Space
- that's a story set 10,000 years in the future after a ship
departing a disaster on Earth had already been travelling for
thousands of years. Whatever happened on Earth to cause the
evacuation happened centuries to a millennium or two after the
present - easily within the timeframe we could imagine for this
story. Whatever happened to Earth seems to have happened not only
after humans had interstellar travel, but after they'd had time
to settle and then ruin 54 other planets.
The Ark in Space shows that the Earth has already underdone
ecological disaster in 10,000 year's time, and that it was
specifically caused by solar flares, and had absolutely nothing to
do with anything man-made.
Just imagine that the 'solar flares' were just the way the writers at
the time would have described the 'sun blistering' that would have
occurred on the unprotected Earth mentioned in this episode.
Nonsense. Solar flare activity has nothing to do with the greenhouse
effect on Earth and it is completely harmless to us because of the
Earths magnetic field. What The Ark in Space is clearly referring to are
giant solar flares physically hitting the planet like the ones emitted
from Star Killer Base. My guess seeing as the planet looked unscathed is
that the scientists got their predictions wrong.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Chibnall doesn't give a shit about continuity as long as it
serves his
sexist and racist agenda. He's already destroyed Gallifrey yet
again, insulting RTD and Moffat in the process, and he still can't
adhere to continuity when he has the Master state that Gallifrey is
still in its own bubble universe when we saw in Hell Bent that it
had left it and is now 5 million years in the future.
RTD was about the only showrunner in the history of Dr Who who has
cared about continuity. Continuity isn't a strong point of Dr Who.
Moffat also cared about continuity since he contained with RTD's
timeline. Chibnall has shat in both of their faces. You can't go
changing canon without a credible and believable explanation.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
The Talons of Weng Chiang and The
Post by The True Doctor
Empty Child, which imply Earth is still inhabited and centuries
are not long enough for a new animal species to evolve that
breaths CO2 instead of O2. Hundreds of millions of years would
need to pass and that contradicts The End of the World.
The dregs aren't a new species, they're mutants - and for all we know
Mutants that breath in CO2 and breath out O2. That's effectively
more than a new special, it's a new kingdom. It would have taken
hundreds of millions of year for such creatures to evolve or mutate
as you might call it,
Not if it was an artificial adaptation.
There was no suggestion that this was an artificial adaption since all
humanity has been destroyed. These mutants were wild and we are told the
evolved to become apex predators. What the hell were they praying on?
There didn't seem to be any other live there at all, except trees.
--
The True Doctor

"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
stands for." -William Shatner
p***@conservation.org
2020-01-15 03:34:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 10:24:29 PM UTC-5, The True
Post by The True Doctor
And of course lets not forget the old couple who were made to
sacrifice their lives for no reason, without any credible
characterisation or character motivation being depicted which
would lead to this, other than their use as offensive comic
serotypes depicting the way old people should be expected
behave;
What was comic about them? I agree there wasn't any reason for
the woman's self-sacrifice beyond her grief for her dead partner,
but
Where was her grief ever shown, other than idiot boarded like
everting else in this badly written garbage?
It wasn't, I agree, but it can be inferred. I agree that it was a bit
No it can't. You can't idiot board grief. You either portray it properly
or you don't have any of your main characters involved in any situation
where the should be grieving.
The main characters weren't grieving, only the supporting character.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
they were well-presented and the woman was presented as strong
without falling into the stereotype of being an old nag,
demanding the guards set out to find her partner and evidently
expecting them to be mercenary enough to do so when given her
valuable necklace.
She was nothing more than a stock comedy serotype with no backstory
and no reason for the audience to empathise with her
Who cares if the author empathises with her? You aren't one of the
Author?
Sorry, audience.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
current generation of kids with their fad that whether a character is
'relatable' is more important than whether they fill a useful story
function. Shakespeare wouldn't have got very far if the only people
who enjoyed Hamlet were ones who could relate to the dilemma of
whether or not to kill their uncles.
Shakespeare didn't insult people's intelligence. He made Hamlet
relatable to the entire audience,
No, he made Hamlet an interesting and complex character - whether he's 'relatable' is beside the point. That's just a modern fad spawned by the fashion for identity politics, itself a pretty noxious idea. You aren't expected to relate to the protagonists in films like The Godfather or The Silence of the Lambs either. The point of fiction is to tell a story and characters are devices for doing that and engaging the audience's interest.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
because they were never
Post by The True Doctor
taken on any kind of emotional or heroic journey.
And how many of the bit characters in classic Who ever were?
Classic Doctor Who stuck to the principles of writing science fiction.
The supporting characters were there for exposition alone, not to
undergo emotional journeys.
That's what this supporting character was for as well (and, in another convention for classic Who, to die to save the main characters), so what are you complaining about?
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
and then there was the green haired father
Post by The True Doctor
and son who formed another comedy act. If the father needed his
son to help him set his own central heating timer at home or
thermostat in his room it would have been credible, but this
person was supposed to be a qualified engineer and he knew
nothing about engineering, therefore making that depiction
offensive as well.
Why is comedy necessarily offensive? The joke got old fast, but
I don't see anything offensive about it.
The father was made to look like an idiot to serve Chibnall and
Hime's agenda.
In that case their agenda was to make a bad joke.
Chibnall and Hime's agendas was to make men look bad in order to make
women looks superior because they can't writer credible female
characters and they want to place women written a men in men's roles,
which is totally laughable.
Almost as laughable as that assertion.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
any more than Planet of the Apes is politically correct
because it contains a caution against nuclear war at the end
of a story that could easily have been told without it. And
evidently whatever
Having a message which is completely one-sided and unchallenged
is political correctness, an ideology which won't accept
criticism or anyone who thinks differently.
How does that describe anything in this episode? The final
sequence described an exaggerated result of a concern rooted in
scientific reality.
No. It was a one-sided argument with no consideration of the other
side of the coin.
You mean you wanted someone to pop up complaining that there was no
scientific evidence that humans need oxygen to breathe, as a
counterpoint to the major plot point that the characters did - in
fact - did need oxygen to breathe?
For a start they should have been a scientific discussion fully
explaining how an animal could obtain energy from breathing in CO2
without photosynthesis
"They adapted". It was raised, just not in any detail - Dr Who hasn't gone in for detailed explanations of its monsters at any point in its history.

and explaining how such a creature could have
Post by The True Doctor
possibly evolved from human beings as they were claiming.
That would rather have detracted from the twist that they were human, which took place at a time when the opportunities for exposition were limited.
Post by The True Doctor
But most importantly since the main issue was climate change, there
should have been a discussion of how climate change has always existed
in the Earth's past,
Why? It's not relevant. If there's a murder in an episode you don't expect a discourse on how death occurs naturally, is inevitable, and serves a useful purpose for population control. This was specifically relating to an episode of climate change which is not natural, and which is occurring in a context no past climate change has done, one in which a developed civilisation exists which is much more sensitive to climate fluctuations and which has already degraded most useable land, exacerbating the impacts of reduced land area and displacement of populations from coastal or water-scarce areas.

It's not even relevant to discuss the past climate-linked collapses of civilisations like the Maya and Khmer.

how it is inevitable, that it has been for the good
Post by The True Doctor
of mankind and for nature every time is has happened before, and that
man is not inevitably responsible for it and even it he is it's going to
happen any way so mankind should prepare for it properly and use it to
it's advantage. That's how you manage a fully balanced debate.
A fully balanced debate ought to bear some relation to reality. Even if the current climate change weren't attributable to human activity - which by any conventional definition of scientific evidence is essentially certain since we understand the mechanisms and observational evidence supports predictions made on the basis of that understanding - it's still occurring in a context when human societies are unlikely to be robust enough to sustain it over the long term.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
There is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of
Post by The True Doctor
man made global warming or that it is detrimental to the planet's
welfare, and a credible scientist will tell you that.
Okay, how about if they had considered it with the following dialogue
after the Doctor's speech?
Yaz: I heard on Fox News that there is no scientific evidence to
prove the existence of man made global warming or that it is
detrimental to the planet's welfare, and a credible scientist will
tell you that"
Doctor: Yaz, you're a moron.
Would that have made you happy?
No. See above. The Doctor should have taken a neutral stance as
mediator,
The Doctor is nominally a scientist, not a journalist too lazy to check the facts. She should have - and did - taken a stance based on an understanding of science, not pretended that scientific evidence is equivalent to uninformed opinions.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
of civilisation and the enslavement of surviving humans by other
species of apes? Of course not. That doesn't imply that nuclear
The Apes in Planet of the Apes had already evolved intelligence
and learned to talk long before the nuclear war occurred. It was a
virus that killed off the humans and gave the Apes the advantage to
set themselves free from slavery. The nuclear war occurred to
destroy them. How many of the original films did you actually
watch?
I was only talking about the good one, which has to make sense within
the context of only having seen that film. What they chose to retcon
onto it later is irrelevant.
The original backstory is already established in the first movie and
doesn't have anything to do with nuclear war. The Apes were kept as pets
after a virus destroyed cats and dogs and then they evolved
intelligence, with Caesar as their liberator.
You're getting your movies confused. Caesar wasn't in the first film at all and nothing was explained about the reason apes emerged on top - the entire point of the ending was that it wasn't supposed to be suspected in advance (particularly since the twist wasn't part of the book the film was based on), so they had no opportunity for going into any detail.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
We don't see this ever happening in Doctor Woke. Let's take for
example the Rosa Parks story. Why wasn't the space racist's (who
wasn't actually a racist at all) side of the argument covered?
Something happened in the future that was detrimental for society
it seems, and he went back in time to change it. Why didn't
Whittaker support him if this would have brought about a better
long-term future like stopping our reliance on fossil fuels?
Why would that be a better long-term future if the climate change
that isn't happening isn't related to fossil fuels, and is a good
thing anyway according to your rant above?
Climate change drives evolution. It is a natural process.
Avalanches are a natural process. That doesn't imply that no avalanches are ever the result of human activity. In the case of climate change we know the drivers of the natural process and the atmospheric conditions with which they're correlated - we also know the drivers of the artificial process, since it's been known since the late 19th Century that carbon dioxide released from fossil fuels has a warming effect in sufficient concentrations, and we know that the result of this artificial process is a set of atmospheric conditions we know from the geological record corresponds to major episodes of climate warming, as well as from current observational evidence that temperature increases and other predicted climatic changes are underway.

There is no
Post by The True Doctor
proof that it is man made or that it is bad. Glaciation erodes rocks and
produces new fertile soil. Third would countries could benefit from the
climate getting cooler. If the climate gets warmer then Antarctica could
be exploited when the ice melts. If land is submerged, the land owned by
people inshore would become more valuable, making the existing poor rich
and the existing rich poor. There are lots of good things about climate
change.
Essentially none of this is plausible. The climate isn't getting cooler so I don't know what that comment relates to, and for some of the same reasons that economic production has historically been poorer in tropical than temperate areas, productivity is going to decline in temperate areas as they warm. Humans simply don't work well in overheated offices let alone at physical labour in hot conditions, and air conditioning only further contributes to warming. Antarctica is still going to be bitterly cold and due to the circulation patterns in that area, with extremely low precipitation. It has no vegetation or organic soils - basically it would be a lousy place to live. Mars is short of ice, but still isn't somewhere you'd want to live even if the atmosphere was breathable. Poor people in most of the world don't own the land they live on, so even in your hypothetical scenario they wouldn't see any benefits.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Having a motiveless villain is a common issue in Dr Who (the Spyfall
story for instance) - having this one turn out just to be a random
idiot who doesn't like black people wasn't very satisfying,
certainly, but it's hardly egregious by Dr Who standards.
My question was why should Whittaker try to stop him if the future he
came from is worse than the present, like he said, and stopping Rosa
Parks getting on a bus is a change for the better in the long term?
How does she know it's worse for everyone rather than just a racist with a grievance? In fact I think it was alluded to in the episode that she'd visited that time period.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Chibnall doesn't give a shit about continuity as long as it serves his
sexist and racist agenda. He's already destroyed Gallifrey yet
again, insulting RTD and Moffat in the process, and he still can't
adhere to continuity when he has the Master state that Gallifrey is
still in its own bubble universe when we saw in Hell Bent that it
had left it and is now 5 million years in the future.
RTD was about the only showrunner in the history of Dr Who who has
cared about continuity. Continuity isn't a strong point of Dr Who.
Moffat also cared about continuity since he contained with RTD's
timeline.
How did the Master resurrect as Missy after he was trapped on Gallifrey in RTD's era? How did Davros survive? How did the Daleks survive yet again? Dr Who has always ignored continuity when convenient.
The True Doctor
2020-01-15 04:55:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 10:36:00 PM UTC-5, The True
Post by The True Doctor
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 10:24:29 PM UTC-5, The True
Post by The True Doctor
And of course lets not forget the old couple who were made
to sacrifice their lives for no reason, without any
credible characterisation or character motivation being
depicted which would lead to this, other than their use as
offensive comic serotypes depicting the way old people
should be expected behave;
What was comic about them? I agree there wasn't any reason
for the woman's self-sacrifice beyond her grief for her dead
partner, but
Where was her grief ever shown, other than idiot boarded like
everting else in this badly written garbage?
It wasn't, I agree, but it can be inferred. I agree that it was a bit
No it can't. You can't idiot board grief. You either portray it
properly or you don't have any of your main characters involved in
any situation where the should be grieving.
The main characters weren't grieving, only the supporting character.
Whittaker the lead protagonist was supposed to be in grief after
Gallifrey was destroyed. She didn't show any other than behaving as if
she were on her period. The old woman was used as a main character and
should have shown grief for her husband. She didn't. The security man
was not a main character as he only appeared for a few seconds, so what
happens to him doesn't matter.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
they were well-presented and the woman was presented as
strong without falling into the stereotype of being an old
nag, demanding the guards set out to find her partner and
evidently expecting them to be mercenary enough to do so when
given her valuable necklace.
She was nothing more than a stock comedy serotype with no
backstory and no reason for the audience to empathise with her
Who cares if the author empathises with her? You aren't one of the
Author?
Sorry, audience.
Post by The True Doctor
current generation of kids with their fad that whether a
character is 'relatable' is more important than whether they fill
a useful story function. Shakespeare wouldn't have got very far
if the only people who enjoyed Hamlet were ones who could relate
to the dilemma of whether or not to kill their uncles.
Shakespeare didn't insult people's intelligence. He made Hamlet
relatable to the entire audience,
No, he made Hamlet an interesting and complex character - whether
he's 'relatable' is beside the point. That's just a modern fad
spawned by the fashion for identity politics, itself a pretty noxious
idea. You aren't expected to relate to the protagonists in films like
The Godfather or The Silence of the Lambs either. The point of
fiction is to tell a story and characters are devices for doing that
and engaging the audience's interest.
You are are supposed to relate with the main protagonist in any story
otherwise you might as well read a fairy tale, and even then you're
still supposed to relate to the main protagonist, so maybe I should have
said other wise you might as well read the instructions for your
microwave oven. This is why Chibnall's sexist and racist SJW agenda is
always doomed to failure. Men cannot relate to a female Doctor Who and
for that matter, neither can women, but both men and women can relate to
a male Doctor, because the character of the Doctor is naturally a male
character. That's how human psychology works. It's not governed by
sexist and racist SJW virtue signalling based on Emperor's New Clothes
brainwashing telling people to reject their natural instincts and what
their senses are telling them that the Emperor is naked. I can relate to
Wonder Woman because unlike the Doctor, Wonder Woman was created as a
female character and written as a feminine woman, not a woman written as
a man to satisfy a butch lesbian minority of sexist bigots who came up
with the joke Bechdel Test and tried to impose it one everyone else.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
because they were never
Post by The True Doctor
taken on any kind of emotional or heroic journey.
And how many of the bit characters in classic Who ever were?
Classic Doctor Who stuck to the principles of writing science
fiction. The supporting characters were there for exposition alone,
not to undergo emotional journeys.
That's what this supporting character was for as well (and, in
another convention for classic Who, to die to save the main
characters), so what are you complaining about?
The correct way of writing a minor character who is supposed to die for
nothing, is for them not to be built up in any way other than the use of
a dumb stereotype so that readers or viewers will not care for such as
the Red Shirts from Star Trek. If you build up a character as the old
couple were built up at the start they, are not minor characters, they
are main characters and must be characterised properly, otherwise they
should not appear at all. This old couple was not vital to the plot in
any way. A genuine science fiction writer would have never included them
or never built them up, and they would never have one sacrifice their
life for no reason in an idiot scenario the way the clueless soap opera
hack wrote the old women.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
and then there was the green haired father
Post by The True Doctor
and son who formed another comedy act. If the father needed
his son to help him set his own central heating timer at
home or thermostat in his room it would have been credible,
but this person was supposed to be a qualified engineer and
he knew nothing about engineering, therefore making that
depiction offensive as well.
Why is comedy necessarily offensive? The joke got old fast,
but I don't see anything offensive about it.
The father was made to look like an idiot to serve Chibnall
and Hime's agenda.
In that case their agenda was to make a bad joke.
Chibnall and Hime's agendas was to make men look bad in order to
make women looks superior because they can't writer credible
female characters and they want to place women written a men in
men's roles, which is totally laughable.
Almost as laughable as that assertion.
It's blatantly obvious that that's what they're doing in order to
further the BBC's offensive sexist and racist agenda. A good writer
would writer a woman as a woman and a man as a man, and not gender swap
characters writing men as women and women as men and expect the audience
to so stupid as to find them credible or believable.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Post by p***@conservation.org
any more than Planet of the Apes is politically correct
because it contains a caution against nuclear war at the
end of a story that could easily have been told without
it. And evidently whatever
Having a message which is completely one-sided and
unchallenged is political correctness, an ideology which
won't accept criticism or anyone who thinks differently.
How does that describe anything in this episode? The final
sequence described an exaggerated result of a concern rooted
in scientific reality.
No. It was a one-sided argument with no consideration of the
other side of the coin.
You mean you wanted someone to pop up complaining that there was
no scientific evidence that humans need oxygen to breathe, as a
counterpoint to the major plot point that the characters did -
in fact - did need oxygen to breathe?
For a start they should have been a scientific discussion fully
explaining how an animal could obtain energy from breathing in CO2
without photosynthesis
"They adapted". It was raised, just not in any detail - Dr Who hasn't
gone in for detailed explanations of its monsters at any point in its
history.
Nonsense. There was a detailed explanation when this was done in The
Mutants, and when it was done in Terror of the Vervoids. A true science
fiction writer, and not a degenerate soap opera hack, always explains
something in detail if it defies basic principles of science, such as
the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, relativity, etc. This has been done
by H. G. Wells, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Philip Nowlan, E. E. Smith,
Douglas Adams, and every writer of note.
Post by p***@conservation.org
and explaining how such a creature could have
Post by The True Doctor
possibly evolved from human beings as they were claiming.
That would rather have detracted from the twist that they were human,
No it wouldn't because it was done in Jon Pertwee's The Mutants.
Post by p***@conservation.org
which took place at a time when the opportunities for exposition were
limited.
Opportunities should have been made by any good writer.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
But most importantly since the main issue was climate change,
there should have been a discussion of how climate change has
always existed in the Earth's past,
Why? It's not relevant. If there's a murder in an episode you don't
expect a discourse on how death occurs naturally, is inevitable, and
Death is a common daily event. Climate change a matter of scientific
debate and happens over huge time spans, and therefore demands detailed
scientific explanation.
Post by p***@conservation.org
serves a useful purpose for population control. This was specifically
relating to an episode of climate change which is not natural, and
Not natural like death, therefore demands explanation.
Post by p***@conservation.org
which is occurring in a context no past climate change has done, one
Wrong. Homo-sapiens existed during the last ice age and the one before it.
Post by p***@conservation.org
in which a developed civilisation exists which is much more sensitive
to climate fluctuations and which has already degraded most useable
land, exacerbating the impacts of reduced land area and displacement
of populations from coastal or water-scarce areas.
Hunter gatherers degraded their food source as well, so were replaced by
farmers during the last period of climate change.
Post by p***@conservation.org
It's not even relevant to discuss the past climate-linked collapses
of civilisations like the Maya and Khmer.
Yes it is. This is science fiction we are dealing with, not soap opera.
Even H. G. Well's refers to the destruction of past civilisations.
Post by p***@conservation.org
how it is inevitable, that it has been for the good
Post by The True Doctor
of mankind and for nature every time is has happened before, and
that man is not inevitably responsible for it and even it he is
it's going to happen any way so mankind should prepare for it
properly and use it to it's advantage. That's how you manage a
fully balanced debate.
A fully balanced debate ought to bear some relation to reality. Even
if the current climate change weren't attributable to human activity
- which by any conventional definition of scientific evidence is
essentially certain since we understand the mechanisms and
observational evidence supports predictions made on the basis of that
No such evidence or observations exist to definitely prove this
assertion beyond challenge, nor does the evidence point to it being a
bad thing. That's a matter of opinion.
Post by p***@conservation.org
understanding - it's still occurring in a context when human
societies are unlikely to be robust enough to sustain it over the
long term.
That's not true. If man can survive in space he can survive climate change.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
There is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of
Post by The True Doctor
man made global warming or that it is detrimental to the
planet's welfare, and a credible scientist will tell you that.
Okay, how about if they had considered it with the following
dialogue after the Doctor's speech?
Yaz: I heard on Fox News that there is no scientific evidence to
prove the existence of man made global warming or that it is
detrimental to the planet's welfare, and a credible scientist
will tell you that"
Doctor: Yaz, you're a moron.
Would that have made you happy?
No. See above. The Doctor should have taken a neutral stance as
mediator,
The Doctor is nominally a scientist, not a journalist too lazy to
A true scientist would never have taken the side Whittaker did.
Post by p***@conservation.org
check the facts. She should have - and did - taken a stance based on
an understanding of science, not pretended that scientific evidence
is equivalent to uninformed opinions.
A genuine scientist would tell you that they know nothing about such a
think, just like Socrates would have told you. There is no scientific
evidence to draw the conclusion that climate change is either entirely
caused by man or is detrimental to civilisation. It's a matter of debate.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
of civilisation and the enslavement of surviving humans by
other species of apes? Of course not. That doesn't imply that
nuclear
The Apes in Planet of the Apes had already evolved
intelligence and learned to talk long before the nuclear war
occurred. It was a virus that killed off the humans and gave
the Apes the advantage to set themselves free from slavery. The
nuclear war occurred to destroy them. How many of the original
films did you actually watch?
I was only talking about the good one, which has to make sense
within the context of only having seen that film. What they chose
to retcon onto it later is irrelevant.
The original backstory is already established in the first movie
and doesn't have anything to do with nuclear war. The Apes were
kept as pets after a virus destroyed cats and dogs and then they
evolved intelligence, with Caesar as their liberator.
You're getting your movies confused. Caesar wasn't in the first film
I never said he was. He was referred to in the first film and his
stature was shown.
Post by p***@conservation.org
at all and nothing was explained about the reason apes emerged on top
- the entire point of the ending was that it wasn't supposed to be
suspected in advance (particularly since the twist wasn't part of the
book the film was based on),
The book the film was based on bares hardly any resemblance to the
movie. The book is not even set on Earth at all.
so they had no opportunity for going
Post by p***@conservation.org
into any detail.
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
We don't see this ever happening in Doctor Woke. Let's take
for example the Rosa Parks story. Why wasn't the space racist's
(who wasn't actually a racist at all) side of the argument
covered? Something happened in the future that was detrimental
for society it seems, and he went back in time to change it.
Why didn't Whittaker support him if this would have brought
about a better long-term future like stopping our reliance on
fossil fuels?
Why would that be a better long-term future if the climate
change that isn't happening isn't related to fossil fuels, and is
a good thing anyway according to your rant above?
Climate change drives evolution. It is a natural process.
Avalanches are a natural process. That doesn't imply that no
avalanches are ever the result of human activity. In the case of
climate change we know the drivers of the natural process and the
atmospheric conditions with which they're correlated - we also know
We know very little about such things. If we knew everything, climate
scientists would be out of work.
Post by p***@conservation.org
the drivers of the artificial process, since it's been known since
the late 19th Century that carbon dioxide released from fossil fuels
has a warming effect in sufficient concentrations, and we know that
the result of this artificial process is a set of atmospheric
conditions we know from the geological record corresponds to major
episodes of climate warming, as well as from current observational
evidence that temperature increases and other predicted climatic
changes are underway.
Solar activity also affects climate change and very little is know about
that compared to the effect of CO2. It could be far greater, or less.
Besides which the climate change models are not even completely accrued.
I had my computer spend 3 months running the BBC's climate change model
only to find out that they'd made huge mistake and left out the
influence on pollutants blocking out sunlight and causing global
cooling. Since then I've not trusted a thing they say.
Post by p***@conservation.org
There is no
Post by The True Doctor
proof that it is man made or that it is bad. Glaciation erodes
rocks and produces new fertile soil. Third would countries could
benefit from the climate getting cooler. If the climate gets warmer
then Antarctica could be exploited when the ice melts. If land is
submerged, the land owned by people inshore would become more
valuable, making the existing poor rich and the existing rich poor.
There are lots of good things about climate change.
Essentially none of this is plausible. The climate isn't getting
cooler so I don't know what that comment relates to, and for some of
The idea is that global warming is a precursor of a thermal inversion
which causes the onset of an ice age. For example it changes the
direction of gulf stream which distributes hear over Europe, so Europe
will therefore become colder.
Post by p***@conservation.org
the same reasons that economic production has historically been
poorer in tropical than temperate areas, productivity is going to
But climate change will change which regions are temperate or not.
Post by p***@conservation.org
decline in temperate areas as they warm. Humans simply don't work
well in overheated offices let alone at physical labour in hot
conditions, and air conditioning only further contributes to warming.
Antarctica is still going to be bitterly cold and due to the
circulation patterns in that area, with extremely low precipitation.
It has no vegetation or organic soils - basically it would be a lousy
place to live. Mars is short of ice, but still isn't somewhere you'd
Antarctica has gas and oil, and metals.
Post by p***@conservation.org
want to live even if the atmosphere was breathable. Poor people in
most of the world don't own the land they live on, so even in your
hypothetical scenario they wouldn't see any benefits.
We are talking about tribes who own the land in common.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Having a motiveless villain is a common issue in Dr Who (the
Spyfall story for instance) - having this one turn out just to be
a random idiot who doesn't like black people wasn't very
satisfying, certainly, but it's hardly egregious by Dr Who
standards.
My question was why should Whittaker try to stop him if the future
he came from is worse than the present, like he said, and stopping
Rosa Parks getting on a bus is a change for the better in the long
term?
How does she know it's worse for everyone rather than just a racist
with a grievance? In fact I think it was alluded to in the episode
that she'd visited that time period.
No it wasn't. She doesn't know anything. She's just said in this episode
that man should change to avert the future of climate change, so she
should have helped the villain in Rosa to avert the totalitarian world
he fled from, following that line of reasoning.
Post by p***@conservation.org
Post by The True Doctor
Post by The True Doctor
Chibnall doesn't give a shit about continuity as long as it serves his
sexist and racist agenda. He's already destroyed Gallifrey yet
again, insulting RTD and Moffat in the process, and he still
can't adhere to continuity when he has the Master state that
Gallifrey is still in its own bubble universe when we saw in
Hell Bent that it had left it and is now 5 million years in the
future.
RTD was about the only showrunner in the history of Dr Who who
has cared about continuity. Continuity isn't a strong point of Dr
Who.
Moffat also cared about continuity since he contained with RTD's
timeline.
How did the Master resurrect as Missy after he was trapped on
Gallifrey in RTD's era? How did Davros survive? How did the Daleks
It's already been stated that the Time Lords fixed the Master when he
encountered Missy after World Enough And Time.
Post by p***@conservation.org
survive yet again? Dr Who has always ignored continuity when
convenient.
That is not ignoring continuity since it doesn't contradict anything.
Ignoring continuity is contradicting it, and Chibnall placing Gallifrey
in a bubble universe when the whole purpose of The Day of the Doctor,
The Time of the Doctor, and Hell Bent was to show it being placed back
in this universe is a huge contradiction of established continuity.
--
The True Doctor

"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
stands for." -William Shatner
The Doctor
2020-01-13 03:41:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@conservation.org
The Telegraph writer is pretty dim if they think the plot of Planet of
the Dregs was "overcomplicated". This is the closest to Classic Who
we've had in years, right down to filming in quarries. It was a linear
chase from start to finish; the girl playing terrorist and the kid
running off were completely extraneous, and the former dropped
essentially without any justification, but they didn't really add any
"complications".
Far from being "politically correct" this is the first episode in many
years, maybe even since Eccleston, to actually treat the Doctor as a
character who tries to solve problems peacefully, but isn't opposed to
the use of force to the point of absurdity as we've seen so many times
with the 'pacifism at all costs' approach of Moffatt and most of RTD's
era. Having a message isn't political correctness, any more than Planet
of the Apes is politically correct because it contains a caution against
nuclear war at the end of a story that could easily have been told
without it. And evidently whatever happened to Earth happened far enough
in the future that people had already left the planet - when looking at
a couple of centuries down the line it's actually somewhat realistic to
imagine that civilisation would become untenable on Earth. Obviously
elements were exaggerated to make the plot work - it's hard to imagine
anything that could remove most of the oxygen from the atmosphere, let
alone increase carbon dioxide to concentrations that would allow a
population of large vertebrates to evolve to breathe it - but it's Dr
Who, not a documentary.
100/10 !
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill , Surrey, England.
Siri Cruise
2020-01-13 13:39:30 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by p***@conservation.org
could remove most of the oxygen from the atmosphere, let alone increase
carbon dioxide to concentrations that would allow a population of large
vertebrates to evolve to breathe it - but
That was silly. Carbon dioxide and water are energy dead ends
with the chemistry you can do with life. Plants use them as a
carbon and electron source that requires solar energy to crack
apart. I was thinking they were going with creatures being mobile
trees instead of silly mutated humans.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
Loading...