Discussion:
Doctor Who S6E10 The Girl Who Waited
Add Reply
Agamemnon
2011-09-10 22:33:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
So Amy spends 36 years being chased by dumb robots, and to get to that, two
weeks stuck in a room without any food or drink and without a toilet. Yer,
right...

The more New Who attempts to do time paradoxes the dumber and dumber they
get. That's why classic Doctor Who left them alone.

If old Amy first time round persuaded young Amy not to be rescued and the
second time around did the opposite then we are dealing with 3 different
Amy's all of which have their own independent existence, and all of which
will continue to exist irrespective of what happens to young Amy.

The producers tried to get out of the what happens to old Amy after they've
all left, mess by having old Amy let the robots get her in the end, but this
is Amy 2. What happened to Amy 1, the one who persuaded young Amy to stay,
the young Amy that becomes Amy 2. And now that they've changed everything we
have Amy 3, the one that they took away with them in the TARDIS. In fact
there could be an innumerable amount of Amys all of which continue to exist
in their own independent time lines.

Apart from that, the magnifying glass prop looked like it was painted wood
and the scene with the Doctor talking to Amy on the screen from inside the
TARDIS was worthy of Playschool. Primitive CSO and a shaky camera which
showed the sides of screen moving but the image inside always remaining in
the same place relative to the camera instead of moving with it.

Anyway the story would have worked better if they'd taken it more seriously
and we'd seen more of how Amy survived during those 36 years, ala Robinson
Crusoe, and they'd cut out the two weeks without a toilet.

9/10
The Doctor
2011-09-10 23:08:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <***@eclipse.net.uk>,
Agamemnon <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>So Amy spends 36 years being chased by dumb robots, and to get to that, two
>weeks stuck in a room without any food or drink and without a toilet. Yer,
>right...
>
>The more New Who attempts to do time paradoxes the dumber and dumber they
>get. That's why classic Doctor Who left them alone.
>
>If old Amy first time round persuaded young Amy not to be rescued and the
>second time around did the opposite then we are dealing with 3 different
>Amy's all of which have their own independent existence, and all of which
>will continue to exist irrespective of what happens to young Amy.
>
>The producers tried to get out of the what happens to old Amy after they've
>all left, mess by having old Amy let the robots get her in the end, but this
>is Amy 2. What happened to Amy 1, the one who persuaded young Amy to stay,
>the young Amy that becomes Amy 2. And now that they've changed everything we
>have Amy 3, the one that they took away with them in the TARDIS. In fact
>there could be an innumerable amount of Amys all of which continue to exist
>in their own independent time lines.
>
>Apart from that, the magnifying glass prop looked like it was painted wood
>and the scene with the Doctor talking to Amy on the screen from inside the
>TARDIS was worthy of Playschool. Primitive CSO and a shaky camera which
>showed the sides of screen moving but the image inside always remaining in
>the same place relative to the camera instead of moving with it.
>
>Anyway the story would have worked better if they'd taken it more seriously
>and we'd seen more of how Amy survived during those 36 years, ala Robinson
>Crusoe, and they'd cut out the two weeks without a toilet.
>
>9/10
>
>

2 more hours please.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
¡Gölök Z.L.F Buday AKA The Black Jester AKA The Voltairian
2011-09-11 04:39:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
X-Body

Why would Mega Man's creator provide robo teleports to this?

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 23:33:54 +0100, in rec.arts.drwho "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:

¡So Amy spends 36 years being chased by dumb robots, and to get to that, two
¡weeks stuck in a room without any food or drink and without a toilet. Yer,
¡right...
¡
¡The more New Who attempts to do time paradoxes the dumber and dumber they
¡get. That's why classic Doctor Who left them alone.
¡
¡If old Amy first time round persuaded young Amy not to be rescued and the
¡second time around did the opposite then we are dealing with 3 different
¡Amy's all of which have their own independent existence, and all of which
¡will continue to exist irrespective of what happens to young Amy.
¡
¡The producers tried to get out of the what happens to old Amy after they've
¡all left, mess by having old Amy let the robots get her in the end, but this
¡is Amy 2. What happened to Amy 1, the one who persuaded young Amy to stay,
¡the young Amy that becomes Amy 2. And now that they've changed everything we
¡have Amy 3, the one that they took away with them in the TARDIS. In fact
¡there could be an innumerable amount of Amys all of which continue to exist
¡in their own independent time lines.
¡
¡Apart from that, the magnifying glass prop looked like it was painted wood
¡and the scene with the Doctor talking to Amy on the screen from inside the
¡TARDIS was worthy of Playschool. Primitive CSO and a shaky camera which
¡showed the sides of screen moving but the image inside always remaining in
¡the same place relative to the camera instead of moving with it.
¡
¡Anyway the story would have worked better if they'd taken it more seriously
¡and we'd seen more of how Amy survived during those 36 years, ala Robinson
¡Crusoe, and they'd cut out the two weeks without a toilet.
¡
¡9/10
¡
¡
maffster
2011-09-11 16:26:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, 10 September 2011 23:33:54 UTC+1, Agamemnon wrote:
> So Amy spends 36 years being chased by dumb robots, and to get to that, two
> weeks stuck in a room without any food or drink and without a toilet. Yer,
> right...
>
> The more New Who attempts to do time paradoxes the dumber and dumber they
> get. That's why classic Doctor Who left them alone.
>
> If old Amy first time round persuaded young Amy not to be rescued and the
> second time around did the opposite then we are dealing with 3 different
> Amy's all of which have their own independent existence, and all of which
> will continue to exist irrespective of what happens to young Amy.
>
> The producers tried to get out of the what happens to old Amy after they've
> all left, mess by having old Amy let the robots get her in the end, but this
> is Amy 2. What happened to Amy 1, the one who persuaded young Amy to stay,
> the young Amy that becomes Amy 2. And now that they've changed everything we
> have Amy 3, the one that they took away with them in the TARDIS. In fact
> there could be an innumerable amount of Amys all of which continue to exist
> in their own independent time lines.
>
> Apart from that, the magnifying glass prop looked like it was painted wood
> and the scene with the Doctor talking to Amy on the screen from inside the
> TARDIS was worthy of Playschool. Primitive CSO and a shaky camera which
> showed the sides of screen moving but the image inside always remaining in
> the same place relative to the camera instead of moving with it.
>
> Anyway the story would have worked better if they'd taken it more seriously
> and we'd seen more of how Amy survived during those 36 years, ala Robinson
> Crusoe, and they'd cut out the two weeks without a toilet.
>
> 9/10

When Amy first tells the Doctor and Rory she has been their for a week, they mention food, and that in the accelerated timeline she doesn't need to eat (after all it's only a day). One assumes that goes for oneses and twoses too.

--
Mr Maff
Agamemnon
2011-09-11 17:19:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"maffster" <***@snhs.sch.im> wrote in message
news:6983fbed-72f4-4b53-896e-***@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
> On Saturday, 10 September 2011 23:33:54 UTC+1, Agamemnon wrote:
>> So Amy spends 36 years being chased by dumb robots, and to get to that,
>> two
>> weeks stuck in a room without any food or drink and without a toilet.
>> Yer,
>> right...
>>
>> The more New Who attempts to do time paradoxes the dumber and dumber they
>> get. That's why classic Doctor Who left them alone.
>>
>> If old Amy first time round persuaded young Amy not to be rescued and the
>> second time around did the opposite then we are dealing with 3 different
>> Amy's all of which have their own independent existence, and all of which
>> will continue to exist irrespective of what happens to young Amy.
>>
>> The producers tried to get out of the what happens to old Amy after
>> they've
>> all left, mess by having old Amy let the robots get her in the end, but
>> this
>> is Amy 2. What happened to Amy 1, the one who persuaded young Amy to
>> stay,
>> the young Amy that becomes Amy 2. And now that they've changed everything
>> we
>> have Amy 3, the one that they took away with them in the TARDIS. In fact
>> there could be an innumerable amount of Amys all of which continue to
>> exist
>> in their own independent time lines.
>>
>> Apart from that, the magnifying glass prop looked like it was painted
>> wood
>> and the scene with the Doctor talking to Amy on the screen from inside
>> the
>> TARDIS was worthy of Playschool. Primitive CSO and a shaky camera which
>> showed the sides of screen moving but the image inside always remaining
>> in
>> the same place relative to the camera instead of moving with it.
>>
>> Anyway the story would have worked better if they'd taken it more
>> seriously
>> and we'd seen more of how Amy survived during those 36 years, ala
>> Robinson
>> Crusoe, and they'd cut out the two weeks without a toilet.
>>
>> 9/10
>
> When Amy first tells the Doctor and Rory she has been their for a week,
> they mention food, and that in the accelerated timeline she doesn't need
> to eat (after all it's only a day). One assumes that goes for oneses and
> twoses too.

So she hasn't actually spent 36 years there then, but only 5 years? She sure
aged a lot in that time. In fact that whole week only went by in 5 minutes
so maybe she only spent 7 days there in the end. The question then is if she
doesn't need to eat in a whole week then why does she age at a different
rate.

>
> --
> Mr Maff
Ross
2011-09-11 19:00:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sep 11, 1:19 pm, "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> "maffster" <***@snhs.sch.im> wrote in message
>
> news:6983fbed-72f4-4b53-896e-***@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Saturday, 10 September 2011 23:33:54 UTC+1, Agamemnon  wrote:
> >> So Amy spends 36 years being chased by dumb robots, and to get to that,
> >> two
> >> weeks stuck in a room without any food or drink and without a toilet.
> >> Yer,
> >> right...
>
> >> The more New Who attempts to do time paradoxes the dumber and dumber they
> >> get. That's why classic Doctor Who left them alone.
>
> >> If old Amy first time round persuaded young Amy not to be rescued and the
> >> second time around did the opposite then we are dealing with 3 different
> >> Amy's all of which have their own independent existence, and all of which
> >> will continue to exist irrespective of what happens to young Amy.
>
> >> The producers tried to get out of the what happens to old Amy after
> >> they've
> >> all left, mess by having old Amy let the robots get her in the end, but
> >> this
> >> is Amy 2. What happened to Amy 1, the one who persuaded young Amy to
> >> stay,
> >> the young Amy that becomes Amy 2. And now that they've changed everything
> >> we
> >> have Amy 3, the one that they took away with them in the TARDIS. In fact
> >> there could be an innumerable amount of Amys all of which continue to
> >> exist
> >> in their own independent time lines.
>
> >> Apart from that, the magnifying glass prop looked like it was painted
> >> wood
> >> and the scene with the Doctor talking to Amy on the screen from inside
> >> the
> >> TARDIS was worthy of Playschool. Primitive CSO and a shaky camera which
> >> showed the sides of screen moving but the image inside always remaining
> >> in
> >> the same place relative to the camera instead of moving with it.
>
> >> Anyway the story would have worked better if they'd taken it more
> >> seriously
> >> and we'd seen more of how Amy survived during those 36 years, ala
> >> Robinson
> >> Crusoe, and they'd cut out the two weeks without a toilet.
>
> >> 9/10
>
> > When Amy first tells the Doctor and Rory she has been their for a week,
> > they mention food, and that in the accelerated  timeline she doesn't need
> > to eat (after all it's only a day). One assumes that goes for oneses and
> > twoses too.
>
> So she hasn't actually spent 36 years there then, but only 5 years? She sure
> aged a lot in that time. In fact that whole week only went by in 5 minutes
> so maybe she only spent 7 days there in the end. The question then is if she
> doesn't need to eat in a whole week then why does she age at a different
> rate.
>

No, she spent less than *one* day there. The plague kills
Apalapuchians in *one* day, so the facility is designed to allow the
patients to experience an entire lifetime in the space of *one day*.
This is done by "time compression", which runs multiple timelines in
parallel.
Agamemnon
2011-09-11 19:42:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Ross" <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote in message
news:d51a83b3-77d0-445f-922c-***@u10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 1:19 pm, "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> "maffster" <***@snhs.sch.im> wrote in message
>
> news:6983fbed-72f4-4b53-896e-***@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Saturday, 10 September 2011 23:33:54 UTC+1, Agamemnon wrote:
> >> So Amy spends 36 years being chased by dumb robots, and to get to that,
> >> two
> >> weeks stuck in a room without any food or drink and without a toilet.
> >> Yer,
> >> right...
>
> >> The more New Who attempts to do time paradoxes the dumber and dumber
> >> they
> >> get. That's why classic Doctor Who left them alone.
>
> >> If old Amy first time round persuaded young Amy not to be rescued and
> >> the
> >> second time around did the opposite then we are dealing with 3
> >> different
> >> Amy's all of which have their own independent existence, and all of
> >> which
> >> will continue to exist irrespective of what happens to young Amy.
>
> >> The producers tried to get out of the what happens to old Amy after
> >> they've
> >> all left, mess by having old Amy let the robots get her in the end, but
> >> this
> >> is Amy 2. What happened to Amy 1, the one who persuaded young Amy to
> >> stay,
> >> the young Amy that becomes Amy 2. And now that they've changed
> >> everything
> >> we
> >> have Amy 3, the one that they took away with them in the TARDIS. In
> >> fact
> >> there could be an innumerable amount of Amys all of which continue to
> >> exist
> >> in their own independent time lines.
>
> >> Apart from that, the magnifying glass prop looked like it was painted
> >> wood
> >> and the scene with the Doctor talking to Amy on the screen from inside
> >> the
> >> TARDIS was worthy of Playschool. Primitive CSO and a shaky camera which
> >> showed the sides of screen moving but the image inside always remaining
> >> in
> >> the same place relative to the camera instead of moving with it.
>
> >> Anyway the story would have worked better if they'd taken it more
> >> seriously
> >> and we'd seen more of how Amy survived during those 36 years, ala
> >> Robinson
> >> Crusoe, and they'd cut out the two weeks without a toilet.
>
> >> 9/10
>
> > When Amy first tells the Doctor and Rory she has been their for a week,
> > they mention food, and that in the accelerated timeline she doesn't need
> > to eat (after all it's only a day). One assumes that goes for oneses and
> > twoses too.
>
> So she hasn't actually spent 36 years there then, but only 5 years? She
> sure
> aged a lot in that time. In fact that whole week only went by in 5 minutes
> so maybe she only spent 7 days there in the end. The question then is if
> she
> doesn't need to eat in a whole week then why does she age at a different
> rate.
>

<<<No, she spent less than *one* day there. The plague kills
Apalapuchians in *one* day, so the facility is designed to allow the
patients to experience an entire lifetime in the space of *one day*.
This is done by "time compression", which runs multiple timelines in
parallel.>>>

So if 36 years went by in one day then there were 13149 timelines and 13149
Amys?

What happened to the other 13147, a lot of whom would have been Amy still
young?

Still doesn't explain how the physical aging occurred or the lack of eating.
Ryan P.
2011-09-12 03:31:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 9/11/2011 2:42 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
> "Ross"<***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:d51a83b3-77d0-445f-922c-***@u10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 11, 1:19 pm, "Agamemnon"<***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>> "maffster"<***@snhs.sch.im> wrote in message
>>
>> news:6983fbed-72f4-4b53-896e-***@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

> <<<No, she spent less than *one* day there. The plague kills
> Apalapuchians in *one* day, so the facility is designed to allow the
> patients to experience an entire lifetime in the space of *one day*.
> This is done by "time compression", which runs multiple timelines in
> parallel.>>>
>
> So if 36 years went by in one day then there were 13149 timelines and 13149
> Amys?
>
> What happened to the other 13147, a lot of whom would have been Amy still
> young?
>
> Still doesn't explain how the physical aging occurred or the lack of eating.

Why do you always insist on arguing with the explanation that was
given IN the episode?

Amy said she never got hungry, and the Doc said it was because of the
time compression. There's your explanation. Its science fiction, for
children. It doesn't need to make sense.
James Kuyper
2011-09-12 12:42:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 09/11/2011 11:31 PM, Ryan P. wrote:
...
> ... Its science fiction, for
> children. It doesn't need to make sense.

That's a widespread attitude, especially in TV and movies, but I think
it's a rather sad commentary on the people producing those shows.
Science fiction, even for children, can make sense, if you make a
priority of having it make sense.

I don't expect Dr. Who shows to make a lot of sense, but that's merely
the result of observation, not a normative statement.
--
James Kuyper
Mike Hall
2011-09-12 16:00:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 12/09/2011 13:42, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 09/11/2011 11:31 PM, Ryan P. wrote:
> ...
>> ... Its science fiction, for
>> children. It doesn't need to make sense.
>
> That's a widespread attitude, especially in TV and movies, but I think
> it's a rather sad commentary on the people producing those shows.
> Science fiction, even for children, can make sense, if you make a
> priority of having it make sense.
>
> I don't expect Dr. Who shows to make a lot of sense, but that's merely
> the result of observation, not a normative statement.

Dr Who is fantasy not proper science fiction. The "technobabble" are
just the word to magic spells.


Mike Hall
Stephen Wilson
2011-09-12 17:13:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"James Kuyper" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:j4kunt$18k$***@dont-email.me...
> On 09/11/2011 11:31 PM, Ryan P. wrote:
> ...
>> ... Its science fiction, for
>> children. It doesn't need to make sense.
>
> That's a widespread attitude, especially in TV and movies, but I think
> it's a rather sad commentary on the people producing those shows.
> Science fiction, even for children, can make sense, if you make a
> priority of having it make sense.

Exactly. And shows that don't treat children with respect in the first place
won't get any respect back from children. Even when I was young, I was able
to differentiate between the fantasy of Enid Blyton and the ideas found in
stories by Isaac Asimov.

Today, I'm coming across more and more children (and adults) who are so
gullible it's almost unbelievable. They'll believe the claims of vicars,
snake oil peddlers and completely unsubstantiated claims from so many
quarters simply because they don't have the ability to work out when
something makes sense and when it doesn't. Of course, this all works to the
benefit of more unscupulous people who are able to take money from so many
gullible idiots with such ease.

> I don't expect Dr. Who shows to make a lot of sense, but that's merely
> the result of observation, not a normative statement.

Exactly. I still enjoy Dr Who. Unfortunately I don't expect it to make
sense, but I'd enjoy the show just a little more if it at least tried. Back
in the Troughton days, Kit Pedler was brought in as an unofficial science
advisor. He'd read through scripts, and instead of saying "you can't do
that", he'd offer more rational alternatives: "it doesn't make sense that
way, but if you did it this way..."

And that's all that is needed. Somebody who has a basic science background
who can help the show avoid basic clangers. Someone who can work with the
writers who have more of an artistic background who may have good ideas for
stories but who just aren't able to implement them sensibly.
Ryan P.
2011-09-14 04:11:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 9/12/2011 12:13 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
> "James Kuyper"<***@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:j4kunt$18k$***@dont-email.me...
>> On 09/11/2011 11:31 PM, Ryan P. wrote:
>> ...
>>> ... Its science fiction, for
>>> children. It doesn't need to make sense.
>>
>> That's a widespread attitude, especially in TV and movies, but I think
>> it's a rather sad commentary on the people producing those shows.
>> Science fiction, even for children, can make sense, if you make a
>> priority of having it make sense.
>
> Exactly. And shows that don't treat children with respect in the first place
> won't get any respect back from children. Even when I was young, I was able
> to differentiate between the fantasy of Enid Blyton and the ideas found in
> stories by Isaac Asimov.

For the most part, there is no way to make that same comparison with
science fiction on TV. There is very little "realistic" science in
anything that is in modern television for children to even make that
decision.

Of course, science fiction generally deals with space travel,
something which humans in general have lost their fascination with, so
there isn't really an incentive for producers to even attempt to predict
what things will be like in a realistic way.

>
> Today, I'm coming across more and more children (and adults) who are so
> gullible it's almost unbelievable. They'll believe the claims of vicars,
> snake oil peddlers and completely unsubstantiated claims from so many
> quarters simply because they don't have the ability to work out when
> something makes sense and when it doesn't. Of course, this all works to the
> benefit of more unscupulous people who are able to take money from so many
> gullible idiots with such ease.

Partly because children aren't EXPECTED to work things out anymore.
Society is being taught to simply accept that what you hear on the news,
read on the internet, and hear out of politicians' mouths is the truth.
I know of a few children that have no idea how to research an idea
other than to Google it.
>
>> I don't expect Dr. Who shows to make a lot of sense, but that's merely
>> the result of observation, not a normative statement.
>
> Exactly. I still enjoy Dr Who. Unfortunately I don't expect it to make
> sense, but I'd enjoy the show just a little more if it at least tried. Back
> in the Troughton days, Kit Pedler was brought in as an unofficial science
> advisor. He'd read through scripts, and instead of saying "you can't do
> that", he'd offer more rational alternatives: "it doesn't make sense that
> way, but if you did it this way..."
>
> And that's all that is needed. Somebody who has a basic science background
> who can help the show avoid basic clangers. Someone who can work with the
> writers who have more of an artistic background who may have good ideas for
> stories but who just aren't able to implement them sensibly.

No arguments there.
The Doctor
2011-09-14 12:32:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Everyone is seeming to forget that The Girl who Waited
is abotu Amy being trapped in a multi-time interface.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
john smith
2011-09-14 22:21:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Ryan P." <***@wi.rr.comm> wrote in message
news:j4p9hu$l5j$***@dont-email.me...
> On 9/12/2011 12:13 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>> "James Kuyper"<***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:j4kunt$18k$***@dont-email.me...
>>> On 09/11/2011 11:31 PM, Ryan P. wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> ... Its science fiction, for
>>>> children. It doesn't need to make sense.
>>>
>>> That's a widespread attitude, especially in TV and movies, but I think
>>> it's a rather sad commentary on the people producing those shows.
>>> Science fiction, even for children, can make sense, if you make a
>>> priority of having it make sense.
>>
>> Exactly. And shows that don't treat children with respect in the first
>> place
>> won't get any respect back from children. Even when I was young, I was
>> able
>> to differentiate between the fantasy of Enid Blyton and the ideas found
>> in
>> stories by Isaac Asimov.
>
> For the most part, there is no way to make that same comparison with
> science fiction on TV. There is very little "realistic" science in
> anything that is in modern television for children to even make that
> decision.
>
> Of course, science fiction generally deals with space travel, something
> which humans in general have lost their fascination with, so there isn't
> really an incentive for producers to even attempt to predict what things
> will be like in a realistic way.
>
>>
>> Today, I'm coming across more and more children (and adults) who are so
>> gullible it's almost unbelievable. They'll believe the claims of vicars,
>> snake oil peddlers and completely unsubstantiated claims from so many
>> quarters simply because they don't have the ability to work out when
>> something makes sense and when it doesn't. Of course, this all works to
>> the
>> benefit of more unscupulous people who are able to take money from so
>> many
>> gullible idiots with such ease.
>
> Partly because children aren't EXPECTED to work things out anymore.
> Society is being taught to simply accept that what you hear on the news,
> read on the internet, and hear out of politicians' mouths is the truth.


Right on, brother!



> I know of a few children that have no idea how to research an idea other
> than to Google it.
>>
>>> I don't expect Dr. Who shows to make a lot of sense, but that's merely
>>> the result of observation, not a normative statement.
>>
>> Exactly. I still enjoy Dr Who. Unfortunately I don't expect it to make
>> sense, but I'd enjoy the show just a little more if it at least tried.
>> Back
>> in the Troughton days, Kit Pedler was brought in as an unofficial science
>> advisor. He'd read through scripts, and instead of saying "you can't do
>> that", he'd offer more rational alternatives: "it doesn't make sense that
>> way, but if you did it this way..."
>>
>> And that's all that is needed. Somebody who has a basic science
>> background
>> who can help the show avoid basic clangers. Someone who can work with the
>> writers who have more of an artistic background who may have good ideas
>> for
>> stories but who just aren't able to implement them sensibly.
>
> No arguments there.
>
Charles E. Hardwidge
2011-09-15 04:29:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Ryan P." <***@wi.rr.comm> wrote in message
news:j4judt$mkn$***@dont-email.me...

> Amy said she never got hungry, and the Doc said it was because of the
> time compression. There's your explanation. Its science fiction, for
> children. It doesn't need to make sense.

If it's for kids then it doesn't need a fat budget either (and a major
reason why the BBC is lauding it as a "success" is because adults are
included in the viewing figures).

"It's for kids" is a lie. "It's for kids" and just enough to stop the adults
from leaving their seats so we keep their money is closer.

RTD & Moffat era Doctor Who is like Star Wars episodes 1-3. Too much money
and ego thrown at an imaginary audience.

Next up: Torchwood - The Phantom Edit.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge
The Doctor
2011-09-11 20:30:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <***@eclipse.net.uk>,
Agamemnon <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>"maffster" <***@snhs.sch.im> wrote in message
>news:6983fbed-72f4-4b53-896e-***@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
>> On Saturday, 10 September 2011 23:33:54 UTC+1, Agamemnon wrote:
>>> So Amy spends 36 years being chased by dumb robots, and to get to that,
>>> two
>>> weeks stuck in a room without any food or drink and without a toilet.
>>> Yer,
>>> right...
>>>
>>> The more New Who attempts to do time paradoxes the dumber and dumber they
>>> get. That's why classic Doctor Who left them alone.
>>>
>>> If old Amy first time round persuaded young Amy not to be rescued and the
>>> second time around did the opposite then we are dealing with 3 different
>>> Amy's all of which have their own independent existence, and all of which
>>> will continue to exist irrespective of what happens to young Amy.
>>>
>>> The producers tried to get out of the what happens to old Amy after
>>> they've
>>> all left, mess by having old Amy let the robots get her in the end, but
>>> this
>>> is Amy 2. What happened to Amy 1, the one who persuaded young Amy to
>>> stay,
>>> the young Amy that becomes Amy 2. And now that they've changed everything
>>> we
>>> have Amy 3, the one that they took away with them in the TARDIS. In fact
>>> there could be an innumerable amount of Amys all of which continue to
>>> exist
>>> in their own independent time lines.
>>>
>>> Apart from that, the magnifying glass prop looked like it was painted
>>> wood
>>> and the scene with the Doctor talking to Amy on the screen from inside
>>> the
>>> TARDIS was worthy of Playschool. Primitive CSO and a shaky camera which
>>> showed the sides of screen moving but the image inside always remaining
>>> in
>>> the same place relative to the camera instead of moving with it.
>>>
>>> Anyway the story would have worked better if they'd taken it more
>>> seriously
>>> and we'd seen more of how Amy survived during those 36 years, ala
>>> Robinson
>>> Crusoe, and they'd cut out the two weeks without a toilet.
>>>
>>> 9/10
>>
>> When Amy first tells the Doctor and Rory she has been their for a week,
>> they mention food, and that in the accelerated timeline she doesn't need
>> to eat (after all it's only a day). One assumes that goes for oneses and
>> twoses too.
>
>So she hasn't actually spent 36 years there then, but only 5 years? She sure
>aged a lot in that time. In fact that whole week only went by in 5 minutes
>so maybe she only spent 7 days there in the end. The question then is if she
>doesn't need to eat in a whole week then why does she age at a different
>rate.
>
>>
>> --
>> Mr Maff
>
>

The rate runs differently in each time stream.

Amy did enter the room and was in there for 2 weeks plus.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
Duggy
2011-09-16 10:54:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sep 12, 3:19 am, "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>The question then is if she
> doesn't need to eat in a whole week then why does she age at a different
> rate.

Because that was the set up at the beginning of the episode.

Those with the plague have 24hrs to live, so they experience and age a
whole lifetime in that day but don't need to eat in that time.

===
= DUG.
===
The Doctor
2011-09-16 13:02:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <63940fcb-d549-4493-96bc-***@br5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 12, 3:19=A0am, "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>The question then is if she
>> doesn't need to eat in a whole week then why does she age at a different
>> rate.
>
>Because that was the set up at the beginning of the episode.
>
>Those with the plague have 24hrs to live, so they experience and age a
>whole lifetime in that day but don't need to eat in that time.
>

Then older Amy must have been really cranky!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
Stephen Wilson
2011-09-11 22:24:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"maffster" <***@snhs.sch.im> wrote in message
news:6983fbed-72f4-4b53-896e-***@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
> On Saturday, 10 September 2011 23:33:54 UTC+1, Agamemnon wrote:
>> So Amy spends 36 years being chased by dumb robots, and to get to that,
>> two
>> weeks stuck in a room without any food or drink and without a toilet.
>> Yer,
>> right...
>>
>> The more New Who attempts to do time paradoxes the dumber and dumber they
>> get. That's why classic Doctor Who left them alone.
>>
>> If old Amy first time round persuaded young Amy not to be rescued and the
>> second time around did the opposite then we are dealing with 3 different
>> Amy's all of which have their own independent existence, and all of which
>> will continue to exist irrespective of what happens to young Amy.
>>
>> The producers tried to get out of the what happens to old Amy after
>> they've
>> all left, mess by having old Amy let the robots get her in the end, but
>> this
>> is Amy 2. What happened to Amy 1, the one who persuaded young Amy to
>> stay,
>> the young Amy that becomes Amy 2. And now that they've changed everything
>> we
>> have Amy 3, the one that they took away with them in the TARDIS. In fact
>> there could be an innumerable amount of Amys all of which continue to
>> exist
>> in their own independent time lines.
>>
>> Apart from that, the magnifying glass prop looked like it was painted
>> wood
>> and the scene with the Doctor talking to Amy on the screen from inside
>> the
>> TARDIS was worthy of Playschool. Primitive CSO and a shaky camera which
>> showed the sides of screen moving but the image inside always remaining
>> in
>> the same place relative to the camera instead of moving with it.
>>
>> Anyway the story would have worked better if they'd taken it more
>> seriously
>> and we'd seen more of how Amy survived during those 36 years, ala
>> Robinson
>> Crusoe, and they'd cut out the two weeks without a toilet.
>>
>> 9/10
>
> When Amy first tells the Doctor and Rory she has been their for a week,
> they mention food, and that in the accelerated timeline she doesn't need
> to eat (after all it's only a day). One assumes that goes for oneses and
> twoses too.

That makes no sense at all. If Amy was in an accelerated timeline then
*everything* would have to accelerate. That includes eating food and
expelling its waste products. You need food to provide you with energy. Even
when you're not moving your body needs energy just to stay alive - heart
beating, lungs breathing, etc. If Amy's timeline was accelerated, so was her
need for energy. So her requirement for food would have accelerated along
with everything else.
China Blue Corn Chips
2011-09-11 22:45:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <_wabq.8206$***@newsfe24.ams2>,
"Stephen Wilson" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> "maffster" <***@snhs.sch.im> wrote in message
> news:6983fbed-72f4-4b53-896e-***@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com..
> .
> > On Saturday, 10 September 2011 23:33:54 UTC+1, Agamemnon wrote:
> >> So Amy spends 36 years being chased by dumb robots, and to get to that,
> >> two
> >> weeks stuck in a room without any food or drink and without a toilet.
> >> Yer,
> >> right...
> >>
> >> The more New Who attempts to do time paradoxes the dumber and dumber they
> >> get. That's why classic Doctor Who left them alone.
> >>
> >> If old Amy first time round persuaded young Amy not to be rescued and the
> >> second time around did the opposite then we are dealing with 3 different
> >> Amy's all of which have their own independent existence, and all of which
> >> will continue to exist irrespective of what happens to young Amy.
> >>
> >> The producers tried to get out of the what happens to old Amy after
> >> they've
> >> all left, mess by having old Amy let the robots get her in the end, but
> >> this
> >> is Amy 2. What happened to Amy 1, the one who persuaded young Amy to
> >> stay,
> >> the young Amy that becomes Amy 2. And now that they've changed everything
> >> we
> >> have Amy 3, the one that they took away with them in the TARDIS. In fact
> >> there could be an innumerable amount of Amys all of which continue to
> >> exist
> >> in their own independent time lines.
> >>
> >> Apart from that, the magnifying glass prop looked like it was painted
> >> wood
> >> and the scene with the Doctor talking to Amy on the screen from inside
> >> the
> >> TARDIS was worthy of Playschool. Primitive CSO and a shaky camera which
> >> showed the sides of screen moving but the image inside always remaining
> >> in
> >> the same place relative to the camera instead of moving with it.
> >>
> >> Anyway the story would have worked better if they'd taken it more
> >> seriously
> >> and we'd seen more of how Amy survived during those 36 years, ala
> >> Robinson
> >> Crusoe, and they'd cut out the two weeks without a toilet.
> >>
> >> 9/10
> >
> > When Amy first tells the Doctor and Rory she has been their for a week,
> > they mention food, and that in the accelerated timeline she doesn't need
> > to eat (after all it's only a day). One assumes that goes for oneses and
> > twoses too.
>
> That makes no sense at all. If Amy was in an accelerated timeline then
> *everything* would have to accelerate. That includes eating food and
> expelling its waste products. You need food to provide you with energy. Even
> when you're not moving your body needs energy just to stay alive - heart
> beating, lungs breathing, etc. If Amy's timeline was accelerated, so was her
> need for energy. So her requirement for food would have accelerated along
> with everything else.

Actually a lot of stories where people are at two time rates, people in one rate
interact at the other rate rather their own rate. In this case hunger or no
would Amy really sit in a room alone for a week? A day? An hour? She would've
done something sooner.

There was an episode of Star Gate that openned the gate to a near a black hole
that got it more right than other stories. The time in the control room dialated
while rest of the base was running faster than them, but still slower than rest
of Earth.

--
I remember finding out about you, |With the nutty taste of wild hickory nuts.
Everyday my mind is all around you,| I'm whoever you want me to be.
Looking out from my lonely room | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Day after day. | At least I can stay in character.
Celle est une langue. C'est francais et tres, tres sexuel.
Jon V
2011-09-12 00:40:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 9/11/2011 3:24 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
> "maffster"<***@snhs.sch.im> wrote in message
> news:6983fbed-72f4-4b53-896e-***@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
>> On Saturday, 10 September 2011 23:33:54 UTC+1, Agamemnon wrote:
>>> So Amy spends 36 years being chased by dumb robots, and to get to that,
>>> two
>>> weeks stuck in a room without any food or drink and without a toilet.
>>> Yer,
>>> right...
>>>
>>> The more New Who attempts to do time paradoxes the dumber and dumber they
>>> get. That's why classic Doctor Who left them alone.
>>>
>>> If old Amy first time round persuaded young Amy not to be rescued and the
>>> second time around did the opposite then we are dealing with 3 different
>>> Amy's all of which have their own independent existence, and all of which
>>> will continue to exist irrespective of what happens to young Amy.
>>>
>>> The producers tried to get out of the what happens to old Amy after
>>> they've
>>> all left, mess by having old Amy let the robots get her in the end, but
>>> this
>>> is Amy 2. What happened to Amy 1, the one who persuaded young Amy to
>>> stay,
>>> the young Amy that becomes Amy 2. And now that they've changed everything
>>> we
>>> have Amy 3, the one that they took away with them in the TARDIS. In fact
>>> there could be an innumerable amount of Amys all of which continue to
>>> exist
>>> in their own independent time lines.
>>>
>>> Apart from that, the magnifying glass prop looked like it was painted
>>> wood
>>> and the scene with the Doctor talking to Amy on the screen from inside
>>> the
>>> TARDIS was worthy of Playschool. Primitive CSO and a shaky camera which
>>> showed the sides of screen moving but the image inside always remaining
>>> in
>>> the same place relative to the camera instead of moving with it.
>>>
>>> Anyway the story would have worked better if they'd taken it more
>>> seriously
>>> and we'd seen more of how Amy survived during those 36 years, ala
>>> Robinson
>>> Crusoe, and they'd cut out the two weeks without a toilet.
>>>
>>> 9/10
>>
>> When Amy first tells the Doctor and Rory she has been their for a week,
>> they mention food, and that in the accelerated timeline she doesn't need
>> to eat (after all it's only a day). One assumes that goes for oneses and
>> twoses too.
>
> That makes no sense at all.

OK, then. The machine provided with some. OK? Jesus...
Stephen Wilson
2011-09-12 16:57:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Jon V" <***@example.com> wrote in message
news:***@giganews.com...
> On 9/11/2011 3:24 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>> "maffster"<***@snhs.sch.im> wrote in message
>> news:6983fbed-72f4-4b53-896e-***@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Saturday, 10 September 2011 23:33:54 UTC+1, Agamemnon wrote:
>>>> So Amy spends 36 years being chased by dumb robots, and to get to that,
>>>> two
>>>> weeks stuck in a room without any food or drink and without a toilet.
>>>> Yer,
>>>> right...
>>>>
>>>> The more New Who attempts to do time paradoxes the dumber and dumber
>>>> they
>>>> get. That's why classic Doctor Who left them alone.
>>>>
>>>> If old Amy first time round persuaded young Amy not to be rescued and
>>>> the
>>>> second time around did the opposite then we are dealing with 3
>>>> different
>>>> Amy's all of which have their own independent existence, and all of
>>>> which
>>>> will continue to exist irrespective of what happens to young Amy.
>>>>
>>>> The producers tried to get out of the what happens to old Amy after
>>>> they've
>>>> all left, mess by having old Amy let the robots get her in the end, but
>>>> this
>>>> is Amy 2. What happened to Amy 1, the one who persuaded young Amy to
>>>> stay,
>>>> the young Amy that becomes Amy 2. And now that they've changed
>>>> everything
>>>> we
>>>> have Amy 3, the one that they took away with them in the TARDIS. In
>>>> fact
>>>> there could be an innumerable amount of Amys all of which continue to
>>>> exist
>>>> in their own independent time lines.
>>>>
>>>> Apart from that, the magnifying glass prop looked like it was painted
>>>> wood
>>>> and the scene with the Doctor talking to Amy on the screen from inside
>>>> the
>>>> TARDIS was worthy of Playschool. Primitive CSO and a shaky camera which
>>>> showed the sides of screen moving but the image inside always remaining
>>>> in
>>>> the same place relative to the camera instead of moving with it.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway the story would have worked better if they'd taken it more
>>>> seriously
>>>> and we'd seen more of how Amy survived during those 36 years, ala
>>>> Robinson
>>>> Crusoe, and they'd cut out the two weeks without a toilet.
>>>>
>>>> 9/10
>>>
>>> When Amy first tells the Doctor and Rory she has been their for a week,
>>> they mention food, and that in the accelerated timeline she doesn't
>>> need
>>> to eat (after all it's only a day). One assumes that goes for oneses and
>>> twoses too.
>>
>> That makes no sense at all.
>
> OK, then. The machine provided with some. OK? Jesus...

And that pretty much sums it up. The entire premise of the story is based on
nonsense. Doesn't matter to you because you've not tried to get it to make
sense. Just because it doesn't matter to you doesn't mean such things are
completely unimportant to anyone else.

Stories like this, and attitudes like yours, simply serve to reinforce the
point that Eric Schmidt made a few weeks ago in Edinburgh. He stated that
"The UK is home of so many media-related inventions. You invented
photography. You invented TV. You invented computers in both concept and
practice. It's not widely known, but the world's first office computer was
built in 1951 by Lyons' chain of tea shops. Yet today, none of the world's
leading exponents in these fields are from the UK."

Dr Who could inspire so many children. But it needs to treat basic
scientific principles with more respect.
Jon V
2011-09-12 23:29:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 9/12/2011 9:57 AM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
> "Jon V"<***@example.com> wrote in message
> news:***@giganews.com...
>> On 9/11/2011 3:24 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>>> "maffster"<***@snhs.sch.im> wrote in message
>>> news:6983fbed-72f4-4b53-896e-***@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Saturday, 10 September 2011 23:33:54 UTC+1, Agamemnon wrote:
>>>>> So Amy spends 36 years being chased by dumb robots, and to get to that,
>>>>> two
>>>>> weeks stuck in a room without any food or drink and without a toilet.
>>>>> Yer,
>>>>> right...
>>>>>
>>>>> The more New Who attempts to do time paradoxes the dumber and dumber
>>>>> they
>>>>> get. That's why classic Doctor Who left them alone.
>>>>>
>>>>> If old Amy first time round persuaded young Amy not to be rescued and
>>>>> the
>>>>> second time around did the opposite then we are dealing with 3
>>>>> different
>>>>> Amy's all of which have their own independent existence, and all of
>>>>> which
>>>>> will continue to exist irrespective of what happens to young Amy.
>>>>>
>>>>> The producers tried to get out of the what happens to old Amy after
>>>>> they've
>>>>> all left, mess by having old Amy let the robots get her in the end, but
>>>>> this
>>>>> is Amy 2. What happened to Amy 1, the one who persuaded young Amy to
>>>>> stay,
>>>>> the young Amy that becomes Amy 2. And now that they've changed
>>>>> everything
>>>>> we
>>>>> have Amy 3, the one that they took away with them in the TARDIS. In
>>>>> fact
>>>>> there could be an innumerable amount of Amys all of which continue to
>>>>> exist
>>>>> in their own independent time lines.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from that, the magnifying glass prop looked like it was painted
>>>>> wood
>>>>> and the scene with the Doctor talking to Amy on the screen from inside
>>>>> the
>>>>> TARDIS was worthy of Playschool. Primitive CSO and a shaky camera which
>>>>> showed the sides of screen moving but the image inside always remaining
>>>>> in
>>>>> the same place relative to the camera instead of moving with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway the story would have worked better if they'd taken it more
>>>>> seriously
>>>>> and we'd seen more of how Amy survived during those 36 years, ala
>>>>> Robinson
>>>>> Crusoe, and they'd cut out the two weeks without a toilet.
>>>>>
>>>>> 9/10
>>>>
>>>> When Amy first tells the Doctor and Rory she has been their for a week,
>>>> they mention food, and that in the accelerated timeline she doesn't
>>>> need
>>>> to eat (after all it's only a day). One assumes that goes for oneses and
>>>> twoses too.
>>>
>>> That makes no sense at all.
>>
>> OK, then. The machine provided with some. OK? Jesus...
>
> And that pretty much sums it up. The entire premise of the story is based on
> nonsense. Doesn't matter to you because you've not tried to get it to make
> sense.

It's a TV show. For kids. It's 50 years old. It's not going to make
sense. You are trying to force it into something it was never intended
to be.

Enjoy the show for what it is. It's not the word of god.
Stephen Wilson
2011-09-13 17:06:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Jon V" <***@example.com> wrote in message
news:***@giganews.com...
>>
>> And that pretty much sums it up. The entire premise of the story is based
>> on
>> nonsense. Doesn't matter to you because you've not tried to get it to
>> make
>> sense.
>
> It's a TV show. For kids. It's 50 years old. It's not going to make sense.
> You are trying to force it into something it was never intended to be.

It's a TV show. Yes. For kids? Mostly. It's actually aimed at the entire
family. Why's it not meant to make sense?

> Enjoy the show for what it is. It's not the word of god.

I don't recall anyone suggesting that it was the word of god.

This is rec.arts.drwho - a usenet group aimed at Dr Who fans. It's rare that
all the posters here enjoy the show simply for what it is. We're fans and
discuss the show for what we think it could/should be. We share our opinions
and criticisms of one of our favourite TV shows.

Why are you here?
Jon V
2011-09-13 23:44:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 9/13/2011 10:06 AM, Stephen Wilson wrote:

>
> It's a TV show. Yes. For kids? Mostly. It's actually aimed at the entire
> family. Why's it not meant to make sense?

It makes perfect sense. If you examine ANYTHING at a small enough scale,
it will not make sense.


>
>> Enjoy the show for what it is. It's not the word of god.
>
> I don't recall anyone suggesting that it was the word of god.
>

No you are only suggesting that it has to make "sense" at a level that
is basically impossible to achieve.

> This is rec.arts.drwho - a usenet group

Thank you. I've never used usenet before.



> It's rare that
> all the posters here enjoy the show simply for what it is.

That's fine. Don't enjoy it, then.



> We're fans and
> discuss the show for what we think it could/should be.


Fans or whiners?


> We share our opinions
> and criticisms of one of our favourite TV shows.

Then why are you engaging me about something that isn't about Dr. Who?

>
> Why are you here?
>
>

I thought you said you were here to share your opinions and criticisms
of one of your favorite TV shows. What, then, has this question got to
do with that?
The Doctor
2011-09-14 01:00:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <***@giganews.com>,
Jon V <***@example.com> wrote:
>On 9/13/2011 10:06 AM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>
>>
>> It's a TV show. Yes. For kids? Mostly. It's actually aimed at the entire
>> family. Why's it not meant to make sense?
>
>It makes perfect sense. If you examine ANYTHING at a small enough scale,
>it will not make sense.
>
>
>>
>>> Enjoy the show for what it is. It's not the word of god.
>>
>> I don't recall anyone suggesting that it was the word of god.
>>
>
>No you are only suggesting that it has to make "sense" at a level that
>is basically impossible to achieve.
>
>> This is rec.arts.drwho - a usenet group
>
>Thank you. I've never used usenet before.
>
>

Welcome aboard the real Internet engine.

>
>> It's rare that
>> all the posters here enjoy the show simply for what it is.
>
>That's fine. Don't enjoy it, then.
>
>
>
>> We're fans and
>> discuss the show for what we think it could/should be.
>
>
>Fans or whiners?
>
>
>> We share our opinions
>> and criticisms of one of our favourite TV shows.
>
>Then why are you engaging me about something that isn't about Dr. Who?
>
>>
>> Why are you here?
>>
>>
>
>I thought you said you were here to share your opinions and criticisms
>of one of your favorite TV shows. What, then, has this question got to
>do with that?
>
>


--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
Stephen Wilson
2011-09-14 16:41:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Jon V" <***@example.com> wrote in message
news:***@giganews.com...
<snip>
>>
>> Why are you here?
>>
>>
>
> I thought you said you were here to share your opinions and criticisms of
> one of your favorite TV shows. What, then, has this question got to do
> with that?

OK then. That's cleared that up. This "dicussion" is terminated.

<plonk>
China Blue Corn Chips
2011-09-14 18:44:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <***@giganews.com>,
Jon V <***@example.com> wrote:

> On 9/14/2011 9:41 AM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
> > "Jon V"<***@example.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@giganews.com...
> > <snip>
> >>>
> >>> Why are you here?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I thought you said you were here to share your opinions and criticisms of
> >> one of your favorite TV shows. What, then, has this question got to do
> >> with that?
> >
> > OK then. That's cleared that up. This "dicussion" is terminated.
> >
> > <plonk>
> >
> >
> Cool. I called you out on a personal attack, and plonk. Kind of shows
> who the adult here is.

On usenet there are no adults.

--
I remember finding out about you, |With the nutty taste of wild hickory nuts.
Everyday my mind is all around you,| I'm whoever you want me to be.
Looking out from my lonely room | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Day after day. | At least I can stay in character.
Celle est une langue. C'est francais et tres, tres sexuel.
Stephen Wilson
2011-09-14 22:11:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"China Blue Corn Chips" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-***@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <***@giganews.com>,
> Jon V <***@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/14/2011 9:41 AM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>> > "Jon V"<***@example.com> wrote in message
>> > news:***@giganews.com...
>> > <snip>
>> >>>
>> >>> Why are you here?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I thought you said you were here to share your opinions and criticisms
>> >> of
>> >> one of your favorite TV shows. What, then, has this question got to do
>> >> with that?
>> >
>> > OK then. That's cleared that up. This "dicussion" is terminated.
>> >
>> > <plonk>
>> >
>> >
>> Cool. I called you out on a personal attack, and plonk. Kind of shows
>> who the adult here is.

I'm reminded of a couple of quotes here. "Never argue with a fool -
onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." The other is "Never miss
a good chance to shut up."

> On usenet there are no adults.

Or, as Tom Baker put it in Robot: "What's the point of being grown up if you
can't be childish sometimes?"
john smith
2011-09-14 22:28:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Stephen Wilson" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nC9cq.16153$***@newsfe09.ams2...
>
> "China Blue Corn Chips" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:chine.bleu-***@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In article <***@giganews.com>,
>> Jon V <***@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/14/2011 9:41 AM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>>> > "Jon V"<***@example.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:***@giganews.com...
>>> > <snip>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Why are you here?
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> I thought you said you were here to share your opinions and
>>> >> criticisms of
>>> >> one of your favorite TV shows. What, then, has this question got to
>>> >> do
>>> >> with that?
>>> >
>>> > OK then. That's cleared that up. This "dicussion" is terminated.
>>> >
>>> > <plonk>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Cool. I called you out on a personal attack, and plonk. Kind of shows
>>> who the adult here is.
>
> I'm reminded of a couple of quotes here. "Never argue with a fool -
> onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." The other is "Never
> miss a good chance to shut up."
>
>> On usenet there are no adults.
>
> Or, as Tom Baker put it in Robot: "What's the point of being grown up if
> you can't be childish sometimes?"
>
>
>

I love that line and use it all the time - usually as a get-out clause when
I'm acting the goat!

My memory's a bit hazy on this, but has a "Doctor Who" story ever used the
line: "Do sit down? Shocks are so much better absorbed with the knees
bent"?
Stephen Wilson
2011-09-14 22:39:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:%T9cq.7377$***@newsfe22.ams2...
>
> "Stephen Wilson" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:nC9cq.16153$***@newsfe09.ams2...
>>
>> "China Blue Corn Chips" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:chine.bleu-***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> In article <***@giganews.com>,
>>> Jon V <***@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/14/2011 9:41 AM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>>>> > "Jon V"<***@example.com> wrote in message
>>>> > news:***@giganews.com...
>>>> > <snip>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Why are you here?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I thought you said you were here to share your opinions and
>>>> >> criticisms of
>>>> >> one of your favorite TV shows. What, then, has this question got to
>>>> >> do
>>>> >> with that?
>>>> >
>>>> > OK then. That's cleared that up. This "dicussion" is terminated.
>>>> >
>>>> > <plonk>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> Cool. I called you out on a personal attack, and plonk. Kind of shows
>>>> who the adult here is.
>>
>> I'm reminded of a couple of quotes here. "Never argue with a fool -
>> onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." The other is "Never
>> miss a good chance to shut up."
>>
>>> On usenet there are no adults.
>>
>> Or, as Tom Baker put it in Robot: "What's the point of being grown up if
>> you can't be childish sometimes?"
>>
>>
>>
>
> I love that line and use it all the time - usually as a get-out clause
> when I'm acting the goat!
>
> My memory's a bit hazy on this, but has a "Doctor Who" story ever used the
> line: "Do sit down? Shocks are so much better absorbed with the knees
> bent"?

Not so sure if it's been used on Dr Who. But it was used in the Wicker Man:
"Do sit down, Sergeant. Shocks are so much better absorbed with the knees
bent."

Still, talking of Dr Who and sitting down, here's one that brings back
memories of my uni days:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqas1u2dK70
john smith
2011-09-15 03:39:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Stephen Wilson" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:i0acq.16156$***@newsfe09.ams2...
>
> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:%T9cq.7377$***@newsfe22.ams2...
>>
>> "Stephen Wilson" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:nC9cq.16153$***@newsfe09.ams2...
>>>
>>> "China Blue Corn Chips" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:chine.bleu-***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> In article <***@giganews.com>,
>>>> Jon V <***@example.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/14/2011 9:41 AM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>>>>> > "Jon V"<***@example.com> wrote in message
>>>>> > news:***@giganews.com...
>>>>> > <snip>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Why are you here?
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I thought you said you were here to share your opinions and
>>>>> >> criticisms of
>>>>> >> one of your favorite TV shows. What, then, has this question got to
>>>>> >> do
>>>>> >> with that?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > OK then. That's cleared that up. This "dicussion" is terminated.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > <plonk>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> Cool. I called you out on a personal attack, and plonk. Kind of shows
>>>>> who the adult here is.
>>>
>>> I'm reminded of a couple of quotes here. "Never argue with a fool -
>>> onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." The other is "Never
>>> miss a good chance to shut up."
>>>
>>>> On usenet there are no adults.
>>>
>>> Or, as Tom Baker put it in Robot: "What's the point of being grown up if
>>> you can't be childish sometimes?"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I love that line and use it all the time - usually as a get-out clause
>> when I'm acting the goat!
>>
>> My memory's a bit hazy on this, but has a "Doctor Who" story ever used
>> the line: "Do sit down? Shocks are so much better absorbed with the
>> knees bent"?
>
> Not so sure if it's been used on Dr Who. But it was used in the Wicker
> Man: "Do sit down, Sergeant. Shocks are so much better absorbed with the
> knees bent."


Yeah - I know it's from "The Wicker Man" (it's my favourite film), but I
have a vague memory of "Doctor Who" ripping it off/sampling it...


>
> Still, talking of Dr Who and sitting down, here's one that brings back
> memories of my uni days:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqas1u2dK70
>
>


Yeah, James are cool too. (I used to want "Sit Down" played at my funeral!)
Saw Tim Booth perform in St Austel years ago and he was off his tits. Mind
you, to be fair, so was everyone else...
Charles E. Hardwidge
2011-09-15 02:23:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:%T9cq.7377$***@newsfe22.ams2...
>
> I love that line and use it all the time - usually as a get-out clause
> when I'm acting the goat!
>
> My memory's a bit hazy on this, but has a "Doctor Who" story ever used the
> line: "Do sit down? Shocks are so much better absorbed with the knees
> bent"?

Too much information!

--
Charles E. Hardwidge
john smith
2011-09-15 03:42:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Charles E. Hardwidge" <***@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j4rnjv$lfk$***@dont-email.me...
> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:%T9cq.7377$***@newsfe22.ams2...
>>
>> I love that line and use it all the time - usually as a get-out clause
>> when I'm acting the goat!
>>
>> My memory's a bit hazy on this, but has a "Doctor Who" story ever used
>> the
>> line: "Do sit down? Shocks are so much better absorbed with the knees
>> bent"?
>
> Too much information!
>
> --


Are you having a brain spasm again, Chaz?




> Charles E. Hardwidge
>
Charles E. Hardwidge
2011-09-15 04:15:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:uuecq.12010$***@newsfe14.ams2...
> "Charles E. Hardwidge" <***@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:j4rnjv$lfk$***@dont-email.me...
>> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:%T9cq.7377$***@newsfe22.ams2...
>>>
>>> I love that line and use it all the time - usually as a get-out clause
>>> when I'm acting the goat!
>>>
>>> My memory's a bit hazy on this, but has a "Doctor Who" story ever used
>>> the line: "Do sit down? Shocks are so much better absorbed with the
>>> knees bent"?
>>
>> Too much information!
>
> Are you having a brain spasm again, Chaz?

They're your squalid domestic practices! Next time stick to the alter
candles.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge
john smith
2011-09-15 18:27:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Charles E. Hardwidge" <***@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j4ru5b$kki$***@dont-email.me...
> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:uuecq.12010$***@newsfe14.ams2...
>> "Charles E. Hardwidge" <***@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:j4rnjv$lfk$***@dont-email.me...
>>> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%T9cq.7377$***@newsfe22.ams2...
>>>>
>>>> I love that line and use it all the time - usually as a get-out clause
>>>> when I'm acting the goat!
>>>>
>>>> My memory's a bit hazy on this, but has a "Doctor Who" story ever used
>>>> the line: "Do sit down? Shocks are so much better absorbed with the
>>>> knees bent"?
>>>
>>> Too much information!
>>
>> Are you having a brain spasm again, Chaz?
>
> They're your squalid domestic practices! Next time stick to the alter
> candles.
>
> --
> Charles E. Hardwidge



What the fuck ARE you on about?
Charles E. Hardwidge
2011-09-15 20:25:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:msrcq.1536$***@newsfe21.ams2...
> "Charles E. Hardwidge" <***@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:j4ru5b$kki$***@dont-email.me...
>> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:uuecq.12010$***@newsfe14.ams2...
>>> "Charles E. Hardwidge" <***@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:j4rnjv$lfk$***@dont-email.me...
>>>> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:%T9cq.7377$***@newsfe22.ams2...
>>>>>
>>>>> I love that line and use it all the time - usually as a get-out clause
>>>>> when I'm acting the goat!
>>>>>
>>>>> My memory's a bit hazy on this, but has a "Doctor Who" story ever used
>>>>> the line: "Do sit down? Shocks are so much better absorbed with the
>>>>> knees bent"?
>>>>
>>>> Too much information!
>>>
>>> Are you having a brain spasm again, Chaz?
>>
>> They're your squalid domestic practices! Next time stick to the alter
>> candles.
>
> What the fuck ARE you on about?

That's what we're all wondering about YOU, you dirty birdie.

Getting savagely buggered by goats? Blech. You 13th level wizards of
Discordia are a funny bunch.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge
john smith
2011-09-16 04:38:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Charles E. Hardwidge" <***@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j4tmv6$jvb$***@dont-email.me...
> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:msrcq.1536$***@newsfe21.ams2...
>> "Charles E. Hardwidge" <***@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:j4ru5b$kki$***@dont-email.me...
>>> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uuecq.12010$***@newsfe14.ams2...
>>>> "Charles E. Hardwidge" <***@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:j4rnjv$lfk$***@dont-email.me...
>>>>> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:%T9cq.7377$***@newsfe22.ams2...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I love that line and use it all the time - usually as a get-out
>>>>>> clause
>>>>>> when I'm acting the goat!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My memory's a bit hazy on this, but has a "Doctor Who" story ever
>>>>>> used
>>>>>> the line: "Do sit down? Shocks are so much better absorbed with the
>>>>>> knees bent"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Too much information!
>>>>
>>>> Are you having a brain spasm again, Chaz?
>>>
>>> They're your squalid domestic practices! Next time stick to the alter
>>> candles.
>>
>> What the fuck ARE you on about?
>
> That's what we're all wondering about YOU, you dirty birdie.
>
> Getting savagely buggered by goats? Blech. You 13th level wizards of
> Discordia are a funny bunch.
>
> --
> Charles E. Hardwidge
>

I forgot - you're a literalist dickhead softy southerner who's never heard
of the expression "acting the goat".

Educate yourself and you wouldn't be such an ignorant prick, eh? Have you
ever heard of this thing called Google?
Charles E. Hardwidge
2011-09-16 05:50:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:spAcq.7$***@newsfe12.ams2...
>
> "Charles E. Hardwidge" <***@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:j4tmv6$jvb$***@dont-email.me...
>> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:msrcq.1536$***@newsfe21.ams2...
>>> "Charles E. Hardwidge" <***@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:j4ru5b$kki$***@dont-email.me...
>>>> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:uuecq.12010$***@newsfe14.ams2...
>>>>> "Charles E. Hardwidge" <***@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:j4rnjv$lfk$***@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:%T9cq.7377$***@newsfe22.ams2...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I love that line and use it all the time - usually as a get-out
>>>>>>> clause when I'm acting the goat!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My memory's a bit hazy on this, but has a "Doctor Who" story ever
>>>>>>> used the line: "Do sit down? Shocks are so much better absorbed
>>>>>>> with the knees bent"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Too much information!
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you having a brain spasm again, Chaz?
>>>>
>>>> They're your squalid domestic practices! Next time stick to the alter
>>>> candles.
>>>
>>> What the fuck ARE you on about?
>>
>> That's what we're all wondering about YOU, you dirty birdie.
>>
>> Getting savagely buggered by goats? Blech. You 13th level wizards of
>> Discordia are a funny bunch.
>
> I forgot - you're a literalist dickhead softy southerner who's never heard
> of the expression "acting the goat".
>
> Educate yourself and you wouldn't be such an ignorant prick, eh? Have you
> ever heard of this thing called Google?

You sour faced Yorkshire men are an easy wind-up. No wonder the North Sea is
full of so much wind and piss. The run-off must make nuns cross themselves.

Knowledge is porridge!

--
Charles E. Hardwidge
john smith
2011-09-16 17:39:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
>>>>>>>> I love that line and use it all the time - usually as a get-out
>>>>>>>> clause when I'm acting the goat!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My memory's a bit hazy on this, but has a "Doctor Who" story ever
>>>>>>>> used the line: "Do sit down? Shocks are so much better absorbed
>>>>>>>> with the knees bent"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Too much information!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you having a brain spasm again, Chaz?
>>>>>
>>>>> They're your squalid domestic practices! Next time stick to the alter
>>>>> candles.
>>>>
>>>> What the fuck ARE you on about?
>>>
>>> That's what we're all wondering about YOU, you dirty birdie.
>>>
>>> Getting savagely buggered by goats? Blech. You 13th level wizards of
>>> Discordia are a funny bunch.
>>
>> I forgot - you're a literalist dickhead softy southerner who's never
>> heard
>> of the expression "acting the goat".
>>
>> Educate yourself and you wouldn't be such an ignorant prick, eh? Have
>> you
>> ever heard of this thing called Google?
>
> You sour faced Yorkshire men are an easy wind-up. No wonder the North Sea
> is
> full of so much wind and piss. The run-off must make nuns cross
> themselves.
>
> Knowledge is porridge!
>
> --
> Charles E. Hardwidge


I'm not from Yorkshire. As I said, educate yourself before you mouth off...
Charles E. Hardwidge
2011-09-16 19:22:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:lRLcq.126$***@newsfe12.ams2...
>
>>>>>>>>> I love that line and use it all the time - usually as a get-out
>>>>>>>>> clause when I'm acting the goat!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My memory's a bit hazy on this, but has a "Doctor Who" story ever
>>>>>>>>> used the line: "Do sit down? Shocks are so much better absorbed
>>>>>>>>> with the knees bent"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Too much information!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you having a brain spasm again, Chaz?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They're your squalid domestic practices! Next time stick to the alter
>>>>>> candles.
>>>>>
>>>>> What the fuck ARE you on about?
>>>>
>>>> That's what we're all wondering about YOU, you dirty birdie.
>>>>
>>>> Getting savagely buggered by goats? Blech. You 13th level wizards of
>>>> Discordia are a funny bunch.
>>>
>>> I forgot - you're a literalist dickhead softy southerner who's never
>>> heard of the expression "acting the goat".
>>>
>>> Educate yourself and you wouldn't be such an ignorant prick, eh? Have
>>> you ever heard of this thing called Google?
>>
>> You sour faced Yorkshire men are an easy wind-up. No wonder the North Sea
>> is full of so much wind and piss. The run-off must make nuns cross
>> themselves.
>>
>> Knowledge is porridge!
>
> I'm not from Yorkshire. As I said, educate yourself before you mouth
> off...

C'mon with the foaming mouth cross-dressing and just admit you're a
Yorkshire man trapped in the wrong county you pig headed knee-jerk.

Anyway, who wants to schmoogle you? Puh-leeze.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Duggy
2011-09-16 23:15:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sep 17, 3:39 am, "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I'm not from Yorkshire.  As I said, educate yourself before you mouth off...

Tony "Yorkie" Smith from the early seasons of "The Bill" was. Perhaps
he's confusing you with him.

Perhaps you need to stop dressing like a policeman when posting to the
group.

It creates confusion.

===
= DUG.
===
The Doctor
2011-09-16 23:51:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <1cd8e8f6-7e64-4160-b34b-***@h7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 17, 3:39=A0am, "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> I'm not from Yorkshire. =A0As I said, educate yourself before you mouth o=
>ff...
>
>Tony "Yorkie" Smith from the early seasons of "The Bill" was. Perhaps
>he's confusing you with him.
>
>Perhaps you need to stop dressing like a policeman when posting to the
>group.
>
>It creates confusion.
>

<VBG>
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
The Doctor
2011-09-14 22:27:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <dN4cq.2111$***@newsfe28.ams2>,
Stephen Wilson <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Jon V" <***@example.com> wrote in message
>news:***@giganews.com...
><snip>
>>>
>>> Why are you here?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I thought you said you were here to share your opinions and criticisms of
>> one of your favorite TV shows. What, then, has this question got to do
>> with that?
>
>OK then. That's cleared that up. This "dicussion" is terminated.
>
><plonk>
>
>

Self inferiority I take it?
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
Agamemnon
2011-09-13 22:23:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Jon V" <***@example.com> wrote in message
news:***@giganews.com...
> On 9/12/2011 9:57 AM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>> "Jon V"<***@example.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@giganews.com...
>>> On 9/11/2011 3:24 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>>>> "maffster"<***@snhs.sch.im> wrote in message
>>>> news:6983fbed-72f4-4b53-896e-***@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Saturday, 10 September 2011 23:33:54 UTC+1, Agamemnon wrote:
>>>>>> So Amy spends 36 years being chased by dumb robots, and to get to
>>>>>> that,
>>>>>> two
>>>>>> weeks stuck in a room without any food or drink and without a toilet.
>>>>>> Yer,
>>>>>> right...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The more New Who attempts to do time paradoxes the dumber and dumber
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> get. That's why classic Doctor Who left them alone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If old Amy first time round persuaded young Amy not to be rescued and
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> second time around did the opposite then we are dealing with 3
>>>>>> different
>>>>>> Amy's all of which have their own independent existence, and all of
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> will continue to exist irrespective of what happens to young Amy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The producers tried to get out of the what happens to old Amy after
>>>>>> they've
>>>>>> all left, mess by having old Amy let the robots get her in the end,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> is Amy 2. What happened to Amy 1, the one who persuaded young Amy to
>>>>>> stay,
>>>>>> the young Amy that becomes Amy 2. And now that they've changed
>>>>>> everything
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> have Amy 3, the one that they took away with them in the TARDIS. In
>>>>>> fact
>>>>>> there could be an innumerable amount of Amys all of which continue to
>>>>>> exist
>>>>>> in their own independent time lines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apart from that, the magnifying glass prop looked like it was painted
>>>>>> wood
>>>>>> and the scene with the Doctor talking to Amy on the screen from
>>>>>> inside
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> TARDIS was worthy of Playschool. Primitive CSO and a shaky camera
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> showed the sides of screen moving but the image inside always
>>>>>> remaining
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the same place relative to the camera instead of moving with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway the story would have worked better if they'd taken it more
>>>>>> seriously
>>>>>> and we'd seen more of how Amy survived during those 36 years, ala
>>>>>> Robinson
>>>>>> Crusoe, and they'd cut out the two weeks without a toilet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 9/10
>>>>>
>>>>> When Amy first tells the Doctor and Rory she has been their for a
>>>>> week,
>>>>> they mention food, and that in the accelerated timeline she doesn't
>>>>> need
>>>>> to eat (after all it's only a day). One assumes that goes for oneses
>>>>> and
>>>>> twoses too.
>>>>
>>>> That makes no sense at all.
>>>
>>> OK, then. The machine provided with some. OK? Jesus...
>>
>> And that pretty much sums it up. The entire premise of the story is based
>> on
>> nonsense. Doesn't matter to you because you've not tried to get it to
>> make
>> sense.
>
> It's a TV show. For kids. It's 50 years old. It's not going to make sense.
> You are trying to force it into something it was never intended to be.

It's a family show and kids aren't all stupid.

The problem isn't just with science which plainly wrong, it's with lazy
writers that can't write stories that make sense and treat their readers
like idiots.

How can Amy not need food on the basis that time for her has been sped up?
Wouldn't her digestion be sped up to and the virus the computer thinks she's
is carrying?

If instead she's in multiple time streams and able to experience everything
simultaneously then why has she aged and why don't all the multiple Amys
join back together in the end?

Why does the computer think she's carrying the virus in the first place?
Aren't the handbots supposed to be able to detect if it's there or not?

If she has got this virus and is a carrier then why doesn't she infect the
Doctor when she goes back into the TARDIS. The same goes for Rory infecting
the Doctor too?


>
> Enjoy the show for what it is. It's not the word of god.
Ross
2011-09-13 22:46:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sep 13, 6:23 pm, "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> "Jon V" <***@example.com> wrote in message
>
> news:***@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9/12/2011 9:57 AM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
> >> "Jon V"<***@example.com>  wrote in message
> >>news:***@giganews.com...
> >>> On 9/11/2011 3:24 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
> >>>> "maffster"<***@snhs.sch.im>   wrote in message
> >>>>news:6983fbed-72f4-4b53-896e-***@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>> On Saturday, 10 September 2011 23:33:54 UTC+1, Agamemnon  wrote:
> >>>>>> So Amy spends 36 years being chased by dumb robots, and to get to
> >>>>>> that,
> >>>>>> two
> >>>>>> weeks stuck in a room without any food or drink and without a toilet.
> >>>>>> Yer,
> >>>>>> right...
>
> >>>>>> The more New Who attempts to do time paradoxes the dumber and dumber
> >>>>>> they
> >>>>>> get. That's why classic Doctor Who left them alone.
>
> >>>>>> If old Amy first time round persuaded young Amy not to be rescued and
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> second time around did the opposite then we are dealing with 3
> >>>>>> different
> >>>>>> Amy's all of which have their own independent existence, and all of
> >>>>>> which
> >>>>>> will continue to exist irrespective of what happens to young Amy.
>
> >>>>>> The producers tried to get out of the what happens to old Amy after
> >>>>>> they've
> >>>>>> all left, mess by having old Amy let the robots get her in the end,
> >>>>>> but
> >>>>>> this
> >>>>>> is Amy 2. What happened to Amy 1, the one who persuaded young Amy to
> >>>>>> stay,
> >>>>>> the young Amy that becomes Amy 2. And now that they've changed
> >>>>>> everything
> >>>>>> we
> >>>>>> have Amy 3, the one that they took away with them in the TARDIS. In
> >>>>>> fact
> >>>>>> there could be an innumerable amount of Amys all of which continue to
> >>>>>> exist
> >>>>>> in their own independent time lines.
>
> >>>>>> Apart from that, the magnifying glass prop looked like it was painted
> >>>>>> wood
> >>>>>> and the scene with the Doctor talking to Amy on the screen from
> >>>>>> inside
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> TARDIS was worthy of Playschool. Primitive CSO and a shaky camera
> >>>>>> which
> >>>>>> showed the sides of screen moving but the image inside always
> >>>>>> remaining
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>> the same place relative to the camera instead of moving with it.
>
> >>>>>> Anyway the story would have worked better if they'd taken it more
> >>>>>> seriously
> >>>>>> and we'd seen more of how Amy survived during those 36 years, ala
> >>>>>> Robinson
> >>>>>> Crusoe, and they'd cut out the two weeks without a toilet.
>
> >>>>>> 9/10
>
> >>>>> When Amy first tells the Doctor and Rory she has been their for a
> >>>>> week,
> >>>>> they mention food, and that in the accelerated  timeline she doesn't
> >>>>> need
> >>>>> to eat (after all it's only a day). One assumes that goes for oneses
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> twoses too.
>
> >>>> That makes no sense at all.
>
> >>> OK, then. The machine provided with some. OK?  Jesus...
>
> >> And that pretty much sums it up. The entire premise of the story is based
> >> on
> >> nonsense. Doesn't matter to you because you've not tried to get it to
> >> make
> >> sense.
>
> > It's a TV show. For kids. It's 50 years old. It's not going to make sense.
> > You are trying to force it into something it was never intended to be.
>
> It's a family show and kids aren't all stupid.
>
> The problem isn't just with science which plainly wrong, it's with lazy
> writers that can't write stories that make sense and treat their readers
> like idiots.
>

Well, really the problem is that sad fanboys are so sure of their own
arrogant imagined superiority that they will desperately cling to
straws to find a way to complain. Your average child is indeed clever
enough to make sense of this story.

> How can Amy not need food on the basis that time for her has been sped up?
> Wouldn't her digestion be sped up to and the virus the computer thinks she's
> is carrying?
>

If you actually listen to the episode, no one ever says that her time
has been sped up, just that it's on a "different track" from theirs.
If you do not make the unwarranted assumption that her time is sped
up, then there's no reason to ask why her digestion isn't sped up.

In fact, given that the Doctor concludes that she is undergoing time
compression *specifically because she identifies that she hasn't
needed to eat for a week*, it is clear that her biological processes
are neither being sped up nor slowed down, but are "compressed", this
being the word the show used.

The narrative does not halt to give us a dump of exposition about what
that means, because there's no need; anyone who pays even cursory
attention can sort it out: *without* speeding up or slowing down her
body processes, her *experience* of living has been stretched out so
that she can have an entire lifetime of experiences within the span of
a single day. It bears some similarities to living in accelerated
time, but is emphatically not the same.


> If instead she's in multiple time streams and able to experience everything
> simultaneously then why has she aged and why don't all the multiple Amys
> join back together in the end?
>

These are the only choices, then?

> Why does the computer think she's carrying the virus in the first place?
> Aren't the handbots supposed to be able to detect if it's there or not?
>
> If she has got this virus and is a carrier then why doesn't she infect the
> Doctor when she goes back into the TARDIS. The same goes for Rory infecting
> the Doctor too?
>

I don't recall the computer ever doing anything to indicate that it
thought she was carrying the virus. I don't recall anything that
supposes the computer would care one way or the other. It's programmed
not to let anyone out once they've come in. Why would the handbots be
designed to detect the presence of a virus when the entire purpose of
the facility is that it would only ever be entered by people with the
virus.
China Blue Corn Chips
2011-09-13 23:18:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <b7903d37-b2b3-4089-9546-***@d26g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Ross <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:

> body processes, her *experience* of living has been stretched out so
> that she can have an entire lifetime of experiences within the span of
> a single day. It bears some similarities to living in accelerated
> time, but is emphatically not the same.

The she shouldn't have aged.

There was a Deep Space Nine episode that handled this better. As punishment one
of the crew had to experience a life imprisonment. He lives and ages through all
the years; at the end it is revealed it was only a sped up experience but in
reality he was only imprisonned for one day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Time_(Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine)

--
I remember finding out about you, |With the nutty taste of wild hickory nuts.
Everyday my mind is all around you,| I'm whoever you want me to be.
Looking out from my lonely room | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Day after day. | At least I can stay in character.
Celle est une langue. C'est francais et tres, tres sexuel.
Jon V
2011-09-13 23:56:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 9/13/2011 4:18 PM, China Blue Corn Chips wrote:
> In article<b7903d37-b2b3-4089-9546-***@d26g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> Ross<***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> body processes, her *experience* of living has been stretched out so
>> that she can have an entire lifetime of experiences within the span of
>> a single day. It bears some similarities to living in accelerated
>> time, but is emphatically not the same.
>
> The she shouldn't have aged.

Why not? It's apparently how it works, as it did indeed work that way.

>
> There was a Deep Space Nine episode that handled this better. As punishment one
> of the crew had to experience a life imprisonment. He lives and ages through all
> the years; at the end it is revealed it was only a sped up experience but in
> reality he was only imprisonned for one day.
>

Why should the impossibility of Deep Space Nine be any more correct than
the impossibility of Dr. Who?
China Blue Corn Chips
2011-09-14 00:17:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <qr-***@giganews.com>,
Jon V <***@example.com> wrote:

> On 9/13/2011 4:18 PM, China Blue Corn Chips wrote:
> > In
> > article<b7903d37-b2b3-4089-9546-***@d26g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> > Ross<***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> >> body processes, her *experience* of living has been stretched out so
> >> that she can have an entire lifetime of experiences within the span of
> >> a single day. It bears some similarities to living in accelerated
> >> time, but is emphatically not the same.
> >
> > The she shouldn't have aged.
>
> Why not? It's apparently how it works, as it did indeed work that way.

It's not consistent with suspension of other metabolic processes.

> > There was a Deep Space Nine episode that handled this better. As punishment
> > one
> > of the crew had to experience a life imprisonment. He lives and ages
> > through all
> > the years; at the end it is revealed it was only a sped up experience but
> > in
> > reality he was only imprisonned for one day.
> >
>
> Why should the impossibility of Deep Space Nine be any more correct than
> the impossibility of Dr. Who?

It's not about possibility but consistency.

--
I remember finding out about you, |With the nutty taste of wild hickory nuts.
Everyday my mind is all around you,| I'm whoever you want me to be.
Looking out from my lonely room | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Day after day. | At least I can stay in character.
Celle est une langue. C'est francais et tres, tres sexuel.
Jon V
2011-09-14 01:43:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 9/13/2011 5:17 PM, China Blue Corn Chips wrote:
> In article<qr-***@giganews.com>,
> Jon V<***@example.com> wrote:

>> Why not? It's apparently how it works, as it did indeed work that way.
>
> It's not consistent with suspension of other metabolic processes.


Maybe the facility was able to deal with it somehow. Are you honestly
expecting metabolic processes to work as you expect they would in a show
with a time machine in it?

The metabolic processes were either in some way altered or did not apply.

Real science does not apply. Trying to apply real science in a show that
is utterly without any realistic science is nonsensical.

>
> It's not about possibility but consistency.
>

Maybe the rules are supposed to change, and since they do all the time,
that must be how it works in the Dr. Who universe.

That makes it consistent.
China Blue Corn Chips
2011-09-14 02:27:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <58GdnU5-fcUtm-***@giganews.com>,
Jon V <***@example.com> wrote:

> On 9/13/2011 5:17 PM, China Blue Corn Chips wrote:
> > In article<qr-***@giganews.com>,
> > Jon V<***@example.com> wrote:
>
> >> Why not? It's apparently how it works, as it did indeed work that way.
> >
> > It's not consistent with suspension of other metabolic processes.
>
>
> Maybe the facility was able to deal with it somehow. Are you honestly
> expecting metabolic processes to work as you expect they would in a show
> with a time machine in it?

Internal consistency is an important factor in suspension of disbelief. Where
internal rules are not given, external rules apply. People tolerate some pretty
wild premises, like a time travelling blue box or vampires and teenager that
slays them, if the rules of the premise are consistently applied.
Inconsistencies interfere with suspension of disbelief, and when severe, break
it completely.

In my case I can't accept Amy was no where offerred to speak to an actual person
who could recognise the system glitched for her and correct it. That is so basic
to human systems I can't accept aliens would not consider it.

> The metabolic processes were either in some way altered or did not apply.

What others are caught on is that some processes were alterred and others were
not. If she had a lifetime experience while only aging one day, they wouldn't
need to have Rory make a terrible choice at the end: so the rules appear to be
only to give Rory a bad time. It's harder to feel anything for character being
jerked around by the writers like a Punch or Judy doll.

I laughed at the end of Torchwood series 2 because the premises were so
ridiculous: a reactor would fail to scram on loss of power; the staff would flee
the safety of the control room; the containment could vent through the control
room; that three people would simultaneously enter lockable rooms with nobody
standing outside in case the rooms somehow did lock. I also cheer the dinosaurs
in Jurrasiac Park sequels because the humans were such idiot dicks they all
deserved their fates.

If you're okay with creating expensive, unintentional comedies, ignore the rules.

> Maybe the rules are supposed to change, and since they do all the time,
> that must be how it works in the Dr. Who universe.

Drama and good comedy arise from characters coping with restrictions. If the
writer simply alters the restrictions because they've written themselves into a
corner, it ceases to be drama and becomes bad comedy.

HG Wells used a deus ex machina ending to War of the Worlds to make a socialist
point about power of the underclass against the elite of society. However the
deus ex machina is so ridiculous, it's hard to get that point. (It's much
clearer in the TIme Machine.) His other point about inflicting on the English
what they were at that time inflicting on India and Africa does stand. (It's
hard to tell if Battlefield LA was intended to compare Los Angeles to Baghdad
and Kabul.)

--
I remember finding out about you, |With the nutty taste of wild hickory nuts.
Everyday my mind is all around you,| I'm whoever you want me to be.
Looking out from my lonely room | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Day after day. | At least I can stay in character.
Celle est une langue. C'est francais et tres, tres sexuel.
Jon V
2011-09-14 03:05:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 9/13/2011 7:27 PM, China Blue Corn Chips wrote:
> In article<58GdnU5-fcUtm-***@giganews.com>,
> Jon V<***@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/13/2011 5:17 PM, China Blue Corn Chips wrote:
>>> In article<qr-***@giganews.com>,
>>> Jon V<***@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Why not? It's apparently how it works, as it did indeed work that way.
>>>
>>> It's not consistent with suspension of other metabolic processes.
>>
>>
>> Maybe the facility was able to deal with it somehow. Are you honestly
>> expecting metabolic processes to work as you expect they would in a show
>> with a time machine in it?
>
> Internal consistency is an important factor in suspension of disbelief.

The problem is that, even in real life, you can't always have internal
consistency. Look at the JFK assassination. You have 50 ways of telling
the same exact story. Some bits are missing here or there. People take
all sides of an issue, and interpret things differently, or to a degree
another person would find implausible.

Your suspension of disbelief depends on what you are willing to disbelieve.


> Where
> internal rules are not given, external rules apply. People tolerate some pretty
> wild premises, like a time travelling blue box or vampires and teenager that
> slays them, if the rules of the premise are consistently applied.
> Inconsistencies interfere with suspension of disbelief, and when severe, break
> it completely.

I think the issue here is how stringently you are willing to apply
external rules, or how willingly you are willing to just accept what is
going on without detailed and time consuming exposition. The phrase
"Take it as given" comes into play. You just take it as given that the
things you see are possible within the story.

I understand what you are saying, though. When things make no sense, but
asking questions like "Where did she get food from" aren't about not
making sense. Those are details of things not shown, but are explainable
in many ways, and are unimportant to the story at hand.


>
> In my case I can't accept Amy was no where offerred to speak to an actual person
> who could recognise the system glitched for her and correct it. That is so basic
> to human systems I can't accept aliens would not consider it.
>

Planes today can basically fly on their own. All sorts of systems run
automatically. So why not this thing? Maybe all the aliens were afraid
of going into the place. Maybe they were all dead. Anything can be true,
or not true. These details do not interfere with the basic storyline.



>> The metabolic processes were either in some way altered or did not apply.
>
> What others are caught on is that some processes were alterred and others were
> not.

I guess that's how it must work then. Either that, or the system served
her a buffet every evening. Or some other thing.

> If she had a lifetime experience while only aging one day, they wouldn't
> need to have Rory make a terrible choice at the end: so the rules appear to be
> only to give Rory a bad time. It's harder to feel anything for character being
> jerked around by the writers like a Punch or Judy doll.

Characters are always only jerked around by a Punch and Judy doll. John
Cleese once mentioned how on Fawlty Towers how he felt like a god moving
Basil around in a little maze until he came to his unpleasant end each
episode.

The easiest thing to do, really, is to say, "this is how it works."
Otherwise, maybe the machine made her sandwiches. In any case, it was
taken care of, somehow, in a manner you did not need to see.


>
> I laughed at the end of Torchwood series 2 because the premises were so
> ridiculous: a reactor would fail to scram on loss of power; the staff would flee
> the safety of the control room; the containment could vent through the control
> room; that three people would simultaneously enter lockable rooms with nobody
> standing outside in case the rooms somehow did lock. I also cheer the dinosaurs
> in Jurrasiac Park sequels because the humans were such idiot dicks they all
> deserved their fates.

You managed to watch the Jurassic Park sequels? Wow.


>
> If you're okay with creating expensive, unintentional comedies, ignore the rules.

The rules constantly change. That's one of the rules.

>
>> Maybe the rules are supposed to change, and since they do all the time,
>> that must be how it works in the Dr. Who universe.
>
> Drama and good comedy arise from characters coping with restrictions. If the
> writer simply alters the restrictions because they've written themselves into a
> corner, it ceases to be drama and becomes bad comedy.

Yes. Restrictions. And those restrictions change to suit the story.
Honestly, you can't have 50 years of stories without contradictory
instances. You can't even do it with non-fiction. If the rules never
change, and they keep piling on top of one another, the shows would not
be of much interest, as nothing would be able to be done. Can't do that,
can't do this....Dr. Who would consist of people sitting around going
"oh well..."


>
> HG Wells used a deus ex machina ending to War of the Worlds to make a socialist
> point about power of the underclass against the elite of society. However the
> deus ex machina is so ridiculous, it's hard to get that point. (It's much
> clearer in the TIme Machine.) His other point about inflicting on the English
> what they were at that time inflicting on India and Africa does stand. (It's
> hard to tell if Battlefield LA was intended to compare Los Angeles to Baghdad
> and Kabul.)
>

Battlefield LA was one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
China Blue Corn Chips
2011-09-14 03:29:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <***@giganews.com>,
Jon V <***@example.com> wrote:

> > in Jurrasiac Park sequels because the humans were such idiot dicks they all
> > deserved their fates.
>
> You managed to watch the Jurassic Park sequels? Wow.

They were funny. I like good bad movies like Plan Nine or Spaced Invaders or
Neverending Story 3 (the Howling).

> Yes. Restrictions. And those restrictions change to suit the story.
> Honestly, you can't have 50 years of stories without contradictory
> instances. You can't even do it with non-fiction. If the rules never

I expect consistency in each locale of each episode. That allows
characterisation as the plot unfolds to a believable climax.

--
I remember finding out about you, |With the nutty taste of wild hickory nuts.
Everyday my mind is all around you,| I'm whoever you want me to be.
Looking out from my lonely room | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Day after day. | At least I can stay in character.
Celle est une langue. C'est francais et tres, tres sexuel.
Ross
2011-09-14 04:01:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sep 13, 11:05 pm, Jon V <***@example.com> wrote:
> On 9/13/2011 7:27 PM, China Blue Corn Chips wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > If you're okay with creating expensive, unintentional comedies, ignore the rules.
>
> The rules constantly change. That's one of the rules.
>
>

As true as that is, I have yet to see anyone say where they got this
particular "rule" from. NOTHING in this episode contradicted any
established rule* -- there's no past story where someone is placed in
a compressed time stream and ages but needs to eat, there's no story
where someone is placed in a compressed time stream and neither ages
nor needs to eat.

All we've gotten is "I made up my own rules about how this should work
based on nothing at all in the show, and they violated those rules!"

Folks here have a LONG history of failing to realize that your own
drawn conclusions, however logical they may seem based on the evidence
on-screen so far, are NOT THE SAME THING as things we have actually
been shown and told. That time was accelerated, or that any particular
biological processes were sped up, slowed down or suspended, those are
all *guesses* based on what we were told, they are *not* facts, no
matter how much the person saying it is convinced that their
explanation is the only possible one.

(Me, I believe that Twin Tracks is using a higher-dimensional analogue
(that is, something which is in an important respect _similar to_, but
is not _the same as_, and therefore not simply dismissed by pointing
out some element of the analogy which could not be literally true of
this scenario) of the quantum immortality thought experiment: by
running all the days of the patient's life "in parallel", all the
normal life functions still go on, but it impossible for them to
*experience* dying by any cause, because it's impossible to be alive
at any point later in your life than when you died, so in a
parallelized time-track, there is always a point later in your life
where you are alive which already exists. Or, "simply", "old you"
can't die as long as "young you" is alive, and "young you" isn't going
to starve to death in a single day. Which is, quite obviously,
difficult to comprehend and goes against our intuitive understanding
of how time and causality works, but is it really any more bizarre
than all the rest of quantum mechanics? )



(* I don't think the two amys ever physically touched. If they did,
this would on its surface be a rule change from Mawdryn Undead, though
that rule has alredy been heavily modified and qualified by The Big
Bang and A Christmas Carol)
Jon V
2011-09-14 08:39:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 9/13/2011 9:01 PM, Ross wrote:
> On Sep 13, 11:05 pm, Jon V<***@example.com> wrote:
>> On 9/13/2011 7:27 PM, China Blue Corn Chips wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> If you're okay with creating expensive, unintentional comedies, ignore the rules.
>>
>> The rules constantly change. That's one of the rules.
>>
>>
>
> As true as that is, I have yet to see anyone say where they got this
> particular "rule" from.

You don't have to know where the rule comes from, only observe that this
is the rule.

For example, gravity. Gravity exists. It's a rule. We don't know fully
know the exact mechanism of it, but it still works.



>
> All we've gotten is "I made up my own rules about how this should work
> based on nothing at all in the show, and they violated those rules!"

Then they just invented more rules. When the show first started, all it
did was violate rules. Things happen on the show, and have always
happened on the show based on nothing at all. Just the ramblings of some
writer someplace that made up something that sounded good at the time.


> That time was accelerated, or that any particular
> biological processes were sped up, slowed down or suspended, those are
> all *guesses* based on what we were told, they are *not* facts, no
> matter how much the person saying it is convinced that their
> explanation is the only possible one.
>

What you were told. What you were told may not have been all the facts,
or what you were told may have in said in error. The simple fact is that
it worked somehow, and there is no full explanation how. For the story
to proceed you don't need a full explanation.


> (Me, I believe that Twin Tracks is using a higher-dimensional analogue
> (that is, something which is in an important respect _similar to_, but
> is not _the same as_, and therefore not simply dismissed by pointing
> out some element of the analogy which could not be literally true of
> this scenario) of the quantum immortality thought experiment: by
> running all the days of the patient's life "in parallel", all the
> normal life functions still go on, but it impossible for them to
> *experience* dying by any cause, because it's impossible to be alive
> at any point later in your life than when you died, so in a
> parallelized time-track, there is always a point later in your life
> where you are alive which already exists. Or, "simply", "old you"
> can't die as long as "young you" is alive, and "young you" isn't going
> to starve to death in a single day. Which is, quite obviously,
> difficult to comprehend and goes against our intuitive understanding
> of how time and causality works, but is it really any more bizarre
> than all the rest of quantum mechanics? )
>


Sounds like a fine theory. As good as any. I think my theory is a bit
simpler: It just works out that way, and somehow it was taken care of in
some manner.
>
>
> (* I don't think the two amys ever physically touched. If they did,
> this would on its surface be a rule change from Mawdryn Undead, though
> that rule has alredy been heavily modified and qualified by The Big
> Bang and A Christmas Carol)

Yes, so, it is not a consistent rule. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it
doesn't. I guess we don't know all the rules. They must change for
particular situations which we are unable as viewers to determine.
Ross
2011-09-15 02:03:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sep 14, 4:39 am, Jon V <***@example.com> wrote:
> On 9/13/2011 9:01 PM, Ross wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 13, 11:05 pm, Jon V<***@example.com>  wrote:
> >> On 9/13/2011 7:27 PM, China Blue Corn Chips wrote:
>
> >>> If you're okay with creating expensive, unintentional comedies, ignore the rules.
>
> >> The rules constantly change. That's one of the rules.
>
> > As true as that is, I have yet to see anyone say where they got this
> > particular "rule" from.
>
> You don't have to know where the rule comes from, only observe that this
> is the rule.
>
> For example, gravity. Gravity exists. It's a rule. We don't know fully
> know the exact mechanism of it, but it still works.
>
>
>
> > All we've gotten is "I made up my own rules about how this should work
> > based on nothing at all in the show, and they violated those rules!"
>
> Then they just invented more rules.  When the show first started, all it
> did was violate rules. Things happen on the show, and have always
> happened on the show based on nothing at all. Just the ramblings of some
> writer someplace that made up something that sounded good at the time.
>
> >  That time was accelerated, or that any particular
> > biological processes were sped up, slowed down or suspended, those are
> > all *guesses* based on what we were told, they are *not* facts, no
> > matter how much the person saying it is convinced that their
> > explanation is the only possible one.
>
> What you were told. What you were told may not have been all the facts,
> or what you were told may have in said in error. The simple fact is that
> it worked somehow, and there is no full explanation how. For the story
> to proceed you don't need a full explanation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > (Me, I believe that Twin Tracks is using a higher-dimensional analogue
> > (that is, something which is in an important respect _similar to_, but
> > is not _the same as_, and therefore not simply dismissed by pointing
> > out some element of the analogy which could not be literally true of
> > this scenario) of the quantum immortality thought experiment: by
> > running all the days of the patient's life "in parallel", all the
> > normal life functions still go on, but it impossible for them to
> > *experience* dying by any cause, because it's impossible to be alive
> > at any point later in your life than when you died, so in a
> > parallelized time-track, there is always a point later in your life
> > where you are alive which already exists. Or, "simply", "old you"
> > can't die as long as "young you" is alive, and "young you" isn't going
> > to starve to death in a single day. Which is, quite obviously,
> > difficult to comprehend and goes against our intuitive understanding
> > of how time and causality works, but is it really any more bizarre
> > than all the rest of quantum mechanics?  )
>
> Sounds like a fine theory. As good as any. I think my theory is a bit
> simpler: It just works out that way, and somehow it was taken care of in
> some manner.
>
>
>
> > (* I don't think the two amys ever physically touched. If they did,
> > this would on its surface be a rule change from Mawdryn Undead, though
> > that rule has alredy been heavily modified and qualified by The Big
> > Bang and A Christmas Carol)
>
> Yes, so, it is not a consistent rule. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it
> doesn't.  I guess we don't know all the rules. They must change for
> particular situations which we are unable as viewers to determine.

Actually, there's a lot implied about what the rules are, even though
very little is said outright. The two sonic screwdrivers produce an
energy discharge when they touch in The Big Bang just like the two
brigadiers had, but neither the doctors nor the amys react. The Doctor
failed to react to himself in any of the multi-doctor stories. From
this, I conclude that the effect does not apply to Time Lords, and
that child Amy and adult Amy do not count as the same person because
Child Amy is from the altered Pandorica timeline.

In A Christmas Carol, the child and adult Kazran do not react, and
this is, IMO, *foreshadowing* of the fact that when the adult Kazran
tries to use the isomorphic controls, they reject him: he's "changed
too much" and is no longer the same person. (That said, we might also
draw the conclusion, based on TBB and ACC, that the same person as a
child and an adult do not "count", which would be an interesting idea)
Jon V
2011-09-15 03:30:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 9/14/2011 7:03 PM, Ross wrote:
> On Sep 14, 4:39 am, Jon V<***@example.com> wrote:
>> On 9/13/2011 9:01 PM, Ross wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 13, 11:05 pm, Jon V<***@example.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/13/2011 7:27 PM, China Blue Corn Chips wrote:
>>
>>>>> If you're okay with creating expensive, unintentional comedies, ignore the rules.
>>
>>>> The rules constantly change. That's one of the rules.
>>
>>> As true as that is, I have yet to see anyone say where they got this
>>> particular "rule" from.
>>
>> You don't have to know where the rule comes from, only observe that this
>> is the rule.
>>
>> For example, gravity. Gravity exists. It's a rule. We don't know fully
>> know the exact mechanism of it, but it still works.
>>
>>
>>
>>> All we've gotten is "I made up my own rules about how this should work
>>> based on nothing at all in the show, and they violated those rules!"
>>
>> Then they just invented more rules. When the show first started, all it
>> did was violate rules. Things happen on the show, and have always
>> happened on the show based on nothing at all. Just the ramblings of some
>> writer someplace that made up something that sounded good at the time.
>>
>>> That time was accelerated, or that any particular
>>> biological processes were sped up, slowed down or suspended, those are
>>> all *guesses* based on what we were told, they are *not* facts, no
>>> matter how much the person saying it is convinced that their
>>> explanation is the only possible one.
>>
>> What you were told. What you were told may not have been all the facts,
>> or what you were told may have in said in error. The simple fact is that
>> it worked somehow, and there is no full explanation how. For the story
>> to proceed you don't need a full explanation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> (Me, I believe that Twin Tracks is using a higher-dimensional analogue
>>> (that is, something which is in an important respect _similar to_, but
>>> is not _the same as_, and therefore not simply dismissed by pointing
>>> out some element of the analogy which could not be literally true of
>>> this scenario) of the quantum immortality thought experiment: by
>>> running all the days of the patient's life "in parallel", all the
>>> normal life functions still go on, but it impossible for them to
>>> *experience* dying by any cause, because it's impossible to be alive
>>> at any point later in your life than when you died, so in a
>>> parallelized time-track, there is always a point later in your life
>>> where you are alive which already exists. Or, "simply", "old you"
>>> can't die as long as "young you" is alive, and "young you" isn't going
>>> to starve to death in a single day. Which is, quite obviously,
>>> difficult to comprehend and goes against our intuitive understanding
>>> of how time and causality works, but is it really any more bizarre
>>> than all the rest of quantum mechanics? )
>>
>> Sounds like a fine theory. As good as any. I think my theory is a bit
>> simpler: It just works out that way, and somehow it was taken care of in
>> some manner.
>>
>>
>>
>>> (* I don't think the two amys ever physically touched. If they did,
>>> this would on its surface be a rule change from Mawdryn Undead, though
>>> that rule has alredy been heavily modified and qualified by The Big
>>> Bang and A Christmas Carol)
>>
>> Yes, so, it is not a consistent rule. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it
>> doesn't. I guess we don't know all the rules. They must change for
>> particular situations which we are unable as viewers to determine.
>
> Actually, there's a lot implied about what the rules are, even though
> very little is said outright.


There's what is implied and what is inferred. An implication is not
something to base a solid rule on. Besides, since these events are in
fact contradictory to each other, this then simply implies even further
rules.

Lots of rules.


> The two sonic screwdrivers produce an
> energy discharge when they touch in The Big Bang just like the two
> brigadiers had, but neither the doctors nor the amys react. The Doctor
> failed to react to himself in any of the multi-doctor stories. From
> this, I conclude that the effect does not apply to Time Lords, and
> that child Amy and adult Amy do not count as the same person because
> Child Amy is from the altered Pandorica timeline.

Well, that certainly is a complex rule. More complex than what would aim
for, which is "That's how it's supposed to work." But I can understand
the pleasure that is derived from trying to reconcile every show of the
past fifty years or so into a set of rules that cannot, even if they
were true, be comprehended by human beings.
Duggy
2011-09-16 15:43:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sep 14, 2:01 pm, Ross <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
> (* I don't think the two amys ever physically touched. If they did,
> this would on its surface be a rule change from Mawdryn Undead, though
> that rule has alredy been heavily modified and qualified by The Big
> Bang and A Christmas Carol)

The Doctor said there couldn't be 2 Amys on the TARDIS.

The end of "Time" and most of "Space" says otherwise.

===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
2011-09-16 15:43:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sep 14, 12:27 pm, China Blue Corn Chips <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Internal consistency is an important factor in suspension of disbelief. Where
> internal rules are not given, external rules apply.

Internal rules were given at 05:40.

===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
2011-09-16 11:06:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sep 14, 10:17 am, China Blue Corn Chips <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> In article <qr-***@giganews.com>,
> > Why not? It's apparently how it works, as it did indeed work that way.
> It's not consistent with suspension of other metabolic processes.

The suspension of metabolic processes was required. If that didn't
happen the timeline would not have been created.

> > Why should the impossibility of Deep Space Nine be any more correct than
> > the impossibility of Dr. Who?
> It's not about possibility but consistency.

It was consistent with the premise of an episode.

===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
2011-09-16 11:03:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sep 14, 9:18 am, China Blue Corn Chips <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> In article <b7903d37-b2b3-4089-9546-***@d26g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  Ross <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
> > body processes, her *experience* of living has been stretched out so
> > that she can have an entire lifetime of experiences within the span of
> > a single day. It bears some similarities to living in accelerated
> > time, but is emphatically not the same.
>
> The she shouldn't have aged.

They created the timeline to cause the aging and experience of a
lifetime while the eating and disease continued existed in real time.

Do you remember the basic premise?

===
= DUG.
===
The Doctor
2011-09-16 19:38:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <3916ef7d-90a2-49eb-b249-***@h7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 14, 12:27=A0pm, China Blue Corn Chips <***@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> Internal consistency is an important factor in suspension of disbelief. W=
>here
>> internal rules are not given, external rules apply.
>
>Internal rules were given at 05:40.
>

In which time stream?
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
Jon V
2011-09-13 23:53:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 9/13/2011 3:23 PM, Agamemnon wrote:

>
> It's a family show and kids aren't all stupid.

Well, ok, it's a family show. It's a bit silly for adults, even though I
like it.

>
> The problem isn't just with science which plainly wrong, it's with lazy
> writers that can't write stories that make sense and treat their readers
> like idiots.
>

Of course the science is plainly wrong. The basis of the show flies in
the face of known science.

> How can Amy not need food on the basis that time for her has been sped up?

Maybe the system provided it for her. What's the difference?


> Wouldn't her digestion be sped up to and the virus the computer thinks she's
> is carrying?

Maybe. Somehow it was provided for, apparently.


>
> If instead she's in multiple time streams and able to experience everything
> simultaneously then why has she aged and why don't all the multiple Amys
> join back together in the end?
>

I guess it doesn't work that way.

> Why does the computer think she's carrying the virus in the first place?


Maybe it has a glitch.


> Aren't the handbots supposed to be able to detect if it's there or not?

I don't know. I didn't program the handbots. Apparently those who did
did not account for this situation.

>
> If she has got this virus and is a carrier then why doesn't she infect the
> Doctor when she goes back into the TARDIS. The same goes for Rory infecting
> the Doctor too?
>

Maybe she doesn't have it and isn't a carrier. Maybe it can't be carried
by people with one heart. Maybe the virus is now dead. Maybe it was all
a dream.

These questions are all kind of silly, don't you think? Each question
can be easily answered with as ridiculous a suggestion as ridiculous as
the show itself is. You can't apply reality to a show that is in itself
completely unrealistic.
The Doctor
2011-09-14 00:59:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <***@eclipse.net.uk>,
Agamemnon <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>"Jon V" <***@example.com> wrote in message
>news:***@giganews.com...
>> On 9/12/2011 9:57 AM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>>> "Jon V"<***@example.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@giganews.com...
>>>> On 9/11/2011 3:24 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>>>>> "maffster"<***@snhs.sch.im> wrote in message
>>>>> news:6983fbed-72f4-4b53-896e-***@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On Saturday, 10 September 2011 23:33:54 UTC+1, Agamemnon wrote:
>>>>>>> So Amy spends 36 years being chased by dumb robots, and to get to
>>>>>>> that,
>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>> weeks stuck in a room without any food or drink and without a toilet.
>>>>>>> Yer,
>>>>>>> right...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The more New Who attempts to do time paradoxes the dumber and dumber
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> get. That's why classic Doctor Who left them alone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If old Amy first time round persuaded young Amy not to be rescued and
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> second time around did the opposite then we are dealing with 3
>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>> Amy's all of which have their own independent existence, and all of
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> will continue to exist irrespective of what happens to young Amy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The producers tried to get out of the what happens to old Amy after
>>>>>>> they've
>>>>>>> all left, mess by having old Amy let the robots get her in the end,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> is Amy 2. What happened to Amy 1, the one who persuaded young Amy to
>>>>>>> stay,
>>>>>>> the young Amy that becomes Amy 2. And now that they've changed
>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>> have Amy 3, the one that they took away with them in the TARDIS. In
>>>>>>> fact
>>>>>>> there could be an innumerable amount of Amys all of which continue to
>>>>>>> exist
>>>>>>> in their own independent time lines.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apart from that, the magnifying glass prop looked like it was painted
>>>>>>> wood
>>>>>>> and the scene with the Doctor talking to Amy on the screen from
>>>>>>> inside
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> TARDIS was worthy of Playschool. Primitive CSO and a shaky camera
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> showed the sides of screen moving but the image inside always
>>>>>>> remaining
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> the same place relative to the camera instead of moving with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway the story would have worked better if they'd taken it more
>>>>>>> seriously
>>>>>>> and we'd seen more of how Amy survived during those 36 years, ala
>>>>>>> Robinson
>>>>>>> Crusoe, and they'd cut out the two weeks without a toilet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 9/10
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When Amy first tells the Doctor and Rory she has been their for a
>>>>>> week,
>>>>>> they mention food, and that in the accelerated timeline she doesn't
>>>>>> need
>>>>>> to eat (after all it's only a day). One assumes that goes for oneses
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> twoses too.
>>>>>
>>>>> That makes no sense at all.
>>>>
>>>> OK, then. The machine provided with some. OK? Jesus...
>>>
>>> And that pretty much sums it up. The entire premise of the story is based
>>> on
>>> nonsense. Doesn't matter to you because you've not tried to get it to
>>> make
>>> sense.
>>
>> It's a TV show. For kids. It's 50 years old. It's not going to make sense.
>> You are trying to force it into something it was never intended to be.
>
>It's a family show and kids aren't all stupid.
>
>The problem isn't just with science which plainly wrong, it's with lazy
>writers that can't write stories that make sense and treat their readers
>like idiots.
>
>How can Amy not need food on the basis that time for her has been sped up?
>Wouldn't her digestion be sped up to and the virus the computer thinks she's
>is carrying?
>
>If instead she's in multiple time streams and able to experience everything
>simultaneously then why has she aged and why don't all the multiple Amys
>join back together in the end?
>
>Why does the computer think she's carrying the virus in the first place?
>Aren't the handbots supposed to be able to detect if it's there or not?
>
>If she has got this virus and is a carrier then why doesn't she infect the
>Doctor when she goes back into the TARDIS. The same goes for Rory infecting
>the Doctor too?
>
>
>>
>> Enjoy the show for what it is. It's not the word of god.
>
>

Lids are brighter than atheists.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
Stephen Wilson
2011-09-14 17:38:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:***@eclipse.net.uk...
>
>>
>> It's a TV show. For kids. It's 50 years old. It's not going to make
>> sense. You are trying to force it into something it was never intended to
>> be.
>
> It's a family show and kids aren't all stupid.
>
> The problem isn't just with science which plainly wrong, it's with lazy
> writers that can't write stories that make sense and treat their readers
> like idiots.
>
> How can Amy not need food on the basis that time for her has been sped up?
> Wouldn't her digestion be sped up to and the virus the computer thinks
> she's is carrying?
>
> If instead she's in multiple time streams and able to experience
> everything simultaneously then why has she aged and why don't all the
> multiple Amys join back together in the end?
>
> Why does the computer think she's carrying the virus in the first place?
> Aren't the handbots supposed to be able to detect if it's there or not?

For that matter... if Amy is already in isolation, why are all those
handbots wandering around trying to give medication to people who are going
to die in a day anyway?
Jon V
2011-09-14 18:38:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 9/14/2011 10:38 AM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
> "Agamemnon"<***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:***@eclipse.net.uk...

>>
>> Why does the computer think she's carrying the virus in the first place?
>> Aren't the handbots supposed to be able to detect if it's there or not?
>
> For that matter... if Amy is already in isolation, why are all those
> handbots wandering around trying to give medication to people who are going
> to die in a day anyway?
>


Because she had an unexpected bacteria that they thought should not be
there.
>
>
solar penguin
2011-09-15 09:59:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Agamemnon wrote:

>
> How can Amy not need food on the basis that time for her has been sped up?

I'm amazed that no-one else seems to have responded with the right
answer, but...

She probably doesn't need food for exactly the same reason the chicken
didn't need food in City Of Death, and the Doctor didn't need it when
time was sped up for him in The Leisure Hive and The Sound Of Drums.

We've no idea what it is, but it's been part of continuity for so long
that we can assume it's just somehow what happens when someone's
personal time is sped up/slowed down/stretched out in the DW universe,
and it would've been a major continuity error if this story hadn't
included it.

However, it's use in this episode was still bad writing, but _not_
because of what happened (since other stories had done it before) but
because of _how_ it was shown.

The previous stories had kept us outside of the altered timestream,
looking in. We didn't live through the Doctor's ageing from his POV,
and we certainly weren't asked to empathise with the chicken! It
was just a brief moment of spectacle as part of a larger story.

OTOH The Girl Who Waited draws us into Amy's altered timestream, and
expects us to empathise and identify with her in it. Worse, it makes
this the whole episode. Yet, it doesn't seem to realise that realise
identifying with her will cause our natural human curiosity about
other people to make us "wonder how she eats and breathes and other
(personal, not necessarily science) facts."

This approach could possibly work if the episode was a satirical
deconstruction of the whole idea, with Rory becoming steadily more
sarcastic asking the questions that would occur to the viewer, and
getting more and more frustrated with the Doctor's handwavey answers.
But instead the idea is played straight, and we're expected to just
accept things and not wonder about other people's lives (even a life
as odd as this) although this goes against all of human nature.

And natural human curiosity aside, DW itself is the show of a man who
wants to see things first hand, and not trust received wisdom handed
down from authority (as demonstrated by his comments at the end of the
episode), so is it really that surprising that its fans should include
people who feel the same way?
The Doctor
2011-09-12 00:47:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <_wabq.8206$***@newsfe24.ams2>,
Stephen Wilson <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"maffster" <***@snhs.sch.im> wrote in message
>news:6983fbed-72f4-4b53-896e-***@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
>> On Saturday, 10 September 2011 23:33:54 UTC+1, Agamemnon wrote:
>>> So Amy spends 36 years being chased by dumb robots, and to get to that,
>>> two
>>> weeks stuck in a room without any food or drink and without a toilet.
>>> Yer,
>>> right...
>>>
>>> The more New Who attempts to do time paradoxes the dumber and dumber they
>>> get. That's why classic Doctor Who left them alone.
>>>
>>> If old Amy first time round persuaded young Amy not to be rescued and the
>>> second time around did the opposite then we are dealing with 3 different
>>> Amy's all of which have their own independent existence, and all of which
>>> will continue to exist irrespective of what happens to young Amy.
>>>
>>> The producers tried to get out of the what happens to old Amy after
>>> they've
>>> all left, mess by having old Amy let the robots get her in the end, but
>>> this
>>> is Amy 2. What happened to Amy 1, the one who persuaded young Amy to
>>> stay,
>>> the young Amy that becomes Amy 2. And now that they've changed everything
>>> we
>>> have Amy 3, the one that they took away with them in the TARDIS. In fact
>>> there could be an innumerable amount of Amys all of which continue to
>>> exist
>>> in their own independent time lines.
>>>
>>> Apart from that, the magnifying glass prop looked like it was painted
>>> wood
>>> and the scene with the Doctor talking to Amy on the screen from inside
>>> the
>>> TARDIS was worthy of Playschool. Primitive CSO and a shaky camera which
>>> showed the sides of screen moving but the image inside always remaining
>>> in
>>> the same place relative to the camera instead of moving with it.
>>>
>>> Anyway the story would have worked better if they'd taken it more
>>> seriously
>>> and we'd seen more of how Amy survived during those 36 years, ala
>>> Robinson
>>> Crusoe, and they'd cut out the two weeks without a toilet.
>>>
>>> 9/10
>>
>> When Amy first tells the Doctor and Rory she has been their for a week,
>> they mention food, and that in the accelerated timeline she doesn't need
>> to eat (after all it's only a day). One assumes that goes for oneses and
>> twoses too.
>
>That makes no sense at all. If Amy was in an accelerated timeline then
>*everything* would have to accelerate. That includes eating food and
>expelling its waste products. You need food to provide you with energy. Even
>when you're not moving your body needs energy just to stay alive - heart
>beating, lungs breathing, etc. If Amy's timeline was accelerated, so was her
>need for energy. So her requirement for food would have accelerated along
>with everything else.
>
>

And then there is the disarmed robot.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
Ryan P.
2011-09-12 03:32:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 9/11/2011 5:24 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:

> That makes no sense at all. If Amy was in an accelerated timeline then
> *everything* would have to accelerate. That includes eating food and
> expelling its waste products. You need food to provide you with energy. Even
> when you're not moving your body needs energy just to stay alive - heart
> beating, lungs breathing, etc. If Amy's timeline was accelerated, so was her
> need for energy. So her requirement for food would have accelerated along
> with everything else.

Of course it doesn't make sense... Its a science fiction show for
children....
The Doctor
2011-09-12 14:19:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <j4jugr$mkn$***@dont-email.me>,
Ryan P. <***@wi.rr.comm> wrote:
>On 9/11/2011 5:24 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>
>> That makes no sense at all. If Amy was in an accelerated timeline then
>> *everything* would have to accelerate. That includes eating food and
>> expelling its waste products. You need food to provide you with energy. Even
>> when you're not moving your body needs energy just to stay alive - heart
>> beating, lungs breathing, etc. If Amy's timeline was accelerated, so was her
>> need for energy. So her requirement for food would have accelerated along
>> with everything else.
>
> Of course it doesn't make sense... Its a science fiction show for
>children....

IT is a whole family show.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
solar penguin
2011-09-12 14:44:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The Doctor wrote:

> In article <j4jugr$mkn$***@dont-email.me>,
> Ryan P. <***@wi.rr.comm> wrote:
> >
> > Of course it doesn't make sense... Its a science fiction show for
> >children....
>
> IT is a whole family show.

IIRC it was someone like Terrance Dicks who used to say Dr Who has to
be complicated and intelligent enough for children to enjoy, but also
simple enough for the grown ups to follow.
The Doctor
2011-09-12 15:12:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <6db8957f-4f38-4499-b14c-***@g31g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
solar penguin <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The Doctor wrote:
>
>> In article <j4jugr$mkn$***@dont-email.me>,
>> Ryan P. <***@wi.rr.comm> wrote:
>> >
>> > Of course it doesn't make sense... Its a science fiction show for
>> >children....
>>
>> IT is a whole family show.
>
>IIRC it was someone like Terrance Dicks who used to say Dr Who has to
>be complicated and intelligent enough for children to enjoy, but also
>simple enough for the grown ups to follow.

Sounds correct.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
solar penguin
2011-09-15 11:35:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Yads said:

> In article <6db8957f-4f38-4499-b14c-***@g31g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> solar penguin <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Yads said:
> >
> >>
> >> IT is a whole family show.
> >
> >IIRC it was someone like Terrance Dicks who used to say Dr Who has to
> >be complicated and intelligent enough for children to enjoy, but also
> >simple enough for the grown ups to follow.
>
> Sounds correct.

Unfortunately, it wasn't correct. That was Douglas Adams, not
Terrance Dicks. :(
The Doctor
2011-09-15 11:42:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <1cfa10b6-5afa-4f28-9ada-***@y21g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
solar penguin <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Yads said:
>
>> In article <6db8957f-4f38-4499-b14c-***@g31g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>> solar penguin <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Yads said:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> IT is a whole family show.
>> >
>> >IIRC it was someone like Terrance Dicks who used to say Dr Who has to
>> >be complicated and intelligent enough for children to enjoy, but also
>> >simple enough for the grown ups to follow.
>>
>> Sounds correct.
>
>Unfortunately, it wasn't correct. That was Douglas Adams, not
>Terrance Dicks. :(

WE were close.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
Stephen Wilson
2011-09-12 16:48:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Ryan P." <***@wi.rr.comm> wrote in message
news:j4jugr$mkn$***@dont-email.me...
> On 9/11/2011 5:24 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>
>> That makes no sense at all. If Amy was in an accelerated timeline then
>> *everything* would have to accelerate. That includes eating food and
>> expelling its waste products. You need food to provide you with energy.
>> Even
>> when you're not moving your body needs energy just to stay alive - heart
>> beating, lungs breathing, etc. If Amy's timeline was accelerated, so was
>> her
>> need for energy. So her requirement for food would have accelerated along
>> with everything else.
>
> Of course it doesn't make sense... Its a science fiction show for
> children....

So you're saying that children shouldn't be treated as if they have any
intelligence?

Once upon a time the aim of Dr Who wasn't just about entertainment - it was
also about education. If something of an historical nature was presented, it
was ensured that those historical details were accurate. The same should be
true today. And it should also be true of more esoteric areas. Basic
scientific principles should not be completely done away with simply because
the writer doesn't understand them.
Ross
2011-09-12 18:39:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sep 12, 12:48 pm, "Stephen Wilson"
<***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Ryan P." <***@wi.rr.comm> wrote in message
>
> news:j4jugr$mkn$***@dont-email.me...
>
> > On 9/11/2011 5:24 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>
> >> That makes no sense at all. If Amy was in an accelerated timeline then
> >> *everything* would have to accelerate. That includes eating food and
> >> expelling its waste products. You need food to provide you with energy.
> >> Even
> >> when you're not moving your body needs energy just to stay alive - heart
> >> beating, lungs breathing, etc. If Amy's timeline was accelerated, so was
> >> her
> >> need for energy. So her requirement for food would have accelerated along
> >> with everything else.
>
> >  Of course it doesn't make sense... Its a science fiction show for
> > children....
>
> So you're saying that children shouldn't be treated as if they have any
> intelligence?
>
> Once upon a time the aim of Dr Who wasn't just about entertainment - it was
> also about education. If something of an historical nature was presented, it
> was ensured that those historical details were accurate. The same should be
> true today. And it should also be true of more esoteric areas. Basic
> scientific principles should not be completely done away with simply because
> the writer doesn't understand them.

Yes, like the cavemen in 100,000 BC discovering fire and worshiping
Orb.
Ignis Fatuus
2011-09-12 18:52:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:39:31 -0700 (PDT), Ross
<***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:

>On Sep 12, 12:48 pm, "Stephen Wilson"
><***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> "Ryan P." <***@wi.rr.comm> wrote in message
>>
>> news:j4jugr$mkn$***@dont-email.me...
>>
>> > On 9/11/2011 5:24 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>>
>> >> That makes no sense at all. If Amy was in an accelerated timeline then
>> >> *everything* would have to accelerate. That includes eating food and
>> >> expelling its waste products. You need food to provide you with energy.
>> >> Even
>> >> when you're not moving your body needs energy just to stay alive - heart
>> >> beating, lungs breathing, etc. If Amy's timeline was accelerated, so was
>> >> her
>> >> need for energy. So her requirement for food would have accelerated along
>> >> with everything else.
>>
>> >  Of course it doesn't make sense... Its a science fiction show for
>> > children....
>>
>> So you're saying that children shouldn't be treated as if they have any
>> intelligence?
>>
>> Once upon a time the aim of Dr Who wasn't just about entertainment - it was
>> also about education. If something of an historical nature was presented, it
>> was ensured that those historical details were accurate. The same should be
>> true today. And it should also be true of more esoteric areas. Basic
>> scientific principles should not be completely done away with simply because
>> the writer doesn't understand them.
>
>Yes, like the cavemen in 100,000 BC discovering fire and worshiping
>Orb.

It was ahead of it's time. The movie Quest For Fire (1980) was a smash
hit in the cinemas. Loved the political satire, with the female Hur
offered as prize to the winning candidate, and effortlessly
manipulating the proceedings. Altogether a terrific start to the show.
Pity they don't make 'em like that anymore.
john smith
2011-09-12 20:44:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Ignis Fatuus" <***@fatuusisland.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:39:31 -0700 (PDT), Ross
> <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 12, 12:48 pm, "Stephen Wilson"
>><***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> "Ryan P." <***@wi.rr.comm> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:j4jugr$mkn$***@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> > On 9/11/2011 5:24 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> >> That makes no sense at all. If Amy was in an accelerated timeline
>>> >> then
>>> >> *everything* would have to accelerate. That includes eating food and
>>> >> expelling its waste products. You need food to provide you with
>>> >> energy.
>>> >> Even
>>> >> when you're not moving your body needs energy just to stay alive -
>>> >> heart
>>> >> beating, lungs breathing, etc. If Amy's timeline was accelerated, so
>>> >> was
>>> >> her
>>> >> need for energy. So her requirement for food would have accelerated
>>> >> along
>>> >> with everything else.
>>>
>>> > Of course it doesn't make sense... Its a science fiction show for
>>> > children....
>>>
>>> So you're saying that children shouldn't be treated as if they have any
>>> intelligence?
>>>
>>> Once upon a time the aim of Dr Who wasn't just about entertainment - it
>>> was
>>> also about education. If something of an historical nature was
>>> presented, it
>>> was ensured that those historical details were accurate. The same should
>>> be
>>> true today. And it should also be true of more esoteric areas. Basic
>>> scientific principles should not be completely done away with simply
>>> because
>>> the writer doesn't understand them.
>>
>>Yes, like the cavemen in 100,000 BC discovering fire and worshiping
>>Orb.
>
> It was ahead of it's time. The movie Quest For Fire (1980) was a smash
> hit in the cinemas. Loved the political satire, with the female Hur
> offered as prize to the winning candidate, and effortlessly
> manipulating the proceedings. Altogether a terrific start to the show.
> Pity they don't make 'em like that anymore.
>


Top film - haven't seen it for years! And they went to the trouble of
creating a fictional 'language' for the Neanderthals, too...

Although, of course, we all know they were really telepathic... ;-)
Ignis Fatuus
2011-09-12 21:46:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:44:28 +0100, "john smith"
<***@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>
>"Ignis Fatuus" <***@fatuusisland.com> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:39:31 -0700 (PDT), Ross
>> <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 12, 12:48 pm, "Stephen Wilson"
>>><***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>> "Ryan P." <***@wi.rr.comm> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:j4jugr$mkn$***@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>> > On 9/11/2011 5:24 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> That makes no sense at all. If Amy was in an accelerated timeline
>>>> >> then
>>>> >> *everything* would have to accelerate. That includes eating food and
>>>> >> expelling its waste products. You need food to provide you with
>>>> >> energy.
>>>> >> Even
>>>> >> when you're not moving your body needs energy just to stay alive -
>>>> >> heart
>>>> >> beating, lungs breathing, etc. If Amy's timeline was accelerated, so
>>>> >> was
>>>> >> her
>>>> >> need for energy. So her requirement for food would have accelerated
>>>> >> along
>>>> >> with everything else.
>>>>
>>>> > Of course it doesn't make sense... Its a science fiction show for
>>>> > children....
>>>>
>>>> So you're saying that children shouldn't be treated as if they have any
>>>> intelligence?
>>>>
>>>> Once upon a time the aim of Dr Who wasn't just about entertainment - it
>>>> was
>>>> also about education. If something of an historical nature was
>>>> presented, it
>>>> was ensured that those historical details were accurate. The same should
>>>> be
>>>> true today. And it should also be true of more esoteric areas. Basic
>>>> scientific principles should not be completely done away with simply
>>>> because
>>>> the writer doesn't understand them.
>>>
>>>Yes, like the cavemen in 100,000 BC discovering fire and worshiping
>>>Orb.
>>
>> It was ahead of it's time. The movie Quest For Fire (1980) was a smash
>> hit in the cinemas. Loved the political satire, with the female Hur
>> offered as prize to the winning candidate, and effortlessly
>> manipulating the proceedings. Altogether a terrific start to the show.
>> Pity they don't make 'em like that anymore.
>>
>
>
>Top film - haven't seen it for years! And they went to the trouble of
>creating a fictional 'language' for the Neanderthals, too...
>
>Although, of course, we all know they were really telepathic... ;-)
>
I guess it sounded more 'authentic' than the broken RP of the DW
production... but I rather missed the cheesy jokes and subversive wit
that came through the Tardis translation circuits. First rate story.
I'm watching it again just now. That Alethea was a hot bit of stuff...
Turned up in the Time Meddler too. Did a lot of telly in the sixties.
Died in '76.
john smith
2011-09-12 23:38:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Ignis Fatuus" <***@fatuusisland.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:44:28 +0100, "john smith"
> <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ignis Fatuus" <***@fatuusisland.com> wrote in message
>>news:***@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:39:31 -0700 (PDT), Ross
>>> <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sep 12, 12:48 pm, "Stephen Wilson"
>>>><***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Ryan P." <***@wi.rr.comm> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:j4jugr$mkn$***@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>> > On 9/11/2011 5:24 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> That makes no sense at all. If Amy was in an accelerated timeline
>>>>> >> then
>>>>> >> *everything* would have to accelerate. That includes eating food
>>>>> >> and
>>>>> >> expelling its waste products. You need food to provide you with
>>>>> >> energy.
>>>>> >> Even
>>>>> >> when you're not moving your body needs energy just to stay alive -
>>>>> >> heart
>>>>> >> beating, lungs breathing, etc. If Amy's timeline was accelerated,
>>>>> >> so
>>>>> >> was
>>>>> >> her
>>>>> >> need for energy. So her requirement for food would have accelerated
>>>>> >> along
>>>>> >> with everything else.
>>>>>
>>>>> > Of course it doesn't make sense... Its a science fiction show for
>>>>> > children....
>>>>>
>>>>> So you're saying that children shouldn't be treated as if they have
>>>>> any
>>>>> intelligence?
>>>>>
>>>>> Once upon a time the aim of Dr Who wasn't just about entertainment -
>>>>> it
>>>>> was
>>>>> also about education. If something of an historical nature was
>>>>> presented, it
>>>>> was ensured that those historical details were accurate. The same
>>>>> should
>>>>> be
>>>>> true today. And it should also be true of more esoteric areas. Basic
>>>>> scientific principles should not be completely done away with simply
>>>>> because
>>>>> the writer doesn't understand them.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, like the cavemen in 100,000 BC discovering fire and worshiping
>>>>Orb.
>>>
>>> It was ahead of it's time. The movie Quest For Fire (1980) was a smash
>>> hit in the cinemas. Loved the political satire, with the female Hur
>>> offered as prize to the winning candidate, and effortlessly
>>> manipulating the proceedings. Altogether a terrific start to the show.
>>> Pity they don't make 'em like that anymore.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Top film - haven't seen it for years! And they went to the trouble of
>>creating a fictional 'language' for the Neanderthals, too...
>>
>>Although, of course, we all know they were really telepathic... ;-)
>>
> I guess it sounded more 'authentic' than the broken RP of the DW
> production... but I rather missed the cheesy jokes and subversive wit
> that came through the Tardis translation circuits. First rate story.



Weren't they supposed to be Cro-Magnons in that one?



> I'm watching it again just now. That Alethea was a hot bit of stuff...
> Turned up in the Time Meddler too. Did a lot of telly in the sixties.
> Died in '76.
Ignis Fatuus
2011-09-13 00:10:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 00:38:07 +0100, "john smith"
<***@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>
>"Ignis Fatuus" <***@fatuusisland.com> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:44:28 +0100, "john smith"
>> <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Ignis Fatuus" <***@fatuusisland.com> wrote in message
>>>news:***@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:39:31 -0700 (PDT), Ross
>>>> <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sep 12, 12:48 pm, "Stephen Wilson"
>>>>><***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Ryan P." <***@wi.rr.comm> wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> news:j4jugr$mkn$***@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On 9/11/2011 5:24 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> That makes no sense at all. If Amy was in an accelerated timeline
>>>>>> >> then
>>>>>> >> *everything* would have to accelerate. That includes eating food
>>>>>> >> and
>>>>>> >> expelling its waste products. You need food to provide you with
>>>>>> >> energy.
>>>>>> >> Even
>>>>>> >> when you're not moving your body needs energy just to stay alive -
>>>>>> >> heart
>>>>>> >> beating, lungs breathing, etc. If Amy's timeline was accelerated,
>>>>>> >> so
>>>>>> >> was
>>>>>> >> her
>>>>>> >> need for energy. So her requirement for food would have accelerated
>>>>>> >> along
>>>>>> >> with everything else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Of course it doesn't make sense... Its a science fiction show for
>>>>>> > children....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you're saying that children shouldn't be treated as if they have
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> intelligence?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once upon a time the aim of Dr Who wasn't just about entertainment -
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> also about education. If something of an historical nature was
>>>>>> presented, it
>>>>>> was ensured that those historical details were accurate. The same
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> true today. And it should also be true of more esoteric areas. Basic
>>>>>> scientific principles should not be completely done away with simply
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> the writer doesn't understand them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, like the cavemen in 100,000 BC discovering fire and worshiping
>>>>>Orb.
>>>>
>>>> It was ahead of it's time. The movie Quest For Fire (1980) was a smash
>>>> hit in the cinemas. Loved the political satire, with the female Hur
>>>> offered as prize to the winning candidate, and effortlessly
>>>> manipulating the proceedings. Altogether a terrific start to the show.
>>>> Pity they don't make 'em like that anymore.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Top film - haven't seen it for years! And they went to the trouble of
>>>creating a fictional 'language' for the Neanderthals, too...
>>>
>>>Although, of course, we all know they were really telepathic... ;-)
>>>
>> I guess it sounded more 'authentic' than the broken RP of the DW
>> production... but I rather missed the cheesy jokes and subversive wit
>> that came through the Tardis translation circuits. First rate story.
>
>
>
>Weren't they supposed to be Cro-Magnons in that one?
>
>
It's not even clear that they're still on Earth. In fact the Doctor
loses his little book... and the rest is history.
>
>> I'm watching it again just now. That Alethea was a hot bit of stuff...
>> Turned up in the Time Meddler too. Did a lot of telly in the sixties.
>> Died in '76.
>
The Doctor
2011-09-12 22:34:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <bad17c30-5d1b-434f-8df6-***@h6g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Ross <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>On Sep 12, 12:48=A0pm, "Stephen Wilson"
><***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> "Ryan P." <***@wi.rr.comm> wrote in message
>>
>> news:j4jugr$mkn$***@dont-email.me...
>>
>> > On 9/11/2011 5:24 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>>
>> >> That makes no sense at all. If Amy was in an accelerated timeline then
>> >> *everything* would have to accelerate. That includes eating food and
>> >> expelling its waste products. You need food to provide you with energy=
>.
>> >> Even
>> >> when you're not moving your body needs energy just to stay alive - hea=
>rt
>> >> beating, lungs breathing, etc. If Amy's timeline was accelerated, so w=
>as
>> >> her
>> >> need for energy. So her requirement for food would have accelerated al=
>ong
>> >> with everything else.
>>
>> > =A0Of course it doesn't make sense... Its a science fiction show for
>> > children....
>>
>> So you're saying that children shouldn't be treated as if they have any
>> intelligence?
>>
>> Once upon a time the aim of Dr Who wasn't just about entertainment - it w=
>as
>> also about education. If something of an historical nature was presented,=
> it
>> was ensured that those historical details were accurate. The same should =
>be
>> true today. And it should also be true of more esoteric areas. Basic
>> scientific principles should not be completely done away with simply beca=
>use
>> the writer doesn't understand them.
>
>Yes, like the cavemen in 100,000 BC discovering fire and worshiping
>Orb.
>

And the Doctor and companions.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
Stephen Wilson
2011-09-12 22:52:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Ross" <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote in message
news:bad17c30-5d1b-434f-8df6-***@h6g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 12, 12:48 pm, "Stephen Wilson"
<***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> "Ryan P." <***@wi.rr.comm> wrote in message
>>
>> news:j4jugr$mkn$***@dont-email.me...
>>
>> > On 9/11/2011 5:24 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>>
>> >> That makes no sense at all. If Amy was in an accelerated timeline then
>> >> *everything* would have to accelerate. That includes eating food and
>> >> expelling its waste products. You need food to provide you with
>> >> energy.
>> >> Even
>> >> when you're not moving your body needs energy just to stay alive -
>> >> heart
>> >> beating, lungs breathing, etc. If Amy's timeline was accelerated, so
>> >> was
>> >> her
>> >> need for energy. So her requirement for food would have accelerated
>> >> along
>> >> with everything else.
>>
>> > Of course it doesn't make sense... Its a science fiction show for
>> > children....
>>
>> So you're saying that children shouldn't be treated as if they have any
>> intelligence?
>>
>> Once upon a time the aim of Dr Who wasn't just about entertainment - it
>> was
>> also about education. If something of an historical nature was presented,
>> it
>> was ensured that those historical details were accurate. The same should
>> be
>> true today. And it should also be true of more esoteric areas. Basic
>> scientific principles should not be completely done away with simply
>> because
>> the writer doesn't understand them.
>
>Yes, like the cavemen in 100,000 BC discovering fire and worshiping
Orb.

I didn't think the idea of cavemen from 100,000 BC worshipping a sun god was
an unrealistic one. And the story was not really about "discovering" fire
but about the ability of a member of the tribe to produce fire on demand.

But I'm not much of an historian. I've not studied that era so I'm not
really qualified to comment on the historical accuracy (or otherwise) of the
portrayal of humans from 100,000 BC as demonstrated in that story.
maffster
2011-09-12 18:59:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, 11 September 2011 23:24:44 UTC+1, Stephen Wilson wrote:
> "maffster" <***@snhs.sch.im> wrote in message
> news:6983fbed-72f4-4b53-896e-***@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
> > On Saturday, 10 September 2011 23:33:54 UTC+1, Agamemnon wrote:
> >> So Amy spends 36 years being chased by dumb robots, and to get to that,
> >> two
> >> weeks stuck in a room without any food or drink and without a toilet.
> >> Yer,
> >> right...
> >>
> >> The more New Who attempts to do time paradoxes the dumber and dumber they
> >> get. That's why classic Doctor Who left them alone.
> >>
> >> If old Amy first time round persuaded young Amy not to be rescued and the
> >> second time around did the opposite then we are dealing with 3 different
> >> Amy's all of which have their own independent existence, and all of which
> >> will continue to exist irrespective of what happens to young Amy.
> >>
> >> The producers tried to get out of the what happens to old Amy after
> >> they've
> >> all left, mess by having old Amy let the robots get her in the end, but
> >> this
> >> is Amy 2. What happened to Amy 1, the one who persuaded young Amy to
> >> stay,
> >> the young Amy that becomes Amy 2. And now that they've changed everything
> >> we
> >> have Amy 3, the one that they took away with them in the TARDIS. In fact
> >> there could be an innumerable amount of Amys all of which continue to
> >> exist
> >> in their own independent time lines.
> >>
> >> Apart from that, the magnifying glass prop looked like it was painted
> >> wood
> >> and the scene with the Doctor talking to Amy on the screen from inside
> >> the
> >> TARDIS was worthy of Playschool. Primitive CSO and a shaky camera which
> >> showed the sides of screen moving but the image inside always remaining
> >> in
> >> the same place relative to the camera instead of moving with it.
> >>
> >> Anyway the story would have worked better if they'd taken it more
> >> seriously
> >> and we'd seen more of how Amy survived during those 36 years, ala
> >> Robinson
> >> Crusoe, and they'd cut out the two weeks without a toilet.
> >>
> >> 9/10
> >
> > When Amy first tells the Doctor and Rory she has been their for a week,
> > they mention food, and that in the accelerated timeline she doesn't need
> > to eat (after all it's only a day). One assumes that goes for oneses and
> > twoses too.
>
> That makes no sense at all. If Amy was in an accelerated timeline then
> *everything* would have to accelerate. That includes eating food and
> expelling its waste products. You need food to provide you with energy. Even
> when you're not moving your body needs energy just to stay alive - heart
> beating, lungs breathing, etc. If Amy's timeline was accelerated, so was her
> need for energy. So her requirement for food would have accelerated along
> with everything else.

I didn't say it made sense, just that there was an explanation offered. Criticising the show for not showing what they said wouldn't happen isn't a valid criticism. Criticising the explanation though is fair game!

--
Mr Maff
Duggy
2011-09-16 11:00:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sep 12, 8:24 am, "Stephen Wilson"
<***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> That makes no sense at all. If Amy was in an accelerated timeline then
> *everything* would have to accelerate.

If everything that accelerated then the plague suffers would be dead
in less than a minute.

Red Waterfall makes you age and experience at an accelerated rate, but
you only actually live a day.

===
= DUG.
===
Stephen Wilson
2011-09-16 11:08:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Duggy" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b972597-29cc-4c27-a192-***@u10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>On Sep 12, 8:24 am, "Stephen Wilson"
><***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> That makes no sense at all. If Amy was in an accelerated timeline then
>> *everything* would have to accelerate.
>
>If everything that accelerated then the plague suffers would be dead
>in less than a minute.
>
>Red Waterfall makes you age and experience at an accelerated rate, but
>you only actually live a day.

Yes. That's the premise. And it still makes no sense. If you only live a
day, you only age a day. If you age and experience at an accelerated rate,
so does the virus. So you'd still die in a day - whether at normal time or
at accelerated time.

Besides, if the society was sufficiently technologically advanced that it
could manipulate time like that, there's no way it wouldn't be able to
develop a proper cure for the virus...
Duggy
2011-09-16 11:12:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sep 16, 9:08 pm, "Stephen Wilson"
<***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Yes. That's the premise. And it still makes no sense. If you only live a
> day, you only age a day.

Not in the red waterfall.

> If you age and experience at an accelerated rate,

The aging process is sped up and the brain is sped up. You age and
experience a lifetime in an actual day.

> so does the virus. So you'd still die in a day - whether at normal time or
> at accelerated time.

Yes. In a day.

> Besides, if the society was sufficiently technologically advanced that it
> could manipulate time like that, there's no way it wouldn't be able to
> develop a proper cure for the virus...

There's no way a society that has the technology to put man on the
moon wouldn't be able to cure the common cold.

===
= DUG.
===
Stephen Wilson
2011-09-16 12:09:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Duggy" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3835ade2-638e-4d97-88b4-***@en1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 16, 9:08 pm, "Stephen Wilson"
<***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Yes. That's the premise. And it still makes no sense. If you only live a
>> day, you only age a day.
>
>Not in the red waterfall.

Yes. In the red waterfall. Or the green waterfall. Or even the tartan
waterfall.

>> If you age and experience at an accelerated rate,
>
>The aging process is sped up and the brain is sped up. You age and
>experience a lifetime in an actual day.

Which makes no sense. Not possible. If you experience a lifetime in one day,
you need to eat a lifetime's worth of food. And if you experience a lifetime
in one day, the virus will also experience that lifetime. Therefore the
virus doesn't kill in the period of a day - it kills in the period of a
lifetime.

>> so does the virus. So you'd still die in a day - whether at normal time
>> or
>> at accelerated time.
>
>Yes. In a day.

So you'd get a day's experience. Not a lifetime's.

>> Besides, if the society was sufficiently technologically advanced that it
>> could manipulate time like that, there's no way it wouldn't be able to
>> develop a proper cure for the virus...
>
>There's no way a society that has the technology to put man on the
>moon wouldn't be able to cure the common cold.

The science of getting a man to the moon is on a completely different scale
to the science of creating an immunity to over 200 types of cold virus. And
overcoming 200 types of cold virus is on a completely different scale again
to manipulating time.

It's a bit like suggesting that there's no way a society that has the
technology to create fire wouldn't be able to create steel.
Ross
2011-09-16 12:28:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sep 16, 8:09 am, "Stephen Wilson"
<***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Duggy" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3835ade2-638e-4d97-88b4-***@en1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 16, 9:08 pm, "Stephen Wilson"
>
> <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> Yes. That's the premise. And it still makes no sense. If you only live a
> >> day, you only age a day.
>
> >Not in the red waterfall.
>
> Yes. In the red waterfall. Or the green waterfall. Or even the tartan
> waterfall.
>
> >> If you age and experience at an accelerated rate,
>
> >The aging process is sped up and the brain is sped up.  You age and
> >experience a lifetime in an actual day.
>
> Which makes no sense. Not possible. If you experience a lifetime in one day,
> you need to eat a lifetime's worth of food. And if you experience a lifetime
> in one day, the virus will also experience that lifetime. Therefore the
> virus doesn't kill in the period of a day - it kills in the period of a
> lifetime.
>

It is exactly the same as:

* The Daleks Masterplan
* City of Death
* The Leisure Hive
* Mawdryn Undead
* Mark of the Rani
(But not Last of the Time Lords - that was genetic manipulation rather
than time manipulation)

The effect of time manipulation on living tissue is more complex than
you think it is. As you have never actually experienced time
manipulation, and there is no extant literature on the medical effects
of time manipulation, you are going way out on a limb to insist that
you know for a fact what effects it would have on human physiology.
The sort of manipulation of time we see in Twin Tracks is only
possible if there are entire laws of physics outside current human
knowledge. You can't say "Oh, yes, I believe there is an as-yet
undiscovered law of physics that would allow time to be compressed at
will like that, but it's flat-out impossible for there to be a law tat
lets time to be compressed in such a way that you don't need food."

You're doing the "Time travel doesn't really work like that" thing.
Will someone please tell me which school to go to if I want to learn
how dimensionally transcendental free movement through time and space
"really" works? All that physics I took and no one ever mentioned
that the details of how time travel worked were a solved problem. All
those math and philosophy classes, and no one ever said "Oh, here's
the scientfically proven laws for how causality works in the absence
of the constraint on the strict temporal ordering of cause and effect"
Stephen Wilson
2011-09-16 13:22:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Ross" <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote in message
news:94b7775c-c340-48f0-bd48-***@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
>The effect of time manipulation on living tissue is more complex than
>you think it is. As you have never actually experienced time
>manipulation, and there is no extant literature on the medical effects
>of time manipulation, you are going way out on a limb to insist that
>you know for a fact what effects it would have on human physiology.
>The sort of manipulation of time we see in Twin Tracks is only
>possible if there are entire laws of physics outside current human
>knowledge. You can't say "Oh, yes, I believe there is an as-yet
>undiscovered law of physics that would allow time to be compressed at
>will like that, but it's flat-out impossible for there to be a law tat
>lets time to be compressed in such a way that you don't need food."

So what you're suggesting is that energy was somehow pumped into the human
body by remote control - regardless of time manipulation, you cannot flex a
muscle without expending energy. You cannot age without cells dying and
others being created. You cannot create cells without expending energy. Even
ignoring this, and we accept that the human body's functions were magically
sped up by the facility without it requiring any additional energy, how did
it manage to not also speed up the functions of the virus that inhabited
that human body?

Can you speed up time? Probably not, but it's an interesting theoretical
concept. Breaking all laws of physics for the sake of the story turns an
interesting concept into a completely impossible one, and rather than
stretching incredulity simply breaks it.

An imaginative story concept is one thing. Abandoning all attempts at
plausibility when exploring that concept damages the story. Unfortunately
this story simply expects you to believe too many impossible things in one
sitting (IMHO of course).
Ross
2011-09-16 15:25:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sep 16, 9:22 am, "Stephen Wilson"
<***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Ross" <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote in message
>
> news:94b7775c-c340-48f0-bd48-***@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >The effect of time manipulation on living tissue is more complex than
> >you think it is. As you have never actually experienced time
> >manipulation, and there is no extant literature on the medical effects
> >of time manipulation, you are going way out on a limb to insist that
> >you know for a fact what effects it would have on human physiology.
> >The sort of manipulation of time we see in Twin Tracks is only
> >possible if there are entire laws of physics outside current human
> >knowledge. You can't say "Oh, yes, I believe there is an as-yet
> >undiscovered law of physics that would allow time to be compressed at
> >will like that, but it's flat-out impossible for there to be a law tat
> >lets time to be compressed in such a way that you don't need food."
>
> So what you're suggesting is that energy was somehow pumped into the human
> body by remote control - regardless of time manipulation, you cannot flex a
> muscle without expending energy. You cannot age without cells dying and
> others being created. You cannot create cells without expending energy. Even
> ignoring this, and we accept that the human body's functions were magically
> sped up by the facility without it requiring any additional energy, how did
> it manage to not also speed up the functions of the virus that inhabited
> that human body?
>


I am not suggesting that. It's a possibility, but you see, you're
doing it again: you *jumped to the conclusion* that the only way
someone could age without eating is for energy to be pumped into their
body by remote control. You don't know that. The one doesn't follow
necessarily from the other even if you can't think of an alternative
possibility (As it happens, I can think of like 3, but that's neither
here nor there)


> Can you speed up time? Probably not, but it's an interesting theoretical
> concept. Breaking all laws of physics for the sake of the story turns an
> interesting concept into a completely impossible one, and rather than
> stretching incredulity simply breaks it.
>
> An imaginative story concept is one thing. Abandoning all attempts at
> plausibility when exploring that concept damages the story. Unfortunately
> this story simply expects you to believe too many impossible things in one
> sitting (IMHO of course).

Yeah, see, I think it's silly to say "I can believe in time
compression, but not in the possibility of not needing to eat"
Duggy
2011-09-16 15:53:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sep 16, 10:09 pm, "Stephen Wilson"
<***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Duggy" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3835ade2-638e-4d97-88b4-***@en1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 16, 9:08 pm, "Stephen Wilson"
>
> <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> Yes. That's the premise. And it still makes no sense. If you only live a
> >> day, you only age a day.
> >Not in the red waterfall.
> Yes. In the red waterfall. Or the green waterfall. Or even the tartan
> waterfall.

Then you missed the point of the episode. You should have turned off
5:50 in.

> >> If you age and experience at an accelerated rate,
> >The aging process is sped up and the brain is sped up.  You age and
> >experience a lifetime in an actual day.

> Which makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense.

> Not possible.

The Master did it to the Doctor in "The Sound of Drums"

Or did you think that The Doctor had to eat hundreds of years of food?

> If you experience a lifetime in one day,
> you need to eat a lifetime's worth of food.

No. Experience, not live.

> And if you experience a lifetime
> in one day, the virus will also experience that lifetime.

Nope.

> Therefore the
> virus doesn't kill in the period of a day - it kills in the period of a
> lifetime.

They created a system to get past that.

> >Yes.  In a day.
> So you'd get a day's experience. Not a lifetime's.

It system is designed to give you a lifetime's.

> >> Besides, if the society was sufficiently technologically advanced that it
> >> could manipulate time like that, there's no way it wouldn't be able to
> >> develop a proper cure for the virus...
> >There's no way a society that has the technology to put man on the
> >moon wouldn't be able to cure the common cold.
> The science of getting a man to the moon is on a completely different scale
> to the science of creating an immunity to over 200 types of cold virus. And
> overcoming 200 types of cold virus is on a completely different scale again
> to manipulating time.

> It's a bit like suggesting that there's no way a society that has the
> technology to create fire wouldn't be able to create steel.

The Doctor was scared of the virus. Obviously Timelords don't have a
cure.

Do you think that every virus in the universe are pissy little Earth
viruses?

===
= DUG.
===
China Blue Corn Chips
2011-09-16 18:31:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <0970a5c7-afa3-40b7-9a02-***@s7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Then you missed the point of the episode. You should have turned off
> 5:50 in.

So what was the point? I thought it was to present something like multiple
personality re-integration, where you can end up destroying (killing) a
personality in order to integrate the whole brain/body/mind. What would you do
if you have to choose for a spouse or child or parent?

Even more mildly what do you do if your wife decides to go back to school to get
a professional degree, and then becomes a highly paid engineer? Do you bitch and
moan that woman you loved is dead, or do you love all that she will be and adapt
as she changes? In the end this episode touched on many aspects of the human
condition, and not just a silly man in a blue box.

If that was the point, I would prefer a plot that led naturally to that point.

--
I remember finding out about you, |With the nutty taste of wild hickory nuts.
Everyday my mind is all around you,| I'm whoever you want me to be.
Looking out from my lonely room | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Day after day. | At least I can stay in character.
Celle est une langue. C'est francais et tres, tres sexuel.
Ross
2011-09-16 18:52:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sep 16, 11:53 am, Duggy <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The Master did it to the Doctor in "The Sound of Drums"
>
> Or did you think that The Doctor had to eat hundreds of years of food?
>


Well now, in The Sound of Drums, the Master is doing *genetic/
biologial* manipulation to the Doctor, not temporal manipulation. He
effectively induced something similar to progeria (A disorder in
humans which causes rapid aging. Without eating a lifetime's worth of
food).

But if you substitute in The Leisure Hive or The Daleks' Masterplan it
works just as well.

> The Doctor was scared of the virus.  Obviously Timelords don't have a
> cure.
>
> Do you think that every virus in the universe are pissy little Earth
> viruses?
>

In fact, that it only affects Time Lords and Appulapucians (who have
sophisticated time-manipulation technology) might be taken as a hint
(though obviously not proof) that the virus has some sort of
extratemporal properties.
Duggy
2011-09-16 23:10:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sep 17, 4:52 am, Ross <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 11:53 am, Duggy <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The Master did it to the Doctor in "The Sound of Drums"
> > Or did you think that The Doctor had to eat hundreds of years of food?

> Well now, in The Sound of Drums, the Master is doing *genetic/
> biologial* manipulation to the Doctor, not temporal manipulation.

Different process, same effect.

> He
> effectively induced something similar to progeria (A disorder in
> humans which causes rapid aging. Without eating a lifetime's worth of
> food).

The Doctor moved at high speed while he was doing it.

> > Do you think that every virus in the universe are pissy little Earth
> > viruses?

> In fact, that it only affects Time Lords and Appulapucians (who have
> sophisticated time-manipulation technology) might be taken as a hint
> (though obviously not proof) that the virus has some sort of
> extratemporal properties.

It effected races with 2 hearts. There are time travellers without an
extra heart and (presumably) races with 2 hearts without time
abilities.

===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
2011-09-16 10:55:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sep 12, 8:24 am, "Stephen Wilson"
<***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> That makes no sense at all. If Amy was in an accelerated timeline then
> *everything* would have to accelerate. That includes eating food and
> expelling its waste products. You need food to provide you with energy.

For 24 hours?

===
= DUG.
===
The Doctor
2011-09-16 13:03:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <194dad76-0571-4924-9732-***@z7g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 12, 8:24=A0am, "Stephen Wilson"
><***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> That makes no sense at all. If Amy was in an accelerated timeline then
>> *everything* would have to accelerate. That includes eating food and
>> expelling its waste products. You need food to provide you with energy.
>
>For 24 hours?
>
>=3D=3D=3D
>=3D DUG.
>=3D=3D=3D

OR 36 years?
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
The Doctor
2011-09-15 03:59:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <uuecq.12010$***@newsfe14.ams2>,
john smith <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Charles E. Hardwidge" <***@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:j4rnjv$lfk$***@dont-email.me...
>> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:%T9cq.7377$***@newsfe22.ams2...
>>>
>>> I love that line and use it all the time - usually as a get-out clause
>>> when I'm acting the goat!
>>>
>>> My memory's a bit hazy on this, but has a "Doctor Who" story ever used
>>> the
>>> line: "Do sit down? Shocks are so much better absorbed with the knees
>>> bent"?
>>
>> Too much information!
>>
>> --
>
>
>Are you having a brain spasm again, Chaz?
>
>
>
>
>> Charles E. Hardwidge
>>
>
>

You must be the cause js.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
The Doctor
2011-09-15 19:48:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <msrcq.1536$***@newsfe21.ams2>,
john smith <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Charles E. Hardwidge" <***@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:j4ru5b$kki$***@dont-email.me...
>> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:uuecq.12010$***@newsfe14.ams2...
>>> "Charles E. Hardwidge" <***@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:j4rnjv$lfk$***@dont-email.me...
>>>> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:%T9cq.7377$***@newsfe22.ams2...
>>>>>
>>>>> I love that line and use it all the time - usually as a get-out clause
>>>>> when I'm acting the goat!
>>>>>
>>>>> My memory's a bit hazy on this, but has a "Doctor Who" story ever used
>>>>> the line: "Do sit down? Shocks are so much better absorbed with the
>>>>> knees bent"?
>>>>
>>>> Too much information!
>>>
>>> Are you having a brain spasm again, Chaz?
>>
>> They're your squalid domestic practices! Next time stick to the alter
>> candles.
>>
>> --
>> Charles E. Hardwidge
>
>
>
>What ARE you on about?
>
>

You 2 are alike.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
The Doctor
2011-09-16 12:59:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <spAcq.7$***@newsfe12.ams2>,
john smith <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Charles E. Hardwidge" <***@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:j4tmv6$jvb$***@dont-email.me...
>> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:msrcq.1536$***@newsfe21.ams2...
>>> "Charles E. Hardwidge" <***@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:j4ru5b$kki$***@dont-email.me...
>>>> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:uuecq.12010$***@newsfe14.ams2...
>>>>> "Charles E. Hardwidge" <***@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:j4rnjv$lfk$***@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:%T9cq.7377$***@newsfe22.ams2...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I love that line and use it all the time - usually as a get-out
>>>>>>> clause
>>>>>>> when I'm acting the goat!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My memory's a bit hazy on this, but has a "Doctor Who" story ever
>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>> the line: "Do sit down? Shocks are so much better absorbed with the
>>>>>>> knees bent"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Too much information!
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you having a brain spasm again, Chaz?
>>>>
>>>> They're your squalid domestic practices! Next time stick to the alter
>>>> candles.
>>>
>>> What ARE you on about?
>>
>> That's what we're all wondering about YOU, you dirty birdie.
>>
>> Getting savagely buggered by goats? Blech. You 13th level wizards of
>> Discordia are a funny bunch.
>>
>> --
>> Charles E. Hardwidge
>>
>
>I forgot - you're a literalist dickhead softy southerner who's never heard
>of the expression "acting the goat".
>
>Educate yourself and you wouldn't be such an ignorant prick, eh? Have you
>ever heard of this thing called Google?
>
>

Long live London!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
Loading...