• The Cartmel Master Plan

    From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Wed Aug 13 02:35:02 2025

    I just watched "Was Doctor Who CANCELLED at the WRONG TIME!?" from The
    Watcher On Who.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UrtSqZRQro&list=TLPQMTIwODIwMjVA7P- 4j0wQDw&index=2

    It's an examination of Andrew Cartmel's famous Master Plan to revive the classic show, which was sagging. He never got to finish implementing it.

    Looking back, the Master Plan sounds something like the bigger, canon-
    changing arcs that the new show has been doing. The most obvious part
    would be the many hints that he's not just another Time Lord.

    I hope Cartmel didn't plan to go full Timeless Child. He *might* have
    turned the Doctor into the fulcrum of the cosmos, but he could also have planned something a little more chill like declaring that the Doctor was working with the Celestials or was the long-lost Grey Guardian. Although
    those would still have been pretty big deals.

    The least disruptive way which would still provide payoff might be...
    might be if the Doctor turned out to be the Other from Gallifrey's
    initial ruling triumvirate. That door was always left open, and it would
    give him previously-unsuspected status without turning him into another species.

    What do you think? Could Cartmel have revived the show if he'd had a
    little more time? Would he only have ruined what was left? What would a
    good resolution have been?

    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Wed Aug 13 07:27:50 2025
    Verily, in article <xn0p9gtwgc0n6m5005@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:

    Actually, I think had Andrew Cartmel managed to get his own
    way, the BBC had faith in the show... and JNT hadn't still been
    the show's Producer - I think the "Cartmel Master Plan" could
    have been a success. The darker more mysterious Doctor that was
    "more than just a Time Lord" WAS an interesting concept... on
    paper anyway.

    I doubt the idea of the Doctor as 'The Other' would have been as revolutionary as the Timeless Child idea, and it may even have
    been the breath of fresh air that the show needed in an era of
    declining viewership ... we'll never know.

    It would have been less revolutionary, but I'm not sure that's a bad
    thing. The goal of this operation would have been to attract the latest generation of eight-year-olds. "The Doctor is secretly one of the Time
    Lord founders" seems like something kids could get their teeth into,
    while the Timeless Child stuff lacks kid appeal IMO. It's bigger and
    thus potentially more dramatic, but it's also confusing and weird.


    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Wed Aug 13 19:23:19 2025
    Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    Verily, in article <xn0p9gtwgc0n6m5005@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:

    Actually, I think had Andrew Cartmel managed to get his own
    way, the BBC had faith in the show... and JNT hadn't still
    been the show's Producer - I think the "Cartmel Master Plan"
    could have been a success. The darker more mysterious Doctor
    that was "more than just a Time Lord" WAS an interesting
    concept... on paper anyway.

    I doubt the idea of the Doctor as 'The Other' would have
    been as revolutionary as the Timeless Child idea, and it may
    even have been the breath of fresh air that the show needed
    in an era of declining viewership ... we'll never know.

    It would have been less revolutionary, but I'm not sure that's
    a bad thing.

    Less revolutionary would definitely have been a good thing.

    "Doctor Who" didn't need a revolution in 1989... or 2017!

    All a TV show needs is engaging storylines... and people will
    watch it. If you confuse the fuck out of them, a large
    percentage will just give up and switch off.

    The goal of this operation would have been to attract
    the latest generation of eight-year-olds. "The Doctor
    is secretly one of the Time Lord founders" seems like
    something kids could get their teeth into, while the
    Timeless Child stuff lacks kid appeal IMO.

    On paper, an interesting idea...

    It's bigger and thus potentially more dramatic, but it's
    also confusing and weird.

    When Cartmel's ideas were incorporated into some of the
    Virgin NA novels it did become confusing and weird!

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eternal-September (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Wed Aug 13 19:34:35 2025
    Dave Shariff Yadallee - wrote:

    BBC controller were anti-scifi at the time.

    And JNT was anti too much of Andrew Cartmel's 'master plan'
    in one go... preferring his pantomime approach to the show!


    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eternal-September (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu Aug 14 08:09:22 2025
    On 12/08/2025 17:35, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    I just watched "Was Doctor Who CANCELLED at the WRONG TIME!?" from The Watcher On Who.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UrtSqZRQro&list=TLPQMTIwODIwMjVA7P- 4j0wQDw&index=2

    It's an examination of Andrew Cartmel's famous Master Plan to revive the classic show, which was sagging. He never got to finish implementing it.


    Trying to turn the Doctor into God was never going to work. The way the audience connected with the Doctor was by him being an ordinary Time
    Lord and they could aspire to all the things he could aspire too. He's
    not Superman.

    Looking back, the Master Plan sounds something like the bigger, canon- changing arcs that the new show has been doing. The most obvious part
    would be the many hints that he's not just another Time Lord.

    I hope Cartmel didn't plan to go full Timeless Child. He *might* have

    Have you read Lungbarrow? What is contained in that is what he wanted to
    do.

    turned the Doctor into the fulcrum of the cosmos, but he could also have planned something a little more chill like declaring that the Doctor was working with the Celestials or was the long-lost Grey Guardian. Although those would still have been pretty big deals.

    The least disruptive way which would still provide payoff might be...
    might be if the Doctor turned out to be the Other from Gallifrey's
    initial ruling triumvirate. That door was always left open, and it would
    give him previously-unsuspected status without turning him into another species.

    Spoilers.......................

    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10

    The Other died by throwing himself into the looms. The Doctor just
    happens to look like him. Susan was made to be the Other's granddaughter.

    What do you think? Could Cartmel have revived the show if he'd had a
    little more time? Would he only have ruined what was left? What would a
    good resolution have been?


    Lungbarrow would not have saved the show. It would have put an end to it
    by revealing who the Doctor originally was. It was a drawn out murder
    mystery which made all of the Time Lords sterile in order to justify the
    Other inventing the looms and regeneration so that the show runners
    could turn him into God.

    Making the Doctor half human in the TVM was a far better idea since it
    made the Doctor more relatable to the people watching than turning him
    into God. Unfortunately it turned the Doctor into Spock and you know
    what that would have led to in every single story that would have
    followed if the TVM hadn't failed in the US.

    What they should have done is gone back to the Tom Baker or Jon Pertwee
    eras and made the show as science fiction and not soap opera.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu Aug 14 08:52:45 2025
    On 12/08/2025 22:27, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Verily, in article <xn0p9gtwgc0n6m5005@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:

    Actually, I think had Andrew Cartmel managed to get his own
    way, the BBC had faith in the show... and JNT hadn't still been
    the show's Producer - I think the "Cartmel Master Plan" could
    have been a success. The darker more mysterious Doctor that was
    "more than just a Time Lord" WAS an interesting concept... on
    paper anyway.

    I doubt the idea of the Doctor as 'The Other' would have been as
    revolutionary as the Timeless Child idea, and it may even have
    been the breath of fresh air that the show needed in an era of
    declining viewership ... we'll never know.

    It would have been less revolutionary, but I'm not sure that's a bad
    thing. The goal of this operation would have been to attract the latest generation of eight-year-olds. "The Doctor is secretly one of the Time

    The generation the show needs to be attracting is 4 or 5 year old boys,
    and even when they reach the age of 8, 9, or 10 what they want is the
    Doctor fighting monsters and defeating them after going through a hero's journey.

    There is no hero's journey in Lungbarrow. All that it consists of is continuous non-stop exposition about the Doctor's childhood and past as
    part of a dysfunctional extended family where he does nothing heroic and
    as the Other encourages children to self-harm. Viewers don't want that
    because it gives them nothing to aspire to.

    Once you know about the Doctor's past there's no more Doctor Who. The
    show is over because its entire premise no longer exists.

    The Cartmell Masterplan was a massive mistake and all copies of it
    should have been shredded and burned.

    What should have been emphasised is the Doctor's heroic journey where he
    fled Gallifrey to explore the universe because the Time Lords had
    isolated themselves from it, and what he learns on the way is that he
    can't explore it by hiding from it and distancing himself from the
    people in it. Did any of these people ever watch or read An Unearthly Child?

    Lord founders" seems like something kids could get their teeth into,
    while the Timeless Child stuff lacks kid appeal IMO. It's bigger and
    thus potentially more dramatic, but it's also confusing and weird.

    It was better done that inventing the Timeless Child monster which
    destroyed the show in its entirety by wiping out William Hartnell's
    legacy and turning the Doctor himself into the biggest monster in the universe.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu Aug 14 10:34:57 2025
    Verily, in article <107j2ej$4ik4$2@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    Lungbarrow would not have saved the show. It would have put an end to it
    by revealing who the Doctor originally was. It was a drawn out murder mystery which made all of the Time Lords sterile in order to justify the Other inventing the looms and regeneration so that the show runners
    could turn him into God.

    Yeah, I always hated that plot. That was the Cartmel Master Plan? No
    thanks.


    Making the Doctor half human in the TVM was a far better idea since it
    made the Doctor more relatable to the people watching than turning him
    into God. Unfortunately it turned the Doctor into Spock and you know
    what that would have led to in every single story that would have
    followed if the TVM hadn't failed in the US.

    I didn't really like the half-human bit either. He was relatable enough
    before that, IMO.


    What they should have done is gone back to the Tom Baker or Jon Pertwee
    eras and made the show as science fiction and not soap opera.

    That would have been great. That might have pleased only old fans,
    though, not attracted new ones. DW always needed a steady supply of new
    kids just beginning to tune in.




    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu Aug 14 10:54:08 2025
    On 14/08/2025 01:34, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Verily, in article <107j2ej$4ik4$2@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    Lungbarrow would not have saved the show. It would have put an end to it
    by revealing who the Doctor originally was. It was a drawn out murder
    mystery which made all of the Time Lords sterile in order to justify the
    Other inventing the looms and regeneration so that the show runners
    could turn him into God.

    Yeah, I always hated that plot. That was the Cartmel Master Plan? No
    thanks.


    Making the Doctor half human in the TVM was a far better idea since it
    made the Doctor more relatable to the people watching than turning him
    into God. Unfortunately it turned the Doctor into Spock and you know
    what that would have led to in every single story that would have
    followed if the TVM hadn't failed in the US.

    I didn't really like the half-human bit either. He was relatable enough before that, IMO.


    What they should have done is gone back to the Tom Baker or Jon Pertwee
    eras and made the show as science fiction and not soap opera.

    That would have been great. That might have pleased only old fans,
    though, not attracted new ones. DW always needed a steady supply of new
    kids just beginning to tune in.

    Given that the Tom Baker and Jon Pertwee eras demonstrated that they
    attracted the most viewers especially children why would anyone think
    that they wouldn't attract them today, and the Cartmell Masterplan, the
    cause of the show's cancellation would?

    Jon Pertwee played the Doctor as James Bond. Why wouldn't James Bond
    attract children. All you need to do is update the action, locations,
    and special effects.

    Tom Baker's era was all about horror, monsters, and robots. Why wouldn't horror, monster, and robot movies attract kids today? Look at all the
    horror, monsters, and robots in Superman and The Fantastic 4.

    And making all the men effeminate and gay and having all the women
    acting and behaving like men, and filling the show with soap opera and
    bad writing, making everything about a character's gender identity and sexuality is what the children of today actually want? I don't think so.
    It's what the woke activists want for them so that they can sexually
    groom them, not what the children want. The children of today want what
    the children of 50 years ago wanted, and it's not the crap made by
    Russell T Davies.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu Aug 14 21:53:40 2025
    The True Doctor wrote:

    The generation the show needs to be attracting is 4 or 5 year
    old boys, and even when they reach the age of 8, 9, or 10 what
    they want is the Doctor fighting monsters and defeating them
    after going through a hero's journey.

    I'm 60 and all I want is the Doctor fighting monsters and
    aliens and defeating them!!!

    I don't want a "Doctor Who" where the writers have ran away
    with their egos and every big event in the show has to be
    lore-changing or about special companions.

    Oh and a story that has a beginning, a middle and an end...
    like we were all taught at school. Not gimmick arcs that drag on
    for two years!

    There is no hero's journey in Lungbarrow. All that it consists
    of is continuous non-stop exposition about the Doctor's
    childhood and past as part of a dysfunctional extended family
    where he does nothing heroic and as the Other encourages
    children to self-harm. Viewers don't want that because it
    gives them nothing to aspire to.

    Unfortunately Marc Platt's novel - and a lot of the Virgin books
    - influenced RTD, Moffat and Chibnall...

    Once you know about the Doctor's past there's no more Doctor
    Who. The show is over because its entire premise no longer
    exists.

    The Cartmell Masterplan was a massive mistake and all copies
    of it should have been shredded and burned.

    Time Lords and their origins would be interesting to some
    fans... a lot of them love all that Gallifrey mumbo-jumbo. But
    as we have seen in recent years, it's how you do it.

    I assume a TV Producer at the BBC in the 1990's would have
    reined in some of the nonsense that ended up in the Virgin
    novels where the trendy writers tried to outdo one another with
    their modern take on the Seventh Doctor.

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu Aug 14 22:22:44 2025


    The Doctor wrote:

    In article <xn0p9j8601ji3sp003@post.eweka.nl>,
    Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:

    The True Doctor wrote:

    There is no hero's journey in Lungbarrow. All that it
    consists of is continuous non-stop exposition about the
    Doctor's childhood and past as part of a dysfunctional
    extended family where he does nothing heroic and as the
    Other encourages children to self-harm. Viewers don't want
    that because it gives them nothing to aspire to.

    You managed to get through it all you did? I think it's the
    one Virgin novel I really struggled to get to grips with...
    I'm still not sure today if I even finished it.

    Good thing for me never to touch this.

    You never know, you might have liked it... some fans wet
    themselves over "Lungbarrow"!

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eternal-September (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu Aug 14 22:29:02 2025
    On 14/08/2025 12:25, Blueshirt wrote:
    The True Doctor wrote:

    Given that the Tom Baker and Jon Pertwee eras demonstrated
    that they attracted the most viewers especially children why
    would anyone think that they wouldn't attract them today, and
    the Cartmell Masterplan, the cause of the show's cancellation
    would?

    The kids in the 1970's are different to the children of today

    No they're not.

    though. They were simpler times. The TV was always on back then
    and they were only two/three channels and very few other
    distractions. BBC1 on a Saturday evening had a large captive
    audience.

    That has nothing to do with the kids.


    There's nothing wrong with a hero that has a mysterious past
    and is "more than just a Time Lord". Children can buy into

    Yes there is. It's bad story telling. From his very first appearance in
    Action Comics #1 everyone knew Superman's origin story and it never
    changed.

    that concept easily enough if they are engaged with the show.

    No they won't. The show is about what the character does as it
    progresses and proving his heroism, not about his past which proves nothing.

    But the kids in 1988/1989 were not watching Doctor Who in the
    numbers they were compared to Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker's era,
    as the show was in decline... Doctor Who under JNT had become a

    Because the writing was crap.

    pantomime. Andrew Carteml's plans could have made the show a bit
    more interesting, especially if JNT wasn't the Producer.


    Andrew Cartmel’s plans would have destroyed the show, which is why it
    was cancelled. Oh look, the Doctor is actually God! What's he ever done
    to show it? Absolutely nothing! Why would anyone watch the show because they've been told that the character is the greatest when the writing is absolute crap and doesn't show it?

    This is the degenerate style of writing of a woman as was witnessed in
    Star Trek: Discovery. What did Michael Burnham ever do to prove she
    deserved to be Captain? Nothing. What her character actually
    demonstrated was that she was totally insubordinate and should have been kicked out of Starfleet, and yet undeserved praise was heaped on her
    time and time again for doing nothing except get people killed. The same
    goes for Tilly. She never demonstrated any leadership skills whatsoever
    and yet she was miraculously promoted from Ensign to Captain.

    Jon Pertwee played the Doctor as James Bond. Why wouldn't
    James Bond attract children. All you need to do is update
    the action, locations, and special effects.

    Tom Baker's era was all about horror, monsters, and robots.
    Why wouldn't horror, monster, and robot movies attract kids
    today? Look at all the horror, monsters, and robots in
    Superman and The Fantastic 4.

    Two unique actors who had decent writers and production teams
    behind them. I doubt actors of the calibre of Jon Pertwee and
    Tom Baker could make a lot of the modern scripts work. They had
    big egos they wanted it to be all about them - and that's what
    worked.


    At the time of Tom Baker and Jon Pertwee the show was written for men
    and boys and contained everything that men and boys wanted to aspire
    too, because that is who the genre of science fiction overwhelmingly
    appeals too. The protagonists were intelligent, masculine, straight, and heroic, not effeminate homosexuals with no sign of any intelligence
    whatsoever and with everything resolved by totally incoherent magic
    pulled out of thin air. The show was based on the hero's journey,
    there's even a BBC documentary that was made at the time Tom Baker took
    over which shows it and compares the Doctor with Odysseus. It wasn't
    written as soap opera and interpersonal relationships. It was written
    about ideas, science and technology and their impact on society. The
    companion was there to ask questions so as to allow the Doctor to
    explain complicated concepts and ways of though to them and the
    audience. The companion was not the main subject of the show and it
    wasn't all about them. It wasn't made to sexually groom children to
    become gay and transgender while at the same time written for 12 year
    old girls of very low intelligence. And it wasn't there as a thin shiny wrapper of little substance in order to insert thinly vailed political messages mostly attacking the West, capitalism, men, and masculinity.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu Aug 14 22:36:41 2025
    On 14/08/2025 13:18, The Doctor wrote:
    In article <xn0p9j9301koq95005@post.eweka.nl>,
    Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
    The True Doctor wrote:

    Given that the Tom Baker and Jon Pertwee eras demonstrated
    that they attracted the most viewers especially children why
    would anyone think that they wouldn't attract them today, and
    the Cartmell Masterplan, the cause of the show's cancellation
    would?

    The kids in the 1970's are different to the children of today
    though. They were simpler times. The TV was always on back then
    and they were only two/three channels and very few other
    distractions. BBC1 on a Saturday evening had a large captive
    audience.

    There's nothing wrong with a hero that has a mysterious past
    and is "more than just a Time Lord". Children can buy into
    that concept easily enough if they are engaged with the show.
    But the kids in 1988/1989 were not watching Doctor Who in the
    numbers they were compared to Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker's era,
    as the show was in decline... Doctor Who under JNT had become a
    pantomime. Andrew Carteml's plans could have made the show a bit
    more interesting, especially if JNT wasn't the Producer.

    Jon Pertwee played the Doctor as James Bond. Why wouldn't
    James Bond attract children. All you need to do is update
    the action, locations, and special effects.

    Tom Baker's era was all about horror, monsters, and robots.
    Why wouldn't horror, monster, and robot movies attract kids
    today? Look at all the horror, monsters, and robots in
    Superman and The Fantastic 4.

    Two unique actors who had decent writers and production teams
    behind them. I doubt actors of the calibre of Jon Pertwee and
    Tom Baker could make a lot of the modern scripts work. They had
    big egos they wanted it to be all about them - and that's what
    worked.


    RTD is from the 1960s/1970s. Is he that out of touch?

    RTD is gay. That is why he is out of touch. The bigot though the show
    was too heterosexual.

    https://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/doctor-who-rtd-testosterone-scifi-105852.htm

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu Aug 14 23:09:43 2025
    Verily, in article <107jc3g$6jl3$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    That would have been great. That might have pleased only old fans,
    though, not attracted new ones. DW always needed a steady supply of new kids just beginning to tune in.

    Given that the Tom Baker and Jon Pertwee eras demonstrated that they attracted the most viewers especially children why would anyone think
    that they wouldn't attract them today, and the Cartmell Masterplan, the cause of the show's cancellation would?

    The BBC believed that what children wanted had changed. I'm not sure
    they were right. It would be an interesting experiment to show kids some Classic Who and some New Who, to see what they preferred.

    That seems to be something very few showrunners do, though. When a show
    starts faltering, they always seem to try something new instead of going
    back to basics. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head
    is Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, though there are probably others.


    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu Aug 14 23:25:54 2025
    On 14/08/2025 14:09, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Verily, in article <107jc3g$6jl3$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    That would have been great. That might have pleased only old fans,
    though, not attracted new ones. DW always needed a steady supply of new
    kids just beginning to tune in.

    Given that the Tom Baker and Jon Pertwee eras demonstrated that they
    attracted the most viewers especially children why would anyone think
    that they wouldn't attract them today, and the Cartmell Masterplan, the
    cause of the show's cancellation would?

    The BBC believed that what children wanted had changed. I'm not sure

    The BBC decided what children wanted for them and tried to impose it on
    them just like RTD is doing today.

    https://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/doctor-who-rtd-testosterone-scifi-105852.htm

    Neither of them actually bothered for find out what children themselves wanted, because they didn't care what they wanted. All they cared about
    was their agenda. What children actually wanted was what they always
    wanted in the past.

    they were right. It would be an interesting experiment to show kids some Classic Who and some New Who, to see what they preferred.

    That is not going to be a fair experiment because the kids will judge it
    by the special effects.

    A better experiment would be to get them to read the Target
    novelisations and decide which stories are better.

    Kids today want Superman to be what he was in 1978 with Christopher
    Reeve as demonstrated by the success of the David Cornsweat movie. What
    they didn't want was the Zack Snyder garbage which wrote Superman as Batman.


    That seems to be something very few showrunners do, though. When a show starts faltering, they always seem to try something new instead of going
    back to basics. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head
    is Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, though there are probably others.



    Modern showrunners want to impose their own agendas on viewer not
    entertain them otherwise they'd be sticking to the basics and
    successfully proven methods of writing which have worked for centuries
    and millennia.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Daniel70@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu Aug 14 23:45:45 2025
    On 14/08/2025 8:44 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
    Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    Verily, in article <107j2ej$4ik4$2@dont-email.me>, did
    agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:

    Lungbarrow would not have saved the show. It would have put
    an end to it by revealing who the Doctor originally was. It
    was a drawn out murder mystery which made all of the Time
    Lords sterile in order to justify the Other inventing the
    looms and regeneration so that the show runners could turn
    him into God.

    Yeah, I always hated that plot. That was the Cartmel Master
    Plan? No thanks.

    "Lungbarrow" was like Marmite - you either love it or you hate
    it.

    Someone did like it enough to pay me a good few quid for the
    paperback about twenty years ago though, so there's no
    accounting for taste.

    Making the Doctor half human in the TVM was a far better
    idea since it made the Doctor more relatable to the people
    watching than turning him into God. Unfortunately it turned
    the Doctor into Spock and you know what that would have led
    to in every single story that would have followed if the TVM
    hadn't failed in the US.

    I didn't really like the half-human bit either. He was
    relatable enough before that, IMO.

    Half-human wasn't a good idea either... BUT, way better than
    Looms!!!

    I find it hard to follow the 'Half-Human' bit, too. I mean would a
    stuck-up society like Gualifrey Time Lord Council accept a Half-Gualifrean/Half-Human as their President.

    Mind you, the Presidency bit had been thought up and used well before
    the Half'n'Half bit was thought up.
    --
    Daniel70

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu Aug 14 23:46:26 2025
    On 14/08/2025 14:11, Blueshirt wrote:
    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 14/08/2025 12:25, Blueshirt wrote:

    But the kids in 1988/1989 were not watching Doctor Who in
    the numbers they were compared to Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker's
    era, as the show was in decline...

    Because the writing was crap.

    The writing and the production.

    Andrew Cartmel's grand ideas for the show didn't destroy Doctor
    Who in 1989. JNT turning the show into a pantomime and Sylvester
    McCoy's poor acting did. (Internal BBC politics played its part
    too obviously.)


    Sylvester McCoy was given shit scripts to work with and bad directors.
    He should what he could do when given decent material and good directing
    in the TVM.

    JNT turning the show into a pantomime was a result of Cartmel and the
    bad scripts that resulted.

    Doctor Who under JNT had become a pantomime. Andrew
    Carteml's plans could have made the show a bit more
    interesting, especially if JNT wasn't the Producer.

    Andrew Cartmel’s plans would have destroyed the show, which
    is why it was cancelled.

    They couldn't destroy what was already in terminal decline!
    There was very little of Andrew Carteml's master plan in what we
    saw on screen... JNT even edited out the "more than just a Time
    Lord" line from "Remembrance of the Daleks". We only got small

    And a good job too.

    glimpsers of the mystery Andrew Cartmel wanted to bring to the
    character.

    Where was the master of the Doctor depicted in any of the scripts?
    Nowhere to be seen because the writers were incapable of demonstrating
    it. Saying to people that the Doctor is more than just a Time Lord is
    telling them that they should expect the writer to prove that to be so,
    and if they don't and the readers don't convincingly see the Doctor as
    being more than just a Time Lord then they will think the writing is
    absolute shit along with the writer. That is what my English teacher
    taught me decades ago. You don't tell, you show!

    Oh look, the Doctor is actually God!

    I agree "God" wouldn't have worked... but some added mystery to
    the character could have been interesting.


    No it wouldn't. It would have distracted from the actual stories with a
    pile of shit story arc which turned the Doctor into a completely
    different character from the one that had be successful for over two
    decades.

    It's all fairly moot anyway as the BBC were intent on cancelling
    the show and using the budget for other programmes... so
    nobody's idea was going to be any good as far as they were
    concerned.

    The BBC cancelled the show because the writing was rubbish and the
    clueless writers writing it were using it to attack Margaret Thatcher
    rather than to entertain the audience. You could see that it was going downhill and going to be cancelled from the moment Colin Baker got up
    from regenerating and tried to strangle Peri. What sort of imbecile
    would allow a scene like that to be written?


    What's he ever done to show it? Absolutely nothing! Why would
    anyone watch the show because they've been told that the
    character is the greatest when the writing is absolute crap
    and doesn't show it?

    A show with some interesting storylines as opposed to Liquorice
    Allsort villains might have been something of an improvement!
    The Seventh Doctor didn't have much else going for him.

    Because that particular story was being used to attack Margaret
    Thatcher. Attacking Thatcher was all that mattered to the writers not entertaining the audience by writing a good story. If you're going to
    make a villain out of a politician you have to base them on one that is universally derided like Stalin, Mussolini, or Hitler, not one that had
    won three consecutive general elections.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu Aug 14 23:50:16 2025
    On 14/08/2025 14:45, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 14/08/2025 8:44 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
    Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    Verily, in article <107j2ej$4ik4$2@dont-email.me>, did
    agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:

    Lungbarrow would not have saved the show. It would have put
    an end to it by revealing who the Doctor originally was. It
    was a drawn out murder mystery which made all of the Time
    Lords sterile in order to justify the Other inventing the
    looms and regeneration so that the show runners could turn
    him into God.

    Yeah, I always hated that plot. That was the Cartmel Master
    Plan? No thanks.

    "Lungbarrow" was like Marmite - you either love it or you hate
    it.

    Someone did like it enough to pay me a good few quid for the
    paperback about twenty years ago though, so there's no
    accounting for taste.
    Making the Doctor half human in the TVM was a far better
    idea since it made the Doctor more relatable to the people
    watching than turning him into God. Unfortunately it turned
    the Doctor into Spock and you know what that would have led
    to in every single story that would have followed if the TVM
    hadn't failed in the US.

    I didn't really like the half-human bit either. He was
    relatable enough before that, IMO.

    Half-human wasn't a good idea either... BUT, way better than
    Looms!!!

    I find it hard to follow the 'Half-Human' bit, too. I mean would a
    stuck-up society like Gualifrey Time Lord Council accept a Half- Gualifrean/Half-Human as their President.

    They didn't have a choice. The Doctor was elected by default because he
    was the only remaining candidate left in the race.

    Also the Time Lords were not a stuck up society. They were an
    isolationist society.


    Mind you, the Presidency bit had been thought up and used well before
    the Half'n'Half bit was thought up.

    As was Leela and Andred getting married, and the Time Lord's didn't have
    a problem with that.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 02:53:04 2025
    Verily, in article <107kkqf$f1rv$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    Yes there is. It's bad story telling. From his very first appearance in Action Comics #1 everyone knew Superman's origin story and it never
    changed.


    That's not so. The original Superman was "the man of tomorrow," and no extraterrestrial origin was mentioned until later. Early Superman
    couldn't fly and didn't have any special vision powers. He was just
    really strong, really tough, really fast, and really smart -- a man, but
    more so.

    He morphed into the version we know pretty quickly, early in the 40s,
    but in the 30s he wasn't quite the same guy.

    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 03:01:18 2025
    Verily, in article <107kkqf$f1rv$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    Andrew Cartmel?s plans would have destroyed the show, which is why it
    was cancelled. Oh look, the Doctor is actually God! What's he ever done
    to show it? Absolutely nothing! Why would anyone watch the show because they've been told that the character is the greatest when the writing is absolute crap and doesn't show it?

    This is exactly what's happening in the modern area. We're supposed to
    be impressed by all these big revelations about who the Doctor truly is
    and what he means to the cosmos, but we don't care, because that's not
    the Doctor we know. It's not a good SF adventure *or* a good character development story.


    This is the degenerate style of writing of a woman as was witnessed in
    Star Trek: Discovery.

    Enh, I think you're off base there. Women and men do write somewhat differently, but it's more that women focus on the social aspects of the
    story while men want more adventure.

    As far as bigging up the main character into God, surely the worst
    offender there is Stephen Moffat. *All* of his protagonists turn into superhuman idols for the rest of us to admire from afar. Even Jekyll was eventually declared to be made of love (and ubersexy), which is utter contradiction of the source material. And Sherlock. Good God, Sherlock.

    I like Stephen Moffat as a writer, but as a showrunner, he keeps doing
    that.


    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 03:04:32 2025
    Verily, in article <107ko53$fsoa$3@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    That is not going to be a fair experiment because the kids will judge it
    by the special effects.


    In my experience, little kids don't care. Older kids do, because they've already learned they should, but the little ones are perfectly happy to
    accept that a guy wriggling in a green sleeping bag is supposed to
    represent a slime creature. They do that sort of thing all the time
    while playing.

    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 03:13:55 2025
    Verily, in article <107kpip$fsoa$5@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    As was Leela and Andred getting married, and the Time Lord's didn't have
    a problem with that.


    On the other hand, only a few years prior, Sarah Jane wasn't even
    allowed to set foot on Gallifrey.

    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 03:22:08 2025
    On 14/08/2025 18:13, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Verily, in article <107kpip$fsoa$5@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    As was Leela and Andred getting married, and the Time Lord's didn't have
    a problem with that.


    On the other hand, only a few years prior, Sarah Jane wasn't even
    allowed to set foot on Gallifrey.


    Because the Doctor wanted her off the TARDIS because of the vision he
    was sent of the events about to transpire. Nothing to do with the Time
    Lords not wanting her.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 03:35:52 2025
    On 14/08/2025 17:53, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Verily, in article <107kkqf$f1rv$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    Yes there is. It's bad story telling. From his very first appearance in
    Action Comics #1 everyone knew Superman's origin story and it never
    changed.


    That's not so. The original Superman was "the man of tomorrow," and no

    Nope. It is exactly so from the very first panel, "As a distant planet
    was destroyed by old age, a scientist placed his infant sone within a
    hastily devised space-ship, launching it toward Earth !"
    extraterrestrial origin was mentioned until later. Early Superman
    couldn't fly and didn't have any special vision powers. He was just
    really strong, really tough, really fast, and really smart -- a man, but
    more so.

    That doesn't make any difference to his origin story.

    Second panel of Action Comics #1, "When the vehicle landed on Earth, a
    passing motorist discovering the sleeping babe within, turned the child
    over to an orphanage".


    He morphed into the version we know pretty quickly, early in the 40s,
    but in the 30s he wasn't quite the same guy.


    None of what we learn about his additional powers are precluded by the
    origin story. We learn everything we need to know about Superman and his origin and powers on the first page of the comic strip.

    Third panel, "Attendants, unaware the child's physical structure was
    millions of years advanced of their own, were astounded at his feats of strength".

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 04:44:30 2025
    On 14/08/2025 18:01, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Verily, in article <107kkqf$f1rv$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    Andrew Cartmel?s plans would have destroyed the show, which is why it
    was cancelled. Oh look, the Doctor is actually God! What's he ever done
    to show it? Absolutely nothing! Why would anyone watch the show because
    they've been told that the character is the greatest when the writing is
    absolute crap and doesn't show it?

    This is exactly what's happening in the modern area. We're supposed to
    be impressed by all these big revelations about who the Doctor truly is
    and what he means to the cosmos, but we don't care, because that's not
    the Doctor we know. It's not a good SF adventure *or* a good character development story.


    This is the degenerate style of writing of a woman as was witnessed in
    Star Trek: Discovery.

    Enh, I think you're off base there. Women and men do write somewhat differently, but it's more that women focus on the social aspects of the story while men want more adventure.


    The differences are much more than that. It was shown by Lego that men
    write stories the same way they play with toys, playing with each toy in
    the manner that the character of the toy would act and behave, so they
    play Superman as Superman, Batman as Batman, and Wonder Woman as Wonder
    Woman all of which have different abilities and ways of speaking,
    acting, behaving, and dealing with others.

    A woman writes in the same way a girl plays with toys playing every toy
    as an aspect of her own personality and not that of the character the
    toy represents. Thus, she plays Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman all
    as herself. And that is the big problem with women's writing.

    They also write the characters, which are all self inserts of
    themselves, by having all the other characters praising them for nothing
    they have substantively archived that doesn't come naturally as if a
    mother were talking to a baby and saying how great, how intelligent, how brave, how wonderful it is, just by being there, smiling, drinking its
    milk, going to the toiler, blah, blah, blah. This is why most women are limited to writing children's stories and feeble romances. You can see
    it in Harry Potter. And of course there is the soap opera aspect which
    you have already mentioned.

    Most women are turned off by action and adventure which they portray as violence. I've been told this many times by them. Instead when a woman
    writes she makes all the characters subservient to each other and it's
    all about submission to the hierarchy and to someone's title and claims
    to having power rather than them actually demonstrating they have
    superior authority, intellect, and can be trusted by their acts, deeds,
    and heroism. Read the Arabian Night's stories, which were all written by
    a woman in the framing story, and you can see this demonstrated.

    This is also the reason why women can not write decent romances which
    appeal to men. They write all the female characters as various aspects
    of whores instead of as intelligent women deserving respect. Look at the entire premise of Jane Austen's, Pride and Prejudice, which is all about
    a mother trying to pimp her daughters to the most intelligible bachelor.
    Read Edgar Rice Burrough's Barsoom series and E E Smith's Lensman series
    for how a man, a heterosexual one, writes romance.

    The worst writers of romance are bisexuals because they have no idea of
    the concept of love. All that drives them is sex, control, and coercion,
    and all they do is ramble and ramble and ramble. Lady Chatterley’s Lover
    is a prime example of this kind of rubbish.

    Homosexual men can't write romance either. They can only think of inappropriate relationships spanning vast age difference. Look at the
    totally moronic relationship RTD wrote between the Doctor and Rose. A
    2000 year old Time Lord and an 18 year old girl. The characters had
    nothing in common whatsoever, no shared interests or aspirations, and
    one was intellectually superior to the other. It was terrible writing
    and worse than the bad romances written by heterosexual women.

    As for how lesbians write you can see that in the basis of the Bechdel
    test. It's all about demeaning, disparaging, and putting down men,
    especially heterosexual ones, and writing women completely unnaturally
    so they don't resemble women at all. Being women these writers cannot
    put themselves inside of the mind of anyone who thinks differently.
    Bi-sexual women basically want men to be their slaves and worship them
    as queens or goddesses. There's no romance in that at all.

    So which one are you?

    You can clearly see that RTD is writing as a homosexual trying to please
    gay men and lesbians at the same time and ultimately pleasing no one.
    As far as bigging up the main character into God, surely the worst
    offender there is Stephen Moffat. *All* of his protagonists turn into superhuman idols for the rest of us to admire from afar. Even Jekyll was eventually declared to be made of love (and ubersexy), which is utter contradiction of the source material. And Sherlock. Good God, Sherlock.


    Sherlock was good for the first series and then it all went down the
    toilet and was no longer about Sherlock Holmes, but Doctor Watson's
    wife. This happened probably as a result of Mark Gattis being gay and
    thus being unable to write heterosexual romance so it all fell apart.
    Moffat wrote lesbians the way heterosexuals perceive them in Jekyll, and
    with the Silurian Madame Vastra relationship with her female side kick.
    He also wrote a decent romance in Blink, and then he turned woke and
    lost all of his ability to write normally, and began to write like a
    lesbian.

    I like Stephen Moffat as a writer, but as a showrunner, he keeps doing
    that.

    Moffat was OK until Series 8 where it all went down the toilet from Kill
    the Moon onwards and Moffat going woke.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 05:09:46 2025
    Verily, in article <107laqf$lq31$2@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:

    On 14/08/2025 18:01, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Enh, I think you're off base there. Women and men do write somewhat differently, but it's more that women focus on the social aspects of the story while men want more adventure.


    The differences are much more than that. It was shown by Lego that men
    write stories the same way they play with toys, playing with each toy in
    the manner that the character of the toy would act and behave, so they
    play Superman as Superman, Batman as Batman, and Wonder Woman as Wonder Woman all of which have different abilities and ways of speaking,
    acting, behaving, and dealing with others.

    Yes, I saw the same study. The people who want to make much of it are neglecting to mention that the *boys* were also playing "wrong."

    If you introduce kids to Spider-Man and then give them Spider-Man toys,
    the toddler girls will have Spider-Man go shopping and make dinner. The toddler boys, on the other hand, will reenact the story they just saw.
    Neither of these things is a good Spider-Man story, which is why we
    don't let toddlers write screenplays.

    I noticed this myself, when my son was small. To me, a former girl, it
    was very strange that he kept replaying *the same* scenario over and
    over. That's what boys do as toddlers, though. As they develop, the boys
    and girls will both gain more imagination.

    It's honestly kind of funny that you keep insisting no female person
    could ever write science fiction, when so many have already done so. You
    keep saying this in the Doctor Who group, of all places, and the Doctor
    was created by a woman.

    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 06:16:45 2025


    The True Doctor wrote:

    Sylvester McCoy was

    ....a shit actor who should never have been the Doctor
    in the first place. The job was above his talents.

    ... given shit scripts to work with and bad directors.

    Pantomime scripts.

    He should what he could do when given decent
    material and good directing in the TVM.

    Decent material? Like how to get shot and die?!

    JNT turning the show into a pantomime was a result of
    Cartmel and the bad scripts that resulted.

    JNT was the boss, what you saw on screen was what he
    wanted. That era of the show - the era that the general
    public didn't want to watch - was JNT's vision of the show.


    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 06:16:46 2025
    The Doctor wrote:

    In article <107kl8q$fsoa$1@dont-email.me>,
    The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:

    On 14/08/2025 13:18, The Doctor wrote:

    RTD is from the 1960s/1970s. Is he that out of touch?

    RTD is gay. That is why he is out of touch. The bigot
    thought the show was too heterosexual.


    https://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/doctor-who-rtd-testosterone-scifi-105852.htm


    And now he make JN-T looks great.

    No, he doesn't.

    I'd still take RTD over JNT...

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 07:21:52 2025
    On 14/08/2025 20:09, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Verily, in article <107laqf$lq31$2@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:

    On 14/08/2025 18:01, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Enh, I think you're off base there. Women and men do write somewhat
    differently, but it's more that women focus on the social aspects of the >>> story while men want more adventure.


    The differences are much more than that. It was shown by Lego that men
    write stories the same way they play with toys, playing with each toy in
    the manner that the character of the toy would act and behave, so they
    play Superman as Superman, Batman as Batman, and Wonder Woman as Wonder
    Woman all of which have different abilities and ways of speaking,
    acting, behaving, and dealing with others.

    Yes, I saw the same study. The people who want to make much of it are neglecting to mention that the *boys* were also playing "wrong."

    If you introduce kids to Spider-Man and then give them Spider-Man toys,
    the toddler girls will have Spider-Man go shopping and make dinner. The toddler boys, on the other hand, will reenact the story they just saw. Neither of these things is a good Spider-Man story, which is why we
    don't let toddlers write screenplays.

    They're kids. Of course they're not going to write great stories. The
    findings of the study demonstrated that boys will play Spiderman as
    Spiderman and understand what kind of stories to place him in whereas
    girls do not and play Spiderman was themselves.


    I noticed this myself, when my son was small. To me, a former girl, it
    was very strange that he kept replaying *the same* scenario over and
    over. That's what boys do as toddlers, though. As they develop, the boys
    and girls will both gain more imagination.

    Boys have always put their minds into characters different from
    themselves because this is a genetic trait passed on from hunting where
    men have to figure out how the animals they are hunting will move next
    and in a fight have to figure out the moves of their opponent and
    counter them. This is also why men tell better stories because they
    needed to describe to others how and where to hunt, the root to the
    animal and back home, and the movements of the animal, the location of
    trees them might want to gather fruit from, how to obtain it and all the
    steps involved.

    Women on the other hand stayed at home, cooked the food men brought back
    with them, and looked after the kids, and if they'd started thinking
    like babies it would have made them useless mothers so they shut off all consideration of what others might think or how things might work. The
    idea was to teach the baby to think like them until it grew up and if it
    was a boy joined the hunting party with its father where it would prove
    itself through undergoing the hero's journey. This is also why most
    women have little interest in exploration, action, adventure, science
    fiction or STEM in general.


    It's honestly kind of funny that you keep insisting no female person
    could ever write science fiction, when so many have already done so. You
    keep saying this in the Doctor Who group, of all places, and the Doctor
    was created by a woman.


    Doctor Who was created by Sidney Newman who was male and Canadian and
    ripped the idea off Doctor Omega (Le Docteur Omga) by Arnould Galopin.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 07:23:08 2025
    On 14/08/2025 20:59, solar penguin wrote:

    Melissa Hollingsworth <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:


    It's honestly kind of funny that you keep insisting no female person
    could ever write science fiction, when so many have already done so. You
    keep saying this in the Doctor Who group, of all places, and the Doctor
    was created by a woman.


    That’s Aggy for you.

    You know that scene in ‘Frontier in Space’ where the Doctor says: ‘Allow me to congratulate you, sir. You have the most totally closed
    mind that I've ever encountered.’

    I’m reminded of that every time Aggy posts.


    And you are a complete uneducated moron.

    Doctor Who was created by Sidney Newman who was male and Canadian and
    ripped the idea off Doctor Omega (Le Docteur Omga) by Arnould Galopin.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 08:01:14 2025
    Verily, in article <107lk1h$nmav$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:

    On 14/08/2025 20:09, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Verily, in article <107laqf$lq31$2@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:

    On 14/08/2025 18:01, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Enh, I think you're off base there. Women and men do write somewhat
    differently, but it's more that women focus on the social aspects of the >>> story while men want more adventure.


    The differences are much more than that. It was shown by Lego that men
    write stories the same way they play with toys, playing with each toy in >> the manner that the character of the toy would act and behave, so they
    play Superman as Superman, Batman as Batman, and Wonder Woman as Wonder
    Woman all of which have different abilities and ways of speaking,
    acting, behaving, and dealing with others.

    Yes, I saw the same study. The people who want to make much of it are neglecting to mention that the *boys* were also playing "wrong."

    If you introduce kids to Spider-Man and then give them Spider-Man toys,
    the toddler girls will have Spider-Man go shopping and make dinner. The toddler boys, on the other hand, will reenact the story they just saw. Neither of these things is a good Spider-Man story, which is why we
    don't let toddlers write screenplays.

    They're kids. Of course they're not going to write great stories. The findings of the study demonstrated that boys will play Spiderman as Spiderman and understand what kind of stories to place him in whereas
    girls do not and play Spiderman was themselves.

    No, that's not what it found. They found that boys played Spider-Man as Spider-Man and put him in *the same* story. They used stories they
    already knew.

    If you're relying on commentary, please check the original study. Many,
    many people aren't reporting on it accurately. A fair bit of work has
    been done on early play differences, so it's worth looking in more than
    one place, too.

    Another thing to note is that girls develop imaginative play earlier
    than boys do. Among two-year-olds, most girls can play pretend and most
    boys can't yet. At three, they will. If those early differences told the
    whole story, men wouldn't be able to generate fiction at all. Since they
    can, that's pretty clearly not the whole story.


    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 08:02:36 2025
    Verily, in article <107lf6v$n0po$1@dont-email.me>, did
    solar.penguin@gmail.com deliver unto us this message:

    That?s Aggy for you.

    You know that scene in ?Frontier in Space? where the Doctor says:
    ?Allow me to congratulate you, sir. You have the most totally closed
    mind that I've ever encountered.?

    I?m reminded of that every time Aggy posts.

    Yeah, you're probably right. There's no point in arguing about it.

    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 08:35:15 2025
    On 14/08/2025 23:01, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Verily, in article <107lk1h$nmav$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:

    On 14/08/2025 20:09, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Verily, in article <107laqf$lq31$2@dont-email.me>, did
    agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:

    On 14/08/2025 18:01, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Enh, I think you're off base there. Women and men do write somewhat
    differently, but it's more that women focus on the social aspects of the >>>>> story while men want more adventure.


    The differences are much more than that. It was shown by Lego that men >>>> write stories the same way they play with toys, playing with each toy in >>>> the manner that the character of the toy would act and behave, so they >>>> play Superman as Superman, Batman as Batman, and Wonder Woman as Wonder >>>> Woman all of which have different abilities and ways of speaking,
    acting, behaving, and dealing with others.

    Yes, I saw the same study. The people who want to make much of it are
    neglecting to mention that the *boys* were also playing "wrong."

    If you introduce kids to Spider-Man and then give them Spider-Man toys,
    the toddler girls will have Spider-Man go shopping and make dinner. The
    toddler boys, on the other hand, will reenact the story they just saw.
    Neither of these things is a good Spider-Man story, which is why we
    don't let toddlers write screenplays.

    They're kids. Of course they're not going to write great stories. The
    findings of the study demonstrated that boys will play Spiderman as
    Spiderman and understand what kind of stories to place him in whereas
    girls do not and play Spiderman was themselves.

    No, that's not what it found. They found that boys played Spider-Man as Spider-Man and put him in *the same* story. They used stories they
    already knew.

    Which makes absolutely no difference to the point that I was making.
    Boy's played with Spiderman as Spiderman. Girls played with him as
    themselves. I was not making any claims about boy's story writing
    ability, only their understanding of character and characterisation.


    If you're relying on commentary, please check the original study. Many,
    many people aren't reporting on it accurately. A fair bit of work has
    been done on early play differences, so it's worth looking in more than
    one place, too.

    Another thing to note is that girls develop imaginative play earlier
    than boys do. Among two-year-olds, most girls can play pretend and most
    boys can't yet. At three, they will. If those early differences told the whole story, men wouldn't be able to generate fiction at all. Since they
    can, that's pretty clearly not the whole story.

    And this is all explained by the findings of other studies which show
    that girls' brains are hard wired and preprogrammed from birth with what
    they need to know to survive, and they learn very little after that,
    whereas boys' brains are not hard wired at birth and need to continue
    learning as they grow up as their brains keep developing up to the age
    of 30, whereas girl's brain development as well as their growth almost
    comes to a complete halt at the age of 13. This demonstrates why boys
    need positive male role models from early childhood all the way until
    they become young adults and the attempts by woke activists, who are
    mostly lesbian feminist bigots with very low intelligence, to take away
    all of their roles models and father figures such as Doctor Who, Luke Skywalker, Superman, Batman, Spiderman, and the characters from The Lord
    of the Rings and turn them gay, effeminate, or into women is having a detrimental affect on society and on boys in general. Peter Davison was
    right in condemning turning the Doctor into a woman.

    Boys have a greater capacity to learn more knowledge and ability to find solutions to the most perplexing problems once their brains have fully developed than girls ever can and the woke far left has tried to impede
    their development for generations, at least since the late 30s, as is
    exposed in the example of the female dominated planet Lyrane in Second
    Stage Lensmen by E E Smith where all men have been eliminate from
    society except for a tiny number of goblin like 3 foot tall dwarfs who
    serve as breeding stock and are then euthanised.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 09:02:04 2025
    Verily, in article <107lob5$nmav$3@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    And this is all explained by the findings of other studies which show
    that girls' brains are hard wired and preprogrammed from birth with what they need to know to survive, and they learn very little after that,


    I BWAHed out loud at this.

    Wow. Also, yay. I can see we're going to have quite a future together.

    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 09:07:14 2025
    On 15/08/2025 00:02, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Verily, in article <107lob5$nmav$3@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    And this is all explained by the findings of other studies which show
    that girls' brains are hard wired and preprogrammed from birth with what
    they need to know to survive, and they learn very little after that,


    I BWAHed out loud at this.


    Typical reaction of the uninformed.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6845991/Controversial-study-finds-brain-differences-sexes-begin-womb.html

    Wow. Also, yay. I can see we're going to have quite a future together.



    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 09:22:12 2025
    Verily, in article <107lq73$nmav$4@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:

    On 15/08/2025 00:02, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Verily, in article <107lob5$nmav$3@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    And this is all explained by the findings of other studies which show
    that girls' brains are hard wired and preprogrammed from birth with what >> they need to know to survive, and they learn very little after that,


    I BWAHed out loud at this.


    Typical reaction of the uninformed.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6845991/Controversial-study-finds-brain-differences-sexes-begin-womb.html

    Do you really believe this article shows that girls are incapable of
    learning after 13? It doesn't. *At* *most*, it would indicate that boys
    are somewhat more susceptible to environmental influences than girls
    are.

    Really, the idea that girls can't learn after 13 is so very, very easy
    to falsify just by looking around. For instance, I spoke no Dutch at 13.
    My aunt learned macrame in her thirties. My college roommate learned
    piano in her forties. It's ludicrously easy to find counterexamples.


    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 09:23:55 2025
    Verily, in article <107lqh6$1sou$10@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:

    In article <MPG.43080ac9d06b5db19897f9@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Melissa Hollingsworth <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
    Verily, in article <107lob5$nmav$3@dont-email.me>, did >agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    And this is all explained by the findings of other studies which show
    that girls' brains are hard wired and preprogrammed from birth with what >> they need to know to survive, and they learn very little after that,


    I BWAHed out loud at this.

    Wow. Also, yay. I can see we're going to have quite a future together.


    Welcome aboard.

    You have been very welcoming, to me and others, so thank you.


    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 18:54:43 2025
    On 14/08/2025 21:19, Blueshirt wrote:
    The Doctor wrote:

    In article <xn0p9jc3d1or7to000@post.eweka.nl>,
    Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:

    A show with some interesting storylines as opposed to
    Liquorice Allsort villains might have been something of
    an improvement! The Seventh Doctor didn't have much
    else going for him.

    You anti-MCCoyers are a real laugh shack.

    I laugh at the people who think the Sylvester McCoy era of
    the show was good.

    Clearly they missed the Pertwee/Baker era so didn't know any
    better.

    And among them are Davies, Moffat, and Chibnall, who think the McCoy era
    was the greatest era ever.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 19:05:08 2025
    On 13/08/2025 10:34, Blueshirt wrote:
    Dave Shariff Yadallee - wrote:

    BBC controller were anti-scifi at the time.

    And JNT was anti too much of Andrew Cartmel's 'master plan'
    in one go... preferring his pantomime approach to the show!


    And still it was better written and got higher ratings and more critical adulation than the infantile children's cartoon based garbage Russell T
    Davies gave us last season, and the one before that, and the anniversary specials, which totally destroyed the entire franchise trying to emulate Cartmel's ideas.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 19:16:29 2025
    On 14/08/2025 14:52, The Doctor wrote:
    In article <107kpip$fsoa$5@dont-email.me>,
    The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
    On 14/08/2025 14:45, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 14/08/2025 8:44 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
    Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    Verily, in article <107j2ej$4ik4$2@dont-email.me>, did
    agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:

    Lungbarrow would not have saved the show. It would have put
    an end to it by revealing who the Doctor originally was. It
    was a drawn out murder mystery which made all of the Time
    Lords sterile in order to justify the Other inventing the
    looms and regeneration so that the show runners could turn
    him into God.

    Yeah, I always hated that plot. That was the Cartmel Master
    Plan? No thanks.

    "Lungbarrow" was like Marmite - you either love it or you hate
    it.

    Someone did like it enough to pay me a good few quid for the
    paperback about twenty years ago though, so there's no
    accounting for taste.
    Making the Doctor half human in the TVM was a far better
    idea since it made the Doctor more relatable to the people
    watching than turning him into God. Unfortunately it turned
    the Doctor into Spock and you know what that would have led
    to in every single story that would have followed if the TVM
    hadn't failed in the US.

    I didn't really like the half-human bit either. He was
    relatable enough before that, IMO.

    Half-human wasn't a good idea either... BUT, way better than
    Looms!!!

    I find it hard to follow the 'Half-Human' bit, too. I mean would a
    stuck-up society like Gualifrey Time Lord Council accept a Half-
    Gualifrean/Half-Human as their President.

    They didn't have a choice. The Doctor was elected by default because he
    was the only remaining candidate left in the race.

    Also the Time Lords were not a stuck up society. They were an
    isolationist society.


    Somewhat like Imperial UK in its day.


    No it wasn't. Isolationist perfectly describes the USA under Donald
    Trump and Brexit.


    Mind you, the Presidency bit had been thought up and used well before
    the Half'n'Half bit was thought up.

    As was Leela and Andred getting married, and the Time Lord's didn't have
    a problem with that.


    Correct!




    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 19:32:35 2025
    On 14/08/2025 21:16, Blueshirt wrote:


    The True Doctor wrote:

    Sylvester McCoy was

    ...a shit actor who should never have been the Doctor
    in the first place. The job was above his talents.


    I've seen him on stage and he's not a shit actor and has more range than either Whittaker or Gatwa. Now those two are shit actors.

    ... given shit scripts to work with and bad directors.

    Pantomime scripts.

    Still better than infantile children’s cartoon scripts from Disney,
    Loony Tunes and Merry Melodies.

    He should what he could do when given decent
    material and good directing in the TVM.

    Decent material? Like how to get shot and die?!


    It was still better and higher brow than bigeneration, clubbing the
    TARDIS with a mallet to make two of them, and pointlessly killing
    himself to bring a hallucinated child into existance.

    JNT turning the show into a pantomime was a result of
    Cartmel and the bad scripts that resulted.

    JNT was the boss, what you saw on screen was what he
    wanted. That era of the show - the era that the general
    public didn't want to watch - was JNT's vision of the show.


    No. The era the general public didn't want to watch is that of Doctor
    Whoke, especially under RTD, which got far lower ratings. And while the
    public wanted Doctor Who to return after it was cancelled in 1989, no
    one wants it to return now because RTD killed off the entire franchise
    with his infantile writing and attempt to use the show to sexually groom children to become gay, because he didn't like the Doctor being
    masculine and heterosexual, and wanted to make the character into himself.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 22:00:45 2025
    On 15/08/2025 12:31, stupid penguin wrote:

    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 14/08/2025 21:16, Blueshirt wrote:


    The True Doctor wrote:

    Sylvester McCoy was

    ...a shit actor who should never have been the Doctor
    in the first place. The job was above his talents.


    I've seen him on stage and he's not a shit actor

    Your original post said ‘was’ not ‘is’.

    My original post said, "Sylvester McCoy was given shit scripts to work
    with" you stupid low intelligence individual.


    No-one’s denying his acting has improved over the years. He
    might even have become good enough to play the Doctor now.
    But now isn’t then. Acting talent isn’t a wibbly-wobbly timey-
    wimey stuff.

    He was a better actor in 1987 than Jodie Whittaker and Ncuti Gatwa ever
    were throughout their run.


    and has more range than
    either Whittaker or Gatwa. Now those two are shit actors.

    I’ve seen Whittaker on stage, and you’re just plain wrong.


    I've seen her on YouTube with Eccleston on stage and she's complete and
    utter crap. There is no comparison with McCoy. McCoy can play the
    classics. Whittaker doesn't have any acting range whatsoever, just like
    Gatwa doesn't. A two bit soap opera actress called Jo Martin trod her
    into the ground with just 15 minutes of screen time to her 3 series.


    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 22:10:14 2025
    On 15/08/2025 12:23, stupid penguin wrote:

    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 14/08/2025 20:59, solar penguin wrote:

    You forgot to change it to ‘solar imbecile’. You’re no fun anymore.


    Idiot!


    That’s Aggy for you.

    You know that scene in ‘Frontier in Space’ where the Doctor says:
    ‘Allow me to congratulate you, sir. You have the most totally closed
    mind that I've ever encountered.’

    I’m reminded of that every time Aggy posts.


    And you are a complete uneducated moron.

    Doctor Who was created by Sidney Newman who was male

    That depends what you mean by ‘created’.

    Sydney (not Sidney) Newman didn’t think up any of the ideas
    behind Doctor Who. He delegated other people to do that for
    him.

    He told them what he wanted, gave them the brief for Doctor Who taken
    from Doctor Omega and they got on with making it.


    The only idea of his own Newman made to the show was that
    there should be no bug eyed monsters. See how that worked!


    He obviously didn't want to be sue for copyright infringement.

    and Canadian and
    ripped the idea off Doctor Omega (Le Docteur Omga) by Arnould Galopin.


    You think that just because some Canadians speak French, all
    Canadians are familiar with every obscure children’s book in
    that language?

    (It wouldn’t be the craziest thing you’ve believed!)


    Newman was more than familiar with it. He stole the entire concept of
    Doctor Who from it. This is widely acknowledged even by Terrance Dicks
    who wrote the forward to the English translation.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 22:12:44 2025
    The Doctor wrote:

    In article <xn0p9jnddhbw885002@post.eweka.nl>,
    Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
    The Doctor wrote:

    And now he make JN-T looks great.

    No, he doesn't.

    I'd still take RTD over JNT...

    The toehjr way around for me.

    I can't write-off the highs of the show post-2005 just because
    of the last two years... Doctor Who was a huge success when it
    returned and RTD is the man responsible for that.

    It's just a pity RTD is living on those past glories and feels
    the need to regurgitate his greatest hits rather than try
    something new... if the show returns in 2026/27 with RTD as the
    showrunner it's almost guaranteed that David Tennant will be a
    part of it somehow, alongside Billie Piper. That's not going
    forward!

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 22:14:40 2025


    The Doctor wrote:

    In article <xn0p9jnfghbz8xc003@post.eweka.nl>,
    Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
    The Doctor wrote:

    In article <xn0p9jc3d1or7to000@post.eweka.nl>,
    Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:

    A show with some interesting storylines as opposed to
    Liquorice Allsort villains might have been something of
    an improvement! The Seventh Doctor didn't have much
    else going for him.

    You anti-MCCoyers are a real laugh shack.

    I laugh at the people who think the Sylvester McCoy era of
    the show was good.

    Clearly they missed the Pertwee/Baker era so didn't know any
    better.

    No wonder radwm came into exitence.

    No sensible Doctor Who fan would claim the Sylvester McCoy era
    was better than the Tom Baker era...

    Anybody genuinely thinking that needs help.

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 22:16:05 2025
    On 14/08/2025 11:28, Blueshirt wrote:


    solar penguin wrote:

    Blueshirt brought forth for us:

    The Doctor wrote:

    The Novels should have never taken place.

    Why? Nobody made you read them. I thought you
    were a Seventh Doctor fan?

    Either way, some people enjoyed the continuation of
    the series in written form...

    I enjoyed some of them. But a lot were just too postmodern
    for my tastes. I prefer more straightforward stories.

    Same here. I enjoyed some of the Virgin NA's... A few authors
    did try to tell good Doctor Who stories, but a lot of them were
    so up their own arse they just went off with their own agendas
    and added layers of confusion to everything.

    (The EDAs were the worst. By then the postmodernists had
    moved on from deconstructing the concept of Doctor Who,
    and were now deconstructing the concept of deconstructing
    Doctor Who!)

    Step forward John Peel... (with his two awful Dalek EDA's)


    There was nothing wrong with War of the Daleks compared to the
    monstrosity of the Timeless Child which retconned the Doctor's entire
    origin story and turned him into a genocidal monster.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 22:36:35 2025


    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 14/08/2025 11:28, Blueshirt wrote:

    solar penguin wrote:

    (The EDAs were the worst. By then the postmodernists had
    moved on from deconstructing the concept of Doctor Who,
    and were now deconstructing the concept of deconstructing
    Doctor Who!)

    Step forward John Peel... (with his two awful Dalek EDA's)

    There was nothing wrong with War of the Daleks compared to the
    monstrosity of the Timeless Child which retconned the Doctor's
    entire origin story and turned him into a genocidal monster.

    There was A LOT wrong with "War of the Daleks" as you well
    know... comparing it to the Timeless Child is just moving the
    goal-posts though as they are two entirely different thing. Most
    importantly one is a book, part of the expanded universe, whilst
    the other IS the show!

    John Peel even admitted he messed things up with his notes on
    Antalin and the Dalek factions, which led to some continuity
    errors... you will be waiting a long time for Chris Chibnall to
    admit in public that he made a mistake with his Timeless Child
    arc.

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 23:06:56 2025
    On 15/08/2025 13:36, Blueshirt wrote:


    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 14/08/2025 11:28, Blueshirt wrote:

    solar penguin wrote:

    (The EDAs were the worst. By then the postmodernists had
    moved on from deconstructing the concept of Doctor Who,
    and were now deconstructing the concept of deconstructing
    Doctor Who!)

    Step forward John Peel... (with his two awful Dalek EDA's)

    There was nothing wrong with War of the Daleks compared to the
    monstrosity of the Timeless Child which retconned the Doctor's
    entire origin story and turned him into a genocidal monster.

    There was A LOT wrong with "War of the Daleks" as you well
    know... comparing it to the Timeless Child is just moving the
    goal-posts though as they are two entirely different thing. Most

    Wrong! War of the Daleks retcons Destiny of the Daleks and every Dalek
    story that came after it including the entire Dalek Movelan War. The
    Timeless Children retcons the entire show and the Doctor's origin. The
    damage the Timeless Child did was to destroy the entire franchise. War
    of the Daleks was less insulting than changing the Doctor's entire
    origin story and turning him into a monster from another dimension and
    didn't destroy anything.

    importantly one is a book, part of the expanded universe, whilst
    the other IS the show!

    Being a book War of the Daleks did no damage to the franchise. The
    Timeless Child monster totally destroyed it.

    John Peel even admitted he messed things up with his notes on
    Antalin and the Dalek factions, which led to some continuity
    errors... you will be waiting a long time for Chris Chibnall to
    admit in public that he made a mistake with his Timeless Child
    arc.

    And Davies made an even bigger mistake by quadrupling down on it instead
    of retonning it immediatly, and thus killed off the entire show.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Daniel70@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 23:35:22 2025
    On 15/08/2025 5:09 am, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    <Snip>

    I noticed this myself, when my son was small. To me, a former girl, it
    was very strange that he kept replaying *the same* scenario over and
    over. That's what boys do as toddlers, though. As they develop, the boys
    and girls will both gain more imagination.

    "To me, a former girl, ..."?? WOW!! You had me going there, Melissa.

    I was thinking "Is the poster a trans-sexual (or whatever the correct
    term is!) .... was a Girl but is now a .......... 'Melissa' which *IS* a girl's name .... Oh!! Hang ON!! Melissa WAS a girl but is NOW a WOMAN!!

    Seems I nearly made a goose of myself!! ;-P
    --
    Daniel70

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 00:07:00 2025
    Verily, in article <107n7he$13lme$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    My original post said, "Sylvester McCoy was given shit scripts to work
    with" you stupid low intelligence individual.


    Be nice.

    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 00:08:12 2025
    Verily, in article <107n5bj$13a4p$1@dont-email.me>, did solar.penguin@gmail.com deliver unto us this message:
    The only idea of his own Newman made to the show was that
    there should be no bug eyed monsters. See how that worked!


    Yeah, it lasted all the way until the second serial!

    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 00:15:45 2025
    Verily, in article <xn0p9kp71327sp6002@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
    It's just a pity RTD is living on those past glories and feels
    the need to regurgitate his greatest hits rather than try
    something new... if the show returns in 2026/27 with RTD as the
    showrunner it's almost guaranteed that David Tennant will be a
    part of it somehow, alongside Billie Piper. That's not going
    forward!


    Well said.

    I liked the show's return. I liked RTD's first era, when his excesses
    were confined to Torchwood. I liked Moffat's era, too, until I realized
    it wasn't going anywhere.

    RTD again hasn't been like RTD the first time. He no longer seems to
    have any affection or regard for the show. If it's continued, I hope
    they switch to a showrunner who both likes its past and sees a future
    for it.

    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 00:24:46 2025
    Verily, in article <107nd2m$151ta$1@dont-email.me>, did daniel47 @somewhere.someplaceelse deliver unto us this message:

    On 15/08/2025 5:09 am, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    "To me, a former girl, ..."?? WOW!! You had me going there, Melissa.

    I was thinking "Is the poster a trans-sexual (or whatever the correct
    term is!) .... was a Girl but is now a .......... 'Melissa' which *IS* a girl's name .... Oh!! Hang ON!! Melissa WAS a girl but is NOW a WOMAN!!

    Seems I nearly made a goose of myself!! ;-P

    LOL! I didn't even think of that interpretation. :D

    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Daniel70@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 00:41:28 2025
    On 16/08/2025 12:24 am, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Verily, in article <107nd2m$151ta$1@dont-email.me>, did daniel47 @somewhere.someplaceelse deliver unto us this message:
    On 15/08/2025 5:09 am, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    "To me, a former girl, ..."?? WOW!! You had me going there, Melissa.

    I was thinking "Is the poster a trans-sexual (or whatever the correct
    term is!) .... was a Girl but is now a .......... 'Melissa' which *IS* a
    girl's name .... Oh!! Hang ON!! Melissa WAS a girl but is NOW a WOMAN!!

    Seems I nearly made a goose of myself!! ;-P

    LOL! I didn't even think of that interpretation. :D

    Ah!! Well! That's the sort of Society WE have here, Melissa!! ;-P
    --
    Daniel70

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 01:21:53 2025
    On 15/08/2025 15:00, The Doctor wrote:
    In article <107n836$13lme$2@dont-email.me>,
    The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
    On 15/08/2025 12:23, stupid penguin wrote:

    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 14/08/2025 20:59, solar penguin wrote:

    You forgot to change it to ‘solar imbecile’. You’re no fun anymore. >>>

    Idiot!


    That’s Aggy for you.

    You know that scene in ‘Frontier in Space’ where the Doctor says: >>>>> ‘Allow me to congratulate you, sir. You have the most totally closed >>>>> mind that I've ever encountered.’

    I’m reminded of that every time Aggy posts.


    And you are a complete uneducated moron.

    Doctor Who was created by Sidney Newman who was male

    That depends what you mean by ‘created’.

    Sydney (not Sidney) Newman didn’t think up any of the ideas
    behind Doctor Who. He delegated other people to do that for
    him.

    He told them what he wanted, gave them the brief for Doctor Who taken
    from Doctor Omega and they got on with making it.


    The only idea of his own Newman made to the show was that
    there should be no bug eyed monsters. See how that worked!


    He obviously didn't want to be sue for copyright infringement.

    and Canadian and
    ripped the idea off Doctor Omega (Le Docteur Omga) by Arnould Galopin. >>>>

    You think that just because some Canadians speak French, all
    Canadians are familiar with every obscure children’s book in
    that language?

    (It wouldn’t be the craziest thing you’ve believed!)


    Newman was more than familiar with it. He stole the entire concept of
    Doctor Who from it. This is widely acknowledged even by Terrance Dicks
    who wrote the forward to the English translation.


    The original is French?

    Oui.


    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
    stands for." --William Shatner




    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 01:24:00 2025
    On 15/08/2025 14:35, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 15/08/2025 5:09 am, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    <Snip>

    I noticed this myself, when my son was small. To me, a former girl, it
    was very strange that he kept replaying *the same* scenario over and
    over. That's what boys do as toddlers, though. As they develop, the boys
    and girls will both gain more imagination.

    "To me, a former girl, ..."?? WOW!! You had me going there, Melissa.

    I was thinking "Is the poster a trans-sexual (or whatever the correct
    term is!) .... was a Girl but is now a .......... 'Melissa' which *IS* a girl's name .... Oh!! Hang ON!! Melissa WAS a girl but is NOW a WOMAN!!

    Seems I nearly made a goose of myself!! ;-P

    Well that's wokery for you.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 01:25:12 2025
    On 15/08/2025 15:07, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Verily, in article <107n7he$13lme$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    My original post said, "Sylvester McCoy was given shit scripts to work
    with" you stupid low intelligence individual.


    Be nice.


    He wasn't being nice to me.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 03:08:45 2025
    Verily, in article <107njfb$2vb3$3@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:

    In article <MPG.4308deddb38bef4b989802@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Melissa Hollingsworth <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
    Verily, in article <107n7he$13lme$1@dont-email.me>, did >agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    My original post said, "Sylvester McCoy was given s*t scripts to work
    with" you stupid low intelligence individual.


    Be nice.


    It happens around here:-(

    Hey, it's Usenet. If we can't handle it, we can head back to one of the
    highly moderated sites our overlords have curated for us.

    *shrug*

    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 05:41:17 2025
    On 15/08/2025 19:50, idiotic penguin wrote:

    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 15/08/2025 12:23, stupid penguin wrote:

    Ooh, a new nickname!


    The True loon was unladylike :


    Doctor Who was created by Sidney Newman who was male

    That depends what you mean by ‘created’.

    Sydney (not Sidney) Newman didn’t think up any of the ideas
    behind Doctor Who. He delegated other people to do that for
    him.

    He told them what he wanted, gave them the brief for Doctor Who taken
    from Doctor Omega and they got on with making it.


    Tell that to C.E. ‘Bunny’ Webber.


    Irrelevant.

    The only idea of his own Newman made to the show was that
    there should be no bug eyed monsters. See how that worked!


    He obviously didn't want to be sue

    You’re imagining trans women everywhere!!!


    It's Daniel who's imagining trans women everywhere. I understood
    perfectly well what Melissa meant when she said 'I was a girl once' or whatever.

    for copyright infringement.


    Oh, you mean ‘sued’.


    That's right. The past tense of sue.

    It’s an interesting theory but it’s not supported by any of
    the memos or other paperwork of the time. Or by the fact that
    he wasn’t sued for copyright infringement.


    Because he never revealed his influences.
    (You might be be better off arguing that Newman, Webber,
    Pinfield, Whitaker, Coburn and Hussain were six men to
    Lambert’s one woman, meaning Doctor Who was 86%
    created by men. But you’re too stubborn to give a woman
    even that much credit.)

    Verity Lambert was a producer not a writer.


    and Canadian and
    ripped the idea off Doctor Omega (Le Docteur Omga) by Arnould Galopin. >>>>

    You think that just because some Canadians speak French, all
    Canadians are familiar with every obscure children’s book in
    that language?

    (It wouldn’t be the craziest thing you’ve believed!)


    Newman was more than familiar with it. He stole the entire concept of
    Doctor Who from it. This is widely acknowledged even by Terrance Dicks
    who wrote the forward to the English translation.


    I’ve not read it. What exactly does it say? Does Dicks just

    Look it up. I've not read it in years.

    speculate that someone involved in the creation of the show
    might’ve seen the book? Or does he specifically state that
    it was Newman who definitely did read it?

    If the second option, how did Dicks know?


    It's blatantly obvious from the content and structure of the book.

    Bear in mind that he only started writing for Doctor Who
    shortly before Newman left the BBC. I don’t suppose they
    had much chance to chat.

    (BTW by insisting that Newman copied an existing story,
    you’re actually supporting Melissa’s claim that boys are
    more naturally inclined to copy existing stories rather than
    make up new ones! You’ve shifted the goalposts so much
    you’ve ended up scoring an own goal!)


    I've not shifted any goal posts you miniscule person of very low
    intelligence. I never disagreed with Melissa's claim, because it was
    totally irrelevant to the discussion which was about understanding the differences between characters.

    If someone copies an existing story then that is a good thing. Maybe
    they are able to write it better or us it as part of a new story or combination of stories to make a novel. That is how people learn how to
    write you intellectually challenged individual. You learn from those who
    have preceded you. You don't make up a story without ever reading a book before and try to reinvent the wheel. Maybe you tell and existing story
    in a batter way. Just how lacking in intelligence are you? Did you ever
    attend your English lessons and listen to what your English teacher
    tried to teach you?

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 06:44:39 2025
    On 15/08/2025 13:12, Blueshirt wrote:
    The Doctor wrote:

    In article <xn0p9jnddhbw885002@post.eweka.nl>,
    Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
    The Doctor wrote:

    And now he make JN-T looks great.

    No, he doesn't.

    I'd still take RTD over JNT...

    The toehjr way around for me.

    I can't write-off the highs of the show post-2005 just because
    of the last two years... Doctor Who was a huge success when it
    returned and RTD is the man responsible for that.

    Two years? You mean 11 years since the show went woke when Moffat turned
    the Master into a woman and the ratings collapsed.


    It's just a pity RTD is living on those past glories and feels
    the need to regurgitate his greatest hits rather than try
    something new... if the show returns in 2026/27 with RTD as the
    showrunner it's almost guaranteed that David Tennant will be a
    part of it somehow, alongside Billie Piper. That's not going
    forward!

    The show is dead Tennant or not. Matt Smith was the best Doctor of the
    new era followed by Christopher Eccleston.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 06:53:13 2025
    On 15/08/2025 20:22, solar penguin wrote:

    Blueshirt brought forth for us:


    The Doctor wrote:


    And now he make JN-T looks great.

    No, he doesn't.

    I'd still take RTD over JNT...


    A lot of people get RTD and JNT mixed up. Here’s how to tell them apart:

    JND had a good, strong start to his time in charge of Doctor
    Who. At the end of his first season in the job, he had to cope
    with the resignation of the actor playing the Doctor. In his
    place, he cast a younger actor who would later be related
    to Georgia Moffett. Some popular, fan-favourite stories
    followed, including the return of the Cybermen in the new
    Doctor’s first season. However, many Doctors and even
    more years later, the show had become an unpopular,
    self-indulgent shadow of its former self, including a much-hated
    story with the Rani, Mel and a contrived regeneration.

    RTT had a good, strong start to his time in charge of Doctor
    Who. At the end of his first season in the job, he had to cope
    with the resignation of the actor playing the Doctor. In his

    Davies drove Eccleston to resign though his bullying, coercive, and controlling behaviour towards the cast and crew which Eccleston could
    not condone. JNT also drove Tom Baker to resign through similar behaviour.

    place, he cast a younger actor who would later be related
    to Georgia Moffett. Some popular, fan-favourite stories
    followed, including the return of the Cybermen in the new
    Doctor’s first season. However, many Doctors and even
    more years later, the show had become an unpopular,
    self-indulgent shadow of its former self, including a much-hated
    story with the Rani, Mel and a contrived regeneration.


    Both eras were unpopular because both JNT and RTD put far left political messaging before good writing and good stories. And of course both of
    them were gay and toxic towards those around them.
    That’s why I pick RNT over JTD. Or perhaps the other way
    round.


    RTD destroyed the entire franchise so that no one wants it to return.
    JNT didn't.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 10:33:42 2025
    On 15/08/2025 22:25, The Doctor wrote:
    In article <107o67o$1bcqm$1@dont-email.me>,
    The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
    On 15/08/2025 13:12, Blueshirt wrote:
    The Doctor wrote:

    In article <xn0p9jnddhbw885002@post.eweka.nl>,
    Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
    The Doctor wrote:

    And now he make JN-T looks great.

    No, he doesn't.

    I'd still take RTD over JNT...

    The toehjr way around for me.

    I can't write-off the highs of the show post-2005 just because
    of the last two years... Doctor Who was a huge success when it
    returned and RTD is the man responsible for that.

    Two years? You mean 11 years since the show went woke when Moffat turned
    the Master into a woman and the ratings collapsed.


    It's just a pity RTD is living on those past glories and feels
    the need to regurgitate his greatest hits rather than try
    something new... if the show returns in 2026/27 with RTD as the
    showrunner it's almost guaranteed that David Tennant will be a
    part of it somehow, alongside Billie Piper. That's not going
    forward!

    The show is dead Tennant or not. Matt Smith was the best Doctor of the
    new era followed by Christopher Eccleston.


    And Capaldi?


    He's now risen above Tennant after Tennant's disgraceful appearance on
    the woke anniversary specials to be insulted for being male.


    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Hornplayer9599@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 13:24:25 2025
    On 8/14/2025 14:09, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:


    It's honestly kind of funny that you keep insisting no female person
    could ever write science fiction, when so many have already done so. You
    keep saying this in the Doctor Who group, of all places, and the Doctor
    was created by a woman.


    This is classic Aggy for you....he's our resident misogynist.


    --

    Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
    --Carl Sagan

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 18:03:46 2025
    solar penguin wrote:

    solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:


    Sydney (not Sidney) Newman didn’t think up any of the ideas
    behind Doctor Who. He delegated other people to do that for
    him.

    The only idea of his own Newman made to the show was that
    there should be no bug eyed monsters. See how that worked!

    And it turns out that wasn’t even his own idea, but suggested
    first by people called John Braybon and Alice Frick in a memo
    dated 25th July 1962.

    I should’ve checked before sending. (Although what would
    happen to radw if everybody did that?)

    I would have thought we have done most of these types of
    discussions many [many] times here over the years so we'd
    hardly need to check anything at this stage! :-)

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 18:03:48 2025

    solar penguin wrote:

    Blueshirt brought forth for us:

    I'd still take RTD over JNT...

    A lot of people get RTD and JNT mixed up. Here’s how
    to tell them apart:

    Easy one.

    One of them had a perm and wore Hawaiian shirts, the
    other one of them didn't!

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 18:03:49 2025
    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 15/08/2025 13:12, Blueshirt wrote:

    It's just a pity RTD is living on those past glories and
    feels the need to regurgitate his greatest hits rather than
    try something new... if the show returns in 2026/27 with RTD
    as the showrunner it's almost guaranteed that David Tennant
    will be a part of it somehow, alongside Billie Piper. That's
    not going forward!

    The show is dead Tennant or not.

    As a famous man once said: "I will not leave you. I will return."

    Matt Smith was the best Doctor of the new era followed
    by Christopher Eccleston.

    I'd go with Christopher Eccleston followed by Peter Capaldi!

    David Tennant was fine until he turned into a cry-baby.

    But we all know "Doctor Who" finished in 1974 anyway...

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 18:03:52 2025

    solar penguin wrote:

    Melissa Hollingsworth <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:


    It's honestly kind of funny that you keep insisting no
    female person could ever write science fiction, when so many
    have already done so. You keep saying this in the Doctor Who
    group, of all places, and the Doctor was created by a woman.

    That’s Aggy for you.

    You know that scene in ‘Frontier in Space’ where the Doctor
    says: ‘Allow me to congratulate you, sir. You have the most
    totally closed mind that I've ever encountered.’

    I’m reminded of that every time Aggy posts.

    I love Third Doctor references...

    Another one of his quotes that would be quite apt for AGA
    would be:

    "I don't think there's a single human being alive who could
    understand what I'm saying!"

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Daniel70@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 21:46:19 2025
    On 16/08/2025 5:41 am, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 15/08/2025 19:50, idiotic penguin wrote:
    The True Doctor wrote:
    On 15/08/2025 12:23, stupid penguin wrote:

    Ooh, a new nickname!

    The True loon was unladylike :

    Well, Aggy's soooooo unused to dealing with WOMEN!!

    Doctor Who was created by Sidney Newman who was male

    That depends what you mean by ‘created’.

    Sydney (not Sidney) Newman didn’t think up any of the ideas
    behind Doctor Who. He delegated other people to do that for
    him.

    He told them what he wanted, gave them the brief for Doctor Who
    taken from Doctor Omega and they got on with making it.

    Tell that to C.E. ‘Bunny’ Webber.

    Irrelevant.

    So says Aggy!!

    The only idea of his own Newman made to the show was that
    there should be no bug eyed monsters. See how that worked!

    He obviously didn't want to be sue

    You’re imagining trans women everywhere!!!

    It's Daniel who's imagining trans women everywhere.

    Gee Whiz!! I do it ONCE and suddenly they're all over the place!!

    I understood perfectly well what Melissa meant when she said 'I was
    a girl once' or whatever.

    Good on you, Aggy!!

    for copyright infringement.

    Oh, you mean ‘sued’.

    That's right. The past tense of sue.

    It’s an interesting theory but it’s not supported by any of the
    memos or other paperwork of the time. Or by the fact that he
    wasn’t sued for copyright infringement.

    Because he never revealed his influences.
    (You might be be better off arguing that Newman, Webber, Pinfield,
    Whitaker, Coburn and Hussain were six men to Lambert’s one woman,
    meaning Doctor Who was 86% created by men. But you’re too stubborn
    to give a woman even that much credit.)

    Verity Lambert was a producer not a writer.

    AH!! So Producers have no effect on a show, do they, Aggy??

    and Canadian and ripped the idea off Doctor Omega (Le
    Docteur Omga) by Arnould Galopin.

    You think that just because some Canadians speak French, all
    Canadians are familiar with every obscure children’s book in
    that language?

    (It wouldn’t be the craziest thing you’ve believed!)

    Newman was more than familiar with it. He stole the entire
    concept of Doctor Who from it. This is widely acknowledged even
    by Terrance Dicks who wrote the forward to the English
    translation.

    I’ve not read it. What exactly does it say? Does Dicks just

    Look it up. I've not read it in years.

    speculate that someone involved in the creation of the show
    might’ve seen the book? Or does he specifically state that it was
    Newman who definitely did read it?

    If the second option, how did Dicks know?

    It's blatantly obvious from the content and structure of the book.

    Bear in mind that he only started writing for Doctor Who shortly
    before Newman left the BBC. I don’t suppose they had much chance
    to chat.

    (BTW by insisting that Newman copied an existing story, you’re
    actually supporting Melissa’s claim that boys are more naturally
    inclined to copy existing stories rather than make up new ones!
    You’ve shifted the goalposts so much you’ve ended up scoring an
    own goal!)

    I've not shifted any goal posts you miniscule person of very low intelligence. I never disagreed with Melissa's claim, because it was
    totally irrelevant to the discussion which was about understanding
    the differences between characters.

    If someone copies an existing story then that is a good thing. Maybe
    they are able to write it better or us it as part of a new story or combination of stories to make a novel. That is how people learn how
    to write you intellectually challenged individual. You learn from
    those who have preceded you. You don't make up a story without ever
    reading a book before and try to reinvent the wheel. Maybe you tell
    and existing story in a batter way. Just how lacking in intelligence
    are you? Did you ever attend your English lessons and listen to what
    your English teacher tried to teach you?

    YEAP!! As right up yourself as ever, Aggy!!
    --
    Daniel70

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Daniel70@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 22:07:07 2025
    On 16/08/2025 6:44 am, The True Doctor wrote:

    <Snip>

    The show is dead Tennant or not. Matt Smith was the best Doctor of the
    new era followed by Christopher Eccleston.

    Sorry! WHO are you and what have you done with OUR Aggy!!
    --
    Daniel70

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 22:14:57 2025
    On 16/08/2025 12:46, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 16/08/2025 5:41 am, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 15/08/2025 19:50, idiotic penguin wrote:
    The True Doctor wrote:
    On 15/08/2025 12:23, stupid penguin wrote:


    It’s an interesting theory but it’s not supported by any of the memos >>> or other paperwork of the time. Or by the fact that he
    wasn’t sued for copyright infringement.

    Because he never revealed his influences.
    (You might be be better off arguing that Newman, Webber, Pinfield,
    Whitaker, Coburn and Hussain were six men to Lambert’s one woman,
    meaning Doctor Who was 86% created by men. But you’re too stubborn to >>> give a woman even that much credit.)

    Verity Lambert was a producer not a writer.

    AH!! So Producers have no effect on a show, do they, Aggy??


    We were talking about writers and the writing that influenced Doctor
    Who. The stupid penguin tried to change the subject like he always does.

    and Canadian and ripped the idea off Doctor Omega (Le
    Docteur Omga) by Arnould Galopin.

    You think that just because some Canadians speak French, all
    Canadians are familiar with every obscure children’s book in that >>>>> language?

    (It wouldn’t be the craziest thing you’ve believed!)

    Newman was more than familiar with it. He stole the entire concept
    of Doctor Who from it. This is widely acknowledged even by Terrance
    Dicks who wrote the forward to the English translation.

    I’ve not read it. What exactly does it say? Does Dicks just

    Look it up. I've not read it in years.

    speculate that someone involved in the creation of the show might’ve
    seen the book? Or does he specifically state that it was Newman who
    definitely did read it?

    If the second option, how did Dicks know?

    It's blatantly obvious from the content and structure of the book.

    Bear in mind that he only started writing for Doctor Who shortly
    before Newman left the BBC. I don’t suppose they had much chance
    to chat.

    (BTW by insisting that Newman copied an existing story, you’re
    actually supporting Melissa’s claim that boys are more naturally
    inclined to copy existing stories rather than make up new ones!
    You’ve shifted the goalposts so much you’ve ended up scoring an
    own goal!)

    I've not shifted any goal posts you miniscule person of very low
    intelligence. I never disagreed with Melissa's claim, because it was
    totally irrelevant to the discussion which was about understanding the
    differences between characters.

    If someone copies an existing story then that is a good thing. Maybe
    they are able to write it better or us it as part of a new story or
    combination of stories to make a novel. That is how people learn how
    to write you intellectually challenged individual. You learn from
    those who have preceded you. You don't make up a story without ever
    reading a book before and try to reinvent the wheel. Maybe you tell
    and existing story in a batter way. Just how lacking in intelligence
    are you? Did you ever attend your English lessons and listen to what
    your English teacher tried to teach you?

    YEAP!! As right up yourself as ever, Aggy!!

    He still hasn't answered my question.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 22:16:52 2025
    On 16/08/2025 05:25, solar penguin wrote:
    solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:


    Sydney (not Sidney) Newman didn’t think up any of the ideas
    behind Doctor Who. He delegated other people to do that for
    him.

    The only idea of his own Newman made to the show was that
    there should be no bug eyed monsters. See how that worked!


    And it turns out that wasn’t even his own idea, but suggested
    first by people called John Braybon and Alice Frick in a memo
    dated 25th July 1962.

    I should’ve checked before sending. (Although what would
    happen to radw if everybody did that?)


    That's what got Verity Lambert off the hook then.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 22:18:58 2025
    On 16/08/2025 09:03, Blueshirt wrote:
    solar penguin wrote:

    solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:


    Sydney (not Sidney) Newman didn’t think up any of the ideas
    behind Doctor Who. He delegated other people to do that for
    him.

    The only idea of his own Newman made to the show was that
    there should be no bug eyed monsters. See how that worked!

    And it turns out that wasn’t even his own idea, but suggested
    first by people called John Braybon and Alice Frick in a memo
    dated 25th July 1962.

    I should’ve checked before sending. (Although what would
    happen to radw if everybody did that?)

    I would have thought we have done most of these types of
    discussions many [many] times here over the years so we'd
    hardly need to check anything at this stage! :-)

    Writers don't like citing their sources because they'd then be accused
    of plagiarism and copyright violation. Scientists on the other hand have
    to otherwise they'd all be accused of making it all up themselves. It's
    time to abolish copyright.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 22:22:57 2025
    On 16/08/2025 04:24, Hornplayer9599 wrote:
    On 8/14/2025 14:09, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:


    It's honestly kind of funny that you keep insisting no female person
    could ever write science fiction, when so many have already done so. You
    keep saying this in the Doctor Who group, of all places, and the Doctor
    was created by a woman.


    This is classic Aggy for you....he's our resident misogynist.



    I've never said anything misogynistic ever. A man's job is to protect
    women from coming to harm.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 22:42:45 2025
    On 16/08/2025 09:03, Blueshirt wrote:
    Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    Verily, in article <107kkqf$f1rv$1@dont-email.me>, did
    agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    Andrew Cartmel?s plans would have destroyed the show, which
    is why it was cancelled. Oh look, the Doctor is actually
    God! What's he ever done to show it? Absolutely nothing! Why
    would anyone watch the show because they've been told that
    the character is the greatest when the writing is absolute
    crap and doesn't show it?

    This is exactly what's happening in the modern area. We're
    supposed to be impressed by all these big revelations about
    who the Doctor truly is and what he means to the cosmos, but
    we don't care, because that's not the Doctor we know. It's not
    a good SF adventure or a good character development story.

    Actually, the modern trend is that it's the companion who is
    generally important or special to the cosmos in some way or
    other... and we get big revelations about them or their
    family.

    The 'special' companion has become THE trope of modern Who.

    Which once again totally alienates the entire general audience because
    the companion, like turning the Doctor into a monster from another
    dimension, no longer represents them if they're a special being as
    opposed to just being an ordinary person that earned honour and respect
    by what they did as someone who is ordinary.

    In the case of Luke Skywalker he was a lowly farm boy, no different from anyone else, who through his faith and desire to learn, and repeated
    training and practice mastered the force. Then you have Rey Palpatine
    who was a special being who didn't have fair, didn't desire to learn.
    didn't have any training, didn't practice, and mastered the force
    without doing anything because she was a woman. The same goes for
    Galadriel in The Rings of Woke. There's no hero's journey, there's no undergoing change, it's nothing but degenerate bad writing in the manner
    a girl would write or how a mother would talk to a baby about how
    brilliant and wonderful it is with the subject having proven nothing.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 22:54:22 2025
    On 16/08/2025 13:41, The Doctor wrote:
    In article <xn0p9lwuijg6u1q006@post.eweka.nl>,
    Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
    Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    Verily, in article <107kkqf$f1rv$1@dont-email.me>, did
    agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    Andrew Cartmel?s plans would have destroyed the show, which
    is why it was cancelled. Oh look, the Doctor is actually
    God! What's he ever done to show it? Absolutely nothing! Why
    would anyone watch the show because they've been told that
    the character is the greatest when the writing is absolute
    crap and doesn't show it?

    This is exactly what's happening in the modern area. We're
    supposed to be impressed by all these big revelations about
    who the Doctor truly is and what he means to the cosmos, but
    we don't care, because that's not the Doctor we know. It's not
    a good SF adventure or a good character development story.

    Actually, the modern trend is that it's the companion who is
    generally important or special to the cosmos in some way or
    other... and we get big revelations about them or their
    family.

    The 'special' companion has become THE trope of modern Who.

    Rose Tyler should have been gone once and for all since Series 3.

    The show is being written for 12 year old girls of very low intelligence
    who do not have the ability to understand anything different from
    themselves and being targeted at homosexuals. This is the most appalling
    bad writing you could possibly come up with.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Daniel70@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 23:18:34 2025
    On 16/08/2025 10:14 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 16/08/2025 12:46, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 16/08/2025 5:41 am, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 15/08/2025 19:50, idiotic penguin wrote:
    The True Doctor wrote:
    On 15/08/2025 12:23, stupid penguin wrote:

    It’s an interesting theory but it’s not supported by any of the
    memos or other paperwork of the time. Or by the fact that he
    wasn’t sued for copyright infringement.

    Because he never revealed his influences.
    (You might be be better off arguing that Newman, Webber, Pinfield,
    Whitaker, Coburn and Hussain were six men to Lambert’s one woman,
    meaning Doctor Who was 86% created by men. But you’re too stubborn
    to give a woman even that much credit.)

    Verity Lambert was a producer not a writer.

    AH!! So Producers have no effect on a show, do they, Aggy??

    We were talking about writers and the writing that influenced Doctor
    Who. The stupid penguin tried to change the subject like he always does.

    Well, 'WE' weren't TALKING about anything, Aggy, DISCUSSING, sure, but
    not TALKING!! (Well, most of us weren't TALKING, anyway!!)

    But if PRODUCERS don't INFLUENCE a program what the fuck DO they do??

    <Snip>

    If someone copies an existing story then that is a good thing. Maybe
    they are able to write it better or us it as part of a new story or
    combination of stories to make a novel. That is how people learn how
    to write you intellectually challenged individual. You learn from
    those who have preceded you. You don't make up a story without ever
    reading a book before and try to reinvent the wheel. Maybe you tell
    and existing story in a batter way. Just how lacking in intelligence
    are you? Did you ever attend your English lessons and listen to what
    your English teacher tried to teach you?

    YEAP!! As right up yourself as ever, Aggy!!

    He still hasn't answered my question.

    Who's 'He' and what was your question??
    --
    Daniel70

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Daniel70@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 23:22:10 2025
    On 16/08/2025 10:22 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 16/08/2025 04:24, Hornplayer9599 wrote:
    On 8/14/2025 14:09, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    It's honestly kind of funny that you keep insisting no female person
    could ever write science fiction, when so many have already done so. You >>> keep saying this in the Doctor Who group, of all places, and the Doctor
    was created by a woman.

    This is classic Aggy for you....he's our resident misogynist.

    I've never said anything misogynistic ever. A man's job is to protect
    women from coming to harm.

    Well, now you have at least TYPED something misogynistic!!
    --
    Daniel70

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 16 23:56:04 2025
    Verily, in article <107opdt$28al$5@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:

    In article <107ojl7$1e56n$3@dont-email.me>,
    The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
    On 15/08/2025 22:25, The Doctor wrote:
    In article <107o67o$1bcqm$1@dont-email.me>,
    The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
    On 15/08/2025 13:12, Blueshirt wrote:
    The Doctor wrote:

    In article <xn0p9jnddhbw885002@post.eweka.nl>,
    Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
    The Doctor wrote:

    And now he make JN-T looks great.

    No, he doesn't.

    I'd still take RTD over JNT...

    The toehjr way around for me.

    I can't write-off the highs of the show post-2005 just because
    of the last two years... Doctor Who was a huge success when it
    returned and RTD is the man responsible for that.

    Two years? You mean 11 years since the show went woke when Moffat turned >>> the Master into a woman and the ratings collapsed.


    It's just a pity RTD is living on those past glories and feels
    the need to regurgitate his greatest hits rather than try
    something new... if the show returns in 2026/27 with RTD as the
    showrunner it's almost guaranteed that David Tennant will be a
    part of it somehow, alongside Billie Piper. That's not going
    forward!

    The show is dead Tennant or not. Matt Smith was the best Doctor of the >>> new era followed by Christopher Eccleston.


    And Capaldi?


    He's now risen above Tennant after Tennant's disgraceful appearance on
    the woke anniversary specials to be insulted for being male.


    Works for me.

    David Tennant appears to have lost his damn mind. In a way, it's sad.
    I'm guessing he's going nuts doubling down because he has begun to
    suspect that he made a terrible mistake by transing his kid.

    It's usually the people making money from a mania who have the hardest
    time giving it up, but in this case the parents who bought in have an
    even more powerful motive.


    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 00:01:29 2025

    Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    David Tennant appears to have lost his damn mind. In a
    way, it's sad.

    David Tennant has become quite sickening these days...

    I did like his "500 Miles" at the BAFTA's though. (Anyone
    who likes The Proclaimers can't be all bad!)

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 00:03:27 2025
    Verily, in article <xn0p9lwuijg6u1q006@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:

    Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    Verily, in article <107kkqf$f1rv$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    Andrew Cartmel?s plans would have destroyed the show, which
    is why it was cancelled. Oh look, the Doctor is actually
    God! What's he ever done to show it? Absolutely nothing! Why
    would anyone watch the show because they've been told that
    the character is the greatest when the writing is absolute
    crap and doesn't show it?

    This is exactly what's happening in the modern area. We're
    supposed to be impressed by all these big revelations about
    who the Doctor truly is and what he means to the cosmos, but
    we don't care, because that's not the Doctor we know. It's not
    a good SF adventure or a good character development story.

    Actually, the modern trend is that it's the companion who is
    generally important or special to the cosmos in some way or
    other... and we get big revelations about them or their
    family.

    The 'special' companion has become THE trope of modern Who.

    I saw the Impossible Girl turn into the hub of the universe, but that
    was around when I stopped watching.

    So... the Doctor is the Timeless Child and all the companions are also pivotal? Sounds like they're creating some kind of pantheon. It's
    probably just as well I stopped watching; I would do nothing but
    complain.

    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 00:19:43 2025
    Verily, in article <xn0p9m63k128fn002@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
    Funnily enough, I didn't mind Rose Tyler... back then it was
    just great to have Doctor Who back on the TV. It was the ones
    that followed... Donna Noble (Doctor Donna), Clara Oswald
    (Impossible Girl), River Song, Ashildr (Girl who died), Joy (the
    Star), Ruby Sunday, Belinda Chandra (etc.)


    Don't forget Martha. I liked her. She was a normal person, not an overly perfect one, and her quiet, retiring personality was a nice change from
    the strong-willed and independent-minded types the Doctor often meets.
    Even when she eventually saved the whole world, she did it in a low-key
    and quiet way.

    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 00:21:37 2025
    The Doctor wrote:

    In article <xn0p9m5w0rche001@post.eweka.nl>,
    Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
    The Doctor wrote:

    In article <xn0p9lwaojfe3sn004@post.eweka.nl>,
    Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:

    But we all know "Doctor Who" finished in 1974 anyway...

    From your perspective.

    Of course, that's all any post on Usenet is... somebody
    else's perspective.

    The way I look at it is... if other people can say things
    like that, why can't I?

    Nothing since "Planet of the Spiders" counts. So there!

    Thought you would pull an AGA.

    There's nothing worse I can think of than pulling an AGA... or a
    Dave.

    How ye get your jollies is your own business, leave me out of it!

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 00:29:59 2025
    Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    Verily, in article <xn0p9m63k128fn002@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:

    Funnily enough, I didn't mind Rose Tyler... back then it
    was just great to have Doctor Who back on the TV. It was
    ones that followed... Donna Noble (Doctor Donna), Clara
    Oswald (Impossible Girl), River Song, Ashildr (Girl who
    died), Joy (the Star), Ruby Sunday, Belinda Chandra (etc.)

    Don't forget Martha. I liked her. She was a normal person, not
    an overly perfect one, and her quiet, retiring personality was
    a nice change from the strong-willed and independent-minded
    types the Doctor often meets. Even when she eventually saved
    the whole world, she did it in a low-key and quiet way.

    Martha was an intelligent and independent companion...
    well, until RTD had her marry the tin dog! So much for
    characterisation... I liked her too.

    I did forget Amy and her crack though...

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 00:56:48 2025
    Verily, in article <107q41t$2i4l$11@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
    Have you seen Tennant lately?


    Not really. I saw some cover shoot he did in a dress -- stupid. Has he
    done anything worse since then?

    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 00:58:00 2025
    Verily, in article <xn0p9m7cm2qcic003@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
    Martha was an intelligent and independent companion...
    well, until RTD had her marry the tin dog! So much for
    characterisation... I liked her too.


    According to him, he did this solely because he thought "Smith and
    Jones" was a funny pairing of names. Well, as long as it was for a solid
    and character-based reason ....

    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 02:25:11 2025
    On 16/08/2025 15:01, Blueshirt wrote:

    Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    David Tennant appears to have lost his damn mind. In a
    way, it's sad.

    David Tennant has become quite sickening these days...

    I did like his "500 Miles" at the BAFTA's though. (Anyone
    who likes The Proclaimers can't be all bad!)

    I thought it was 5000 miles. Has Tennant been short changing on that too?

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 02:26:36 2025
    On 16/08/2025 15:56, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Verily, in article <107q41t$2i4l$11@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
    Have you seen Tennant lately?


    Not really. I saw some cover shoot he did in a dress -- stupid. Has he
    done anything worse since then?


    There's that stupid game show he fronted which flopped.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 02:32:31 2025
    On 16/08/2025 14:18, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 16/08/2025 10:14 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 16/08/2025 12:46, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 16/08/2025 5:41 am, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 15/08/2025 19:50, idiotic penguin wrote:
    The True Doctor wrote:
    On 15/08/2025 12:23, stupid penguin wrote:

    It’s an interesting theory but it’s not supported by any of the >>>>> memos or other paperwork of the time. Or by the fact that he
    wasn’t sued for copyright infringement.

    Because he never revealed his influences.
    (You might be be better off arguing that Newman, Webber, Pinfield,
    Whitaker, Coburn and Hussain were six men to Lambert’s one woman, >>>>> meaning Doctor Who was 86% created by men. But you’re too stubborn >>>>> to give a woman even that much credit.)

    Verity Lambert was a producer not a writer.

    AH!! So Producers have no effect on a show, do they, Aggy??

    We were talking about writers and the writing that influenced Doctor
    Who. The stupid penguin tried to change the subject like he always does.

    Well, 'WE' weren't TALKING about anything, Aggy, DISCUSSING, sure, but
    not TALKING!! (Well, most of us weren't TALKING, anyway!!)

    But if PRODUCERS don't INFLUENCE a program what the fuck DO they do??


    Here you go again trying to change the subject. We were discussing
    writers, not producers. Writers write, producers produce.

    <Snip>

    If someone copies an existing story then that is a good thing. Maybe
    they are able to write it better or us it as part of a new story or
    combination of stories to make a novel. That is how people learn how
    to write you intellectually challenged individual. You learn from
    those who have preceded you. You don't make up a story without ever
    reading a book before and try to reinvent the wheel. Maybe you tell
    and existing story in a batter way. Just how lacking in intelligence
    are you? Did you ever attend your English lessons and listen to what
    your English teacher tried to teach you?

    YEAP!! As right up yourself as ever, Aggy!!

    He still hasn't answered my question.

    Who's 'He' and what was your question??

    The stupid penguin. Can't you read? See above. Questions end with a
    question mark.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 03:05:19 2025
    Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    Verily, in article <xn0p9m7cm2qcic003@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:

    Martha was an intelligent and independent companion...
    well, until RTD had her marry the tin dog! So much for
    characterisation. I liked her too.

    According to him, he did this solely because he thought "Smith
    and Jones" was a funny pairing of names. Well, as long as it
    was for a solid and character-based reason ....

    Yes, that's exactly RTD's idea of being clever and funny!

    My children could have come up with that one... when they were
    ten.

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 03:06:47 2025
    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 16/08/2025 15:01, Blueshirt wrote:

    I did like his "500 Miles" at the BAFTA's though. (Anyone
    who likes The Proclaimers can't be all bad!)

    I thought it was 5000 miles. Has Tennant been short changing
    on that too?

    No, it's "500 Miles"... 100%. (I like the Proclaimers!)

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 03:58:56 2025
    On 16/08/2025 17:59, solar imbecile wrote:

    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 16/08/2025 12:46, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 16/08/2025 5:41 am, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 15/08/2025 19:50, idiotic penguin wrote:
    The True Doctor wrote:
    On 15/08/2025 12:23, stupid penguin wrote:


    It’s an interesting theory but it’s not supported by any of the memos >>>>> or other paperwork of the time. Or by the fact that he
    wasn’t sued for copyright infringement.

    Because he never revealed his influences.
    (You might be be better off arguing that Newman, Webber, Pinfield,
    Whitaker, Coburn and Hussain were six men to Lambert’s one woman,
    meaning Doctor Who was 86% created by men. But you’re too stubborn to >>>>> give a woman even that much credit.)

    Verity Lambert was a producer not a writer.

    AH!! So Producers have no effect on a show, do they, Aggy??


    We were talking about writers and the writing that influenced Doctor
    Who. The stupid penguin tried to change the subject like he always does.


    Me? You’re the one who first brought up Sydney Newman.
    How many Doctor Who episodes did he write?


    Sydney Newman came up with the brief for the writers. The subject of the discussion was what their influences were.


    He still hasn't answered my question.


    Who’s ‘he’?


    You you illiterate.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 04:25:16 2025
    Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    Verily, in article <107q41t$2i4l$11@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
    Have you seen Tennant lately?


    Not really. I saw some cover shoot he did in a dress --
    stupid. Has he done anything worse since then?

    Was it a dress or a kilt? I know David Tennant likes to do
    the kilt and big boots thing... being Scottish and all that.

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eternal-September (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 04:28:47 2025
    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 16/08/2025 15:56, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Verily, in article <107q41t$2i4l$11@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
    Have you seen Tennant lately?


    Not really. I saw some cover shoot he did in a dress --
    stupid. Has he done anything worse since then?

    There's that stupid game show he fronted which flopped.

    What was it called? I don't think I've seen it. The TV is FULL
    of games shows these days I try to avoid as many of them as I
    can... a lot of them are awful. (I like The Chase though!)

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eternal-September (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 05:17:47 2025
    Verily, in article <xn0p9mdk84uz41q001@news.eternal-september.org>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:

    Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    Verily, in article <107q41t$2i4l$11@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
    Have you seen Tennant lately?


    Not really. I saw some cover shoot he did in a dress --
    stupid. Has he done anything worse since then?

    Was it a dress or a kilt?

    It was a dress, a big ol' evening gown. He was trying to challenge the
    gender binary or something. It had a big train trailing over the grass.

    It looked stupid AF. I'm not finding a picture of it now, at least not
    easily. I'm hoping that means it didn't go over well and was scrubbed.



    --
    Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

    This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 09:59:53 2025
    On 16/08/2025 18:06, Blueshirt wrote:
    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 16/08/2025 15:01, Blueshirt wrote:

    I did like his "500 Miles" at the BAFTA's though. (Anyone
    who likes The Proclaimers can't be all bad!)

    I thought it was 5000 miles. Has Tennant been short changing
    on that too?

    No, it's "500 Miles"... 100%. (I like the Proclaimers!)

    Ah, yes, it is 500 Miles. Must have got it mixed up with 2000 Miles by
    the Pretenders.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 10:07:58 2025
    On 16/08/2025 19:49, solar imbecile wrote:

    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 16/08/2025 17:59, solar imbecile wrote:

    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 16/08/2025 12:46, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 16/08/2025 5:41 am, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 15/08/2025 19:50, idiotic penguin wrote:
    The True Doctor wrote:
    On 15/08/2025 12:23, stupid penguin wrote:

    You might be be better off arguing that Newman, Webber, Pinfield, >>>>>>> Whitaker, Coburn and Hussain were six men to Lambert’s one woman, >>>>>>> meaning Doctor Who was 86% created by men. But you’re too stubborn to >>>>>>> give a woman even that much credit.

    Verity Lambert was a producer not a writer.

    AH!! So Producers have no effect on a show, do they, Aggy??


    We were talking about writers and the writing that influenced Doctor
    Who. The stupid penguin tried to change the subject like he always does. >>>>

    Me? You’re the one who first brought up Sydney Newman.
    How many Doctor Who episodes did he write?


    Sydney Newman came up with the brief for the writers. The subject of the
    discussion was what their influences were.


    No. The subject of the discussion was whether boys or girls
    were better at playing with Spider-Man toys. Then Melissa

    That was a different discussion. The discussion above concerns writer's influences.
    changed the subject with the (IMHO exaggerated) claim that
    a woman created Doctor Who.


    Which was wrong. Sydney Newman created Doctor Who. Verity Lambert was a
    women he hired to be the producer of it.

    Instead of pointing out that it was created by many people, only
    one of which was a woman, you made the (IMHO even more
    exaggerated) claim that it was only created by one man who
    didn’t even create anything because he stole it all from a book!


    Sydney Newman was the BBC's head of Drama so all credit goes to him for
    shows that he came up with just like Stan Lee gets the credit for
    virtually every Marvel superhero.


    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 11:21:44 2025
    On 16/08/2025 23:09, solar imbecile wrote:
    Sorry about the delay in replying. I wanted to make sure of
    all the details of the memos and paperwork. (Having said that,
    my reference books are quite old, and there might be some newly
    rediscovered documents that aren’t in them. But they probably
    don’t mention random French children’s books!)

    Anyway...

    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 15/08/2025 19:50, idiotic penguin wrote:

    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 15/08/2025 12:23, stupid penguin wrote:

    Ooh, a new nickname!


    Sydney (not Sidney) Newman didn’t think up any of the ideas
    behind Doctor Who. He delegated other people to do that for
    him.

    He told them what he wanted, gave them the brief for Doctor Who taken
    from Doctor Omega and they got on with making it.


    Tell that to C.E. ‘Bunny’ Webber.


    Irrelevant.

    His May 1963 memo titled ‘General Notes on Background and
    Approach’ is very relevant.

    How do you fit that document into your version of events?


    Irrelevant. Though this plan makes a lot most sense than Cartmell's
    ridiculous ideas, and Newman had the sense to strike out all the stuff
    which pure nuts and stated that the Doctor will become a father figure.

    https://doctorwhoconcordance.fandom.com/wiki/Dr._Who:_General_Notes_on_Background_and_Approach#cite_note-9

    None of the above contradicts the basis of Doctor Omega. It just adds to it.


    Oh, you mean ‘sued’.


    That's right. The past tense of sue.


    I’m gonna be even more pedantic than usual here. In the phrase
    ‘to be sued’ it’s the past participle, not the past tense.

    Sorry.

    You just made that example up as a straw horse. The past tense of sue is
    still sued even if there's a past participial as well.


    It’s an interesting theory but it’s not supported by any of
    the memos or other paperwork of the time. Or by the fact that
    he wasn’t sued for copyright infringement.


    Because he never revealed his influences.

    It wasn’t even Newman who put forward the idea of a time machine
    that could also travel in space. That was Donald Wilson in
    a meeting in March 1963.

    That same meeting also concluded the time machine shouldn’t be
    the main focus of the show, which would be about a group of
    earthbound troubleshooters in the near future.

    The Notes say differently.

    Given the way these kind of meetings usually come about Newman almost certainly told his writers before they were due to attend to come up
    with ideas based on H G Wells' The Time Machine and The War of the
    Worlds specifically, among other examples such as Doctor Omega,
    considering that the Dalek creatures are a direct rip-off from the
    'crabs' in the penultimate chapter of The Time Machine, and the Dalek war/travel machines are ripped off directly from The War of the Worlds.

    And if you really want to bring Verity Lambert into this then she
    actually studied French at the Sorbonne so Doctor Omega could have
    influenced her too.

    Yes, the earliest plans for Doctor Who were more like the Pertwee
    era than Hartnell. How do you fit that in with your own unique
    version of events?


    The Peter Cushing moves were closer to the premise for Doctor Omega
    having the Doctor being a human inventor who built his own ship and took
    his family and neighbours inside it with him.

    Even in An Unearthly Child the Doctor claims to have built the TARDIS
    himself.

    Pertwee being Earth based is therefore more in keeping with Doctor Omega.


    Newman was more than familiar with it. He stole the entire concept of
    Doctor Who from it. This is widely acknowledged even by Terrance Dicks >>>> who wrote the forward to the English translation.


    I’ve not read it. What exactly does it say? Does Dicks just

    Look it up. I've not read it in years.


    So you could be misremembering.


    I might be or I might not.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 11:31:47 2025
    On 17/08/2025 00:23, Hornplayer9599 wrote:
    On 8/16/2025 07:22, The True Fool wrote:

    I've never said anything misogynistic ever. A man's job is to protect
    women from coming to harm.


    Plain....unadulterated....bullshit. We have /at/ /least/ 20+ years of
    proof here to look back on.

    But, hey, if you want to keep on living in a fantasy land...by all means continue.


    You are a systematic liar!

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 11:44:38 2025
    On 16/08/2025 14:22, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 16/08/2025 10:22 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 16/08/2025 04:24, Hornplayer9599 wrote:
    On 8/14/2025 14:09, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    It's honestly kind of funny that you keep insisting no female person
    could ever write science fiction, when so many have already done so.
    You
    keep saying this in the Doctor Who group, of all places, and the Doctor >>>> was created by a woman.

    This is classic Aggy for you....he's our resident misogynist.

    I've never said anything misogynistic ever. A man's job is to protect
    women from coming to harm.

    Well, now you have at least TYPED something misogynistic!!

    Oh really? So you think protecting women from coming to harm is
    misogynistic? How big of a moron are you? Do you even know what the word misogynistic actually means?

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 15:23:04 2025
    On 17/08/2025 05:46, Idlehands wrote:
    On 2025-08-16 5:23 p.m., Hornplayer9599 wrote:
    On 8/16/2025 07:22, The True Fool wrote:

    I've never said anything misogynistic ever. A man's job is to protect
    women from coming to harm.


    Plain....unadulterated....bullshit. We have /at/ /least/ 20+ years of
    proof here to look back on.

    But, hey, if you want to keep on living in a fantasy land...by all
    means continue.


    This is hilarious, Aggy actually had the balls to claim this? Talk
    about living in a land of delusion.


    You've just proven yourself to be by definition a misogynist.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 15:25:05 2025
    On 16/08/2025 18:05, Blueshirt wrote:
    Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    Verily, in article <xn0p9m7cm2qcic003@post.eweka.nl>, did
    blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:

    Martha was an intelligent and independent companion...
    well, until RTD had her marry the tin dog! So much for
    characterisation. I liked her too.

    According to him, he did this solely because he thought "Smith
    and Jones" was a funny pairing of names. Well, as long as it
    was for a solid and character-based reason ....

    Yes, that's exactly RTD's idea of being clever and funny!

    My children could have come up with that one... when they were
    ten.

    They could have come up with it when they were 5. RTD writes like an infant.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 18:08:00 2025
    Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    Verily, in article
    <xn0p9mdk84uz41q001@news.eternal-september.org>, did
    blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:

    Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    Verily, in article <107q41t$2i4l$11@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
    Have you seen Tennant lately?

    Not really. I saw some cover shoot he did in a dress --
    stupid. Has he done anything worse since then?

    Was it a dress or a kilt?

    It was a dress, a big ol' evening gown. He was trying to
    challenge the gender binary or something. It had a big
    train trailing over the grass.

    <face palm>

    I'm glad I didn't see it.

    It looked stupid AF. I'm not finding a picture of it now,
    at least not easily. I'm hoping that means it didn't go
    over well and was scrubbed.

    Unfortunately David Tennant is one of those modern folk who
    have to virtue signal in everything that they do... from his
    POV it makes him popular with the masses and earns him a few
    bob with presenting gigs so it obviously works well for him.

    Each to their own and all that...


    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 18:07:53 2025
    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 16/08/2025 18:05, Blueshirt wrote:
    Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    Verily, in article <xn0p9m7cm2qcic003@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:

    Martha was an intelligent and independent companion...
    well, until RTD had her marry the tin dog! So much for characterisation. I liked her too though.

    According to him, he did this solely because he thought
    "Smith and Jones" was a funny pairing of names. Well, as
    long as it was for a solid and character-based reason ....

    Yes, that's exactly RTD's idea of being clever and funny!

    My children could have come up with that one... when they
    were ten.

    They could have come up with it when they were 5. RTD writes
    like an infant.

    Having a Smith marry a Jones just because it makes Smith & Jones
    is infantile... and RTD had already done that joke with the
    first episode of Series 3.

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 17:54:51 2025
    The True Doctor wrote:


    Given the way these kind of meetings usually come about Newman
    almost certainly told his writers before they were due to
    attend to come up with ideas based on H G Wells' The Time
    Machine and The War of the Worlds specifically, among other
    examples such as Doctor Omega, considering that the Dalek
    creatures are a direct rip-off from the 'crabs' in the
    penultimate chapter of The Time Machine, and the Dalek
    war/travel machines are ripped off directly from The War of
    the Worlds.

    And if you really want to bring Verity Lambert into this then
    she actually studied French at the Sorbonne so Doctor Omega
    could have influenced her too.

    I've always considered that "Doctor Who" was basically just a
    mash-up of Doctor Omega and The Time Machine... I have not done
    an in-depth study of it, but logically it seemed to make sense
    as the starting point for the discussions going around the room
    at the inception of this new BBC TV series in the early 1960's.


    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 18:35:50 2025
    On 17/08/2025 09:08, Blueshirt wrote:
    Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    Verily, in article
    <xn0p9mdk84uz41q001@news.eternal-september.org>, did
    blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:

    Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    Verily, in article <107q41t$2i4l$11@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
    doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
    Have you seen Tennant lately?

    Not really. I saw some cover shoot he did in a dress --
    stupid. Has he done anything worse since then?

    Was it a dress or a kilt?

    It was a dress, a big ol' evening gown. He was trying to
    challenge the gender binary or something. It had a big
    train trailing over the grass.

    <face palm>

    I'm glad I didn't see it.

    It looked stupid AF. I'm not finding a picture of it now,
    at least not easily. I'm hoping that means it didn't go
    over well and was scrubbed.

    Unfortunately David Tennant is one of those modern folk who
    have to virtue signal in everything that they do... from his
    POV it makes him popular with the masses and earns him a few
    bob with presenting gigs so it obviously works well for him.


    The audiences have had enough of him.
    Each to their own and all that...



    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 18:42:42 2025
    On 17/08/2025 08:54, solar imbecile wrote:

    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 16/08/2025 23:09, solar imbecile wrote:


    It wasn’t even Newman who put forward the idea of a time machine
    that could also travel in space. That was Donald Wilson in
    a meeting in March 1963.

    That same meeting also concluded the time machine shouldn’t be
    the main focus of the show, which would be about a group of
    earthbound troubleshooters in the near future.

    The Notes say differently.

    Given the way these kind of meetings usually come about Newman almost
    certainly told his writers before they were due to attend to come up
    with ideas based on H G Wells' The Time Machine and The War of the
    Worlds specifically, among other examples such as Doctor Omega,
    considering that the Dalek creatures are a direct rip-off from the
    'crabs' in the penultimate chapter of The Time Machine, and the Dalek
    war/travel machines are ripped off directly from The War of the Worlds.

    And if you really want to bring Verity Lambert into this then she
    actually studied French at the Sorbonne so Doctor Omega could have
    influenced her too.

    As the late, great Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once wrote: “It is a
    capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly
    one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to
    suit facts.”


    As Mr T would say; we already have data, fool!

    There is The Time Machine, there is The War of the Worlds, there is
    Doctor Omega, there are Sydney Newman's notes and the original
    treatments for the series, there are the series scripts, writers, and
    episodes themselves. There's plenty of data to base theories around, fool!

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Daniel70@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 23:07:21 2025
    On 17/08/2025 6:07 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
    solar penguin wrote:
    The True loon lied again:
    On 16/08/2025 17:59, solar imbecile wrote:
    The True Doctor wrote:
    On 16/08/2025 12:46, Daniel70 wrote:

    AH!! So Producers have no effect on a show, do
    they, Aggy??

    We were talking about writers and the writing that
    influenced Doctor Who. The stupid penguin tried to
    change the subject like he always does.

    Me? You’re the one who first brought up Sydney Newman.
    How many Doctor Who episodes did he write?

    Sydney Newman came up with the brief for the writers. The
    subject of the discussion was what their influences were.

    No. The subject of the discussion was whether boys or girls
    were better at playing with Spider-Man toys. Then Melissa
    changed the subject with the (IMHO exaggerated) claim that
    a woman created Doctor Who.

    Instead of pointing out that it was created by many people,
    only one of which was a woman, you made the (IMHO even more
    exaggerated) claim that it was only created by one man who
    didn’t even create anything because he stole it all from a
    book!

    That seems a fair summary of the discussion... and it has
    been an entertaining one to read.

    The True Loon? Stupid Penguin? Doctor Who is being discussed
    and insults are flowing.. RADW is back!!!

    Hang on!! Are you sure it's "Doctor Who"?? I mean 'Stupid Penguin' was
    one of "Batman"s enemies, wasn't he/she/it?? ;-P
    --
    Daniel70

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Daniel70@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 23:25:59 2025
    On 17/08/2025 11:44 am, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 16/08/2025 14:22, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 16/08/2025 10:22 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 16/08/2025 04:24, Hornplayer9599 wrote:
    On 8/14/2025 14:09, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    It's honestly kind of funny that you keep insisting no female person >>>>> could ever write science fiction, when so many have already done
    so. You
    keep saying this in the Doctor Who group, of all places, and the
    Doctor
    was created by a woman.

    This is classic Aggy for you....he's our resident misogynist.

    I've never said anything misogynistic ever. A man's job is to protect
    women from coming to harm.

    Well, now you have at least TYPED something misogynistic!!

    Oh really? So you think protecting women from coming to harm is misogynistic? How big of a moron are you? Do you even know what the word misogynistic actually means?

    Roughly along the lines of "Poor little women HAVE to be protected by
    the Men .... even when it's The Men that are attacking the Women!!".
    --
    Daniel70

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Daniel70@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 17 23:33:32 2025
    On 17/08/2025 12:03 am, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    <Snip>

    So... the Doctor is the Timeless Child and all the companions are also pivotal? Sounds like they're creating some kind of pantheon. It's
    probably just as well I stopped watching; I would do nothing but
    complain.

    That's alright, plenty of others did, too.

    But you did find your way here so YEAH!! (for us.)
    --
    Daniel70

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Mon Aug 18 03:11:34 2025
    On 17/08/2025 14:25, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 17/08/2025 11:44 am, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 16/08/2025 14:22, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 16/08/2025 10:22 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 16/08/2025 04:24, Hornplayer9599 wrote:
    On 8/14/2025 14:09, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:

    It's honestly kind of funny that you keep insisting no female person >>>>>> could ever write science fiction, when so many have already done
    so. You
    keep saying this in the Doctor Who group, of all places, and the
    Doctor
    was created by a woman.

    This is classic Aggy for you....he's our resident misogynist.

    I've never said anything misogynistic ever. A man's job is to
    protect women from coming to harm.

    Well, now you have at least TYPED something misogynistic!!

    Oh really? So you think protecting women from coming to harm is
    misogynistic? How big of a moron are you? Do you even know what the
    word misogynistic actually means?

    Roughly along the lines of "Poor little women HAVE to be protected by
    the Men .... even when it's The Men that are attacking the Women!!".

    No! Try again.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Mon Aug 18 12:32:38 2025
    On 18/08/2025 03:10, Hornplayer9599 wrote:
    On 8/17/2025 13:02, Idlehands wrote:

    This is hilarious, Aggy actually had the balls to claim this? Talk
    about living in a land of delusion.


    Aggy's claim also reminds me of Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #60:

    "Keep your lies consistent".


    He can't even do that, or keep the goal posts in one place.



    That's the point. He's wound himself up in so many webs of self-
    delusion in order to try and keep the appearance that he's the "Smartest Person In the Room" that he can't remember what he's said to whom, or
    when, or why.


    Who are you talking about? Yourself obviously. Keep attacking your own
    straw horse. Everyone knows you lack all intelligence.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 15 10:20:33 2025
    On 15/08/2025 00:22, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Verily, in article <107lq73$nmav$4@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:

    On 15/08/2025 00:02, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Verily, in article <107lob5$nmav$3@dont-email.me>, did
    agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    And this is all explained by the findings of other studies which show
    that girls' brains are hard wired and preprogrammed from birth with what >>>> they need to know to survive, and they learn very little after that,


    I BWAHed out loud at this.


    Typical reaction of the uninformed.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6845991/Controversial-study-finds-brain-differences-sexes-begin-womb.html

    Do you really believe this article shows that girls are incapable of
    learning after 13? It doesn't. *At* *most*, it would indicate that boys
    are somewhat more susceptible to environmental influences than girls
    are.

    Girls have already lost most of their capacity to make connections
    between neurons by the time they are born. It's the the number of
    connections which determines learning capacity and problem solving
    ability as demonstrated by AI. Girls have lost the ability to make new connections almost from birth and almost certainly by the time they stop growing at the age of 13. Boys and men keep that capacity to grew new connections until 30 because they need to do it from birth in order to
    survive by adapting to their environment. Women don't need to adapt
    because their method for surviving is through submission. Why do you
    think women are always calling for peace, which means submission to
    others, and men are always calling for war which means fighting for
    their freedom by refusing to submit?

    Do you understand what the term environmental influences actually means?
    It means the ability to learn from contact with their surroundings and
    other people around them through the processes of education,
    observation, study, and explanatory thinking and experimentation. That's
    why more men than women get into science, technology, engineering and mathematics by a ratio of about 20 to 1. That's why science fiction is a
    male dominated genera. Women don't learn from their environments.
    They're introverted and self centred and only mix with women that think
    like themselves and behave as a collective or hate other women
    altogether. (And yes, I was told that by actual women.) They can only
    think about themselves and want to think everyone is just like them
    which is why in their writing and the way girls play with toys they
    transfer aspects of their own personality onto other characters instead
    of writing characters or playing with toys as a character based on
    someone else.

    When taken together with the Lego study it all makes perfect sense. It
    also explains the disgusting and degenerate ideology of political
    correctness which wants to suppress the freedoms of thought, speech, and expression, and make everyone part of the collective and think in
    exactly the same way, without opposition, and those that differ are
    cancelled, which all derives from feminism.

    Really, the idea that girls can't learn after 13 is so very, very easy
    to falsify just by looking around. For instance, I spoke no Dutch at 13.
    My aunt learned macrame in her thirties. My college roommate learned
    piano in her forties. It's ludicrously easy to find counterexamples.

    An AI with fewer simulated neurons can play better piano and is more proficient at languages. Can it solve solve scientific problems like
    unifying quantum theory with general relativity? No it can't.

    The science shows that boys and men have a greater capacity to develop learning and critical thinking than girls and women do. It's been well
    known since at least the 1930s, so much so that feminists have sought to
    use eugenics to hold back the progress of men in order to gain
    superiority as demonstrated on in fiction by the planet Lyrane in E E
    Smith's Second Stage Lensmen. The philosopher and author John Norman
    also illustrated this in the 1960s with the example of the female rule
    city of Tharna in Outlaw of Gor, where men and masculinity were
    suppressed, all colour, art, music, and poetry was removed or outlawed,
    and which represents exactly what has happened with the woke
    entertainment industry of today.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Daniel70@3:633/280.2 to All on Mon Aug 18 23:32:49 2025
    On 18/08/2025 12:32 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 18/08/2025 03:10, Hornplayer9599 wrote:
    On 8/17/2025 13:02, Idlehands wrote:
    This is hilarious, Aggy actually had the balls to claim this? Talk >>>>> about living in a land of delusion.

    Aggy's claim also reminds me of Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #60:

    "Keep your lies consistent".

    He can't even do that, or keep the goal posts in one place.

    That's the point. He's wound himself up in so many webs of self-
    delusion in order to try and keep the appearance that he's the
    "Smartest Person In the Room" that he can't remember what he's said to
    whom, or when, or why.

    Who are you talking about? Yourself obviously. Keep attacking your own
    straw horse. Everyone knows you lack all intelligence.

    Pick ME!! I know who to believe .... and I've got bad news for YOU, Aggy
    ..... it's seldom you!!
    --
    Daniel70

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Tue Aug 19 02:04:14 2025
    On 18/08/2025 14:32, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 18/08/2025 12:32 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 18/08/2025 03:10, Hornplayer9599 wrote:
    On 8/17/2025 13:02, Idlehands wrote:
    This is hilarious, Aggy actually had the balls to claim this?
    Talk about living in a land of delusion.

    Aggy's claim also reminds me of Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #60:

    "Keep your lies consistent".

    He can't even do that, or keep the goal posts in one place.

    That's the point. He's wound himself up in so many webs of self-
    delusion in order to try and keep the appearance that he's the
    "Smartest Person In the Room" that he can't remember what he's said
    to whom, or when, or why.

    Who are you talking about? Yourself obviously. Keep attacking your own
    straw horse. Everyone knows you lack all intelligence.

    Pick ME!! I know who to believe .... and I've got bad news for YOU,
    Aggy .... it's seldom you!!


    The fools didn't believe Galileo either, and which one of them was right?

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Hornplayer9599@3:633/280.2 to All on Tue Aug 19 21:32:28 2025
    On 8/18/2025 14:07, Idlehands wrote:
    On 2025-08-17 8:10 p.m., Hornplayer9599 wrote:
    On 8/17/2025 13:02, Idlehands wrote:

    This is hilarious, Aggy actually had the balls to claim this? Talk >>>>> about living in a land of delusion.


    Aggy's claim also reminds me of Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #60:

    "Keep your lies consistent".


    He can't even do that, or keep the goal posts in one place.



    That's the point. He's wound himself up in so many webs of self-
    delusion in order to try and keep the appearance that he's the
    "Smartest Person In the Room" that he can't remember what he's said to
    whom, or when, or why.


    But it will never stop him from trying will it? I don't think I have
    ever come across someone quite like him.

    Thank god!


    I've dealt with a few...but they've all been middle school students
    trying to explain why they couldn't play the excerpt of the music I
    assigned.

    --

    Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
    --Carl Sagan

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Hornplayer9599@3:633/280.2 to All on Tue Aug 19 21:38:45 2025
    On 8/17/2025 21:32, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 18/08/2025 03:10, Hornplayer9599 wrote:
    On 8/17/2025 13:02, Idlehands wrote:

    This is hilarious, Aggy actually had the balls to claim this? Talk >>>>> about living in a land of delusion.


    Aggy's claim also reminds me of Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #60:

    "Keep your lies consistent".


    He can't even do that, or keep the goal posts in one place.



    That's the point. He's wound himself up in so many webs of self-
    delusion in order to try and keep the appearance that he's the
    "Smartest Person In the Room" that he can't remember what he's said to
    whom, or when, or why.


    Who are you talking about? Yourself obviously. Keep attacking your own
    straw horse. Everyone knows you lack all intelligence.


    Project much? We can add that to the issues you need help with...along
    with delusions of grandeur, and delusions of persecution.

    --

    Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
    --Carl Sagan

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Wed Aug 20 02:35:36 2025
    On 15/08/2025 16:57, The Doctor wrote:
    In article <107njah$1610g$2@dont-email.me>,
    The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
    On 15/08/2025 15:00, The Doctor wrote:
    In article <107n836$13lme$2@dont-email.me>,
    The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
    On 15/08/2025 12:23, stupid penguin wrote:

    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 14/08/2025 20:59, solar penguin wrote:

    You forgot to change it to ‘solar imbecile’. You’re no fun anymore. >>>>>

    Idiot!


    That’s Aggy for you.

    You know that scene in ‘Frontier in Space’ where the Doctor says: >>>>>>> ‘Allow me to congratulate you, sir. You have the most totally closed >>>>>>> mind that I've ever encountered.’

    I’m reminded of that every time Aggy posts.


    And you are a complete uneducated moron.

    Doctor Who was created by Sidney Newman who was male

    That depends what you mean by ‘created’.

    Sydney (not Sidney) Newman didn’t think up any of the ideas
    behind Doctor Who. He delegated other people to do that for
    him.

    He told them what he wanted, gave them the brief for Doctor Who taken
    from Doctor Omega and they got on with making it.


    The only idea of his own Newman made to the show was that
    there should be no bug eyed monsters. See how that worked!


    He obviously didn't want to be sue for copyright infringement.

    and Canadian and
    ripped the idea off Doctor Omega (Le Docteur Omga) by Arnould Galopin. >>>>>>

    You think that just because some Canadians speak French, all
    Canadians are familiar with every obscure children’s book in
    that language?

    (It wouldn’t be the craziest thing you’ve believed!)


    Newman was more than familiar with it. He stole the entire concept of
    Doctor Who from it. This is widely acknowledged even by Terrance Dicks >>>> who wrote the forward to the English translation.


    The original is French?

    Oui.


    Merci.


    I've looked up the forward by Terrance Dicks in a copy of the book on
    Amazon which confirms everything I've said and more.

    1. The character of Doctor Omega, including original artwork, looks like William Hartnell playing the first Doctor.

    2. Doctor Omega is not of this world but a fugitive from another which
    is much more technically advanced.

    3. The ship that Doctor Omega builds can travel through time and takes
    the crew to Mars billions of years in the past when it was still habitable.

    This is the entire basis and origin story of Doctor Who. Dicks says it
    could all be coincidence, but that's the usual excuse used by writers
    and composers to excuse alleged plagiarism.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Doctor-Omega-French-Science-Fiction-ebook/dp/B006KNEUR0?crid=2K9PDCSM2E07C&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.hEYKFjS7kg1hyzCZdTfCVZnJw6GjHV_ueOhBr51Qo_bVTam6cqFwdjYOeuEEjkuGtYx7i0gLNzccfpNSHpG79Gh8FlsqCzjEH973H7U_LuKB6NWUsRVv8vgWZHWr7JTWkq7HhA_9wtHy4xqL-4EDtnJECZcGhDKNa5p1B39z2Q-iUWcLzRxrp42VaqFgKJ_doJx04AHDnwR5w6C3GhiF8UWcMVgyz8fwoYdJ4Ep58gY.JFXdVG0LNI6xO8uZ92rxGK7wPevXNguQzp1vKcyD-EY&dib_tag=se&keywords=Doctor+Omega&qid=1755389833&sprefix=doctor+omega%2Caps%2C352&sr=8-4&asin=B006KNEUR0&revisionId=f272875d&format=3&depth=1


    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Wed Aug 20 06:16:36 2025
    solar penguin wrote:


    Aggy actually amazed me (and in a good way)

    Wow! That's something you don't read here every
    day.

    Are you feeling okay? :-)

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Wed Aug 20 08:26:18 2025
    On 19/08/2025 18:37, solar penguin wrote:

    Aggy actually amazed me (and in a good way) :


    I've looked up the forward by Terrance Dicks in a copy of the book on
    Amazon which confirms everything I've said and more.

    1. The character of Doctor Omega, including original artwork, looks like
    William Hartnell playing the first Doctor.

    2. Doctor Omega is not of this world but a fugitive from another which
    is much more technically advanced.

    3. The ship that Doctor Omega builds can travel through time and takes
    the crew to Mars billions of years in the past when it was still habitable. >>
    This is the entire basis and origin story of Doctor Who. Dicks says it
    could all be coincidence, but that's the usual excuse used by writers
    and composers to excuse alleged plagiarism.


    Thanks. That’s great. I wasn’t expecting it.

    OK, so let’s see...

    Dicks didn’t know whether on not this was a coincidence.

    There is a third option. Not coincidence or plagiarism but
    convergent evolution. Similar solutions to similar problems.


    And then there is reverse engineering.

    We need to tell stories set anywhere in time and space. And
    so we’ll need a craft that can take our protagonists anywhere in
    time and space.


    Let's try to reinvent the brief that Galopin could have used...

    Such a craft hasn’t been invented yet. And so we’ll need to
    make it the product of an advanced civilisation.

    Why hasn’t this civilisation left more evidence of its visits to our time and planet? People from there don’t visit us very often.

    But then why did the craft’s owner visit us? Let’s make him
    an exile keeping away from his people.

    But that might make him hard for people to relate to. And so
    we’ll give him a human companion.

    Etc. etc. etc.

    All nice and simple. Every step makes sense. Every step leads
    on to the next one.


    This reads like a defence for plagiarism. Ed Sheeran used a similar
    defence when he was accused of copying other peoples musical notes. AI
    can use that defence too and can even provide the actual brief, but
    everyone can figure out what it's read from what it's written.


    But even if _someone_ in the Doctor Who production team had
    copied this book, it still wouldn’t necessarily be Sydney Newman.


    The reason why Newman had a production team and why all TV shows have production teams is to cover up plagiarism with plausible deniability.
    Star Trek: DS9 is acknowledged as a rip off of Babylon 5 because JMS
    submitted the original outline and premise of a space station orbiting a planet next to a wormhole/stargate and divine intervention to Paramount
    before he submitted it to HBO.

    Because (and this goes back to my original point) Newman
    was not the sole creator of Doctor Who. He was mainly an
    administrator who delegated other people to create it for him.


    He led them in the direction of Doctor Omega to make others think it was
    an independent idea so he and the BBC couldn't be sued for plagiarism.
    It's not like Galopin didn't get ideas from The First Men in the Moon,
    The War of the Worlds, and Sherlock Holmes for his novels.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Wed Aug 20 19:46:51 2025
    The Doctor wrote:

    In article <1082cnt$3s6hd$1@dont-email.me>,
    solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:

    OK, so let’s see...

    Dicks didn’t know whether on not this was a coincidence.

    There is a third option. Not coincidence or plagiarism but
    convergent evolution. Similar solutions to similar problems.

    We need to tell stories set anywhere in time and space. And
    so we’ll need a craft that can take our protagonists
    anywhere in time and space.

    Such a craft hasn’t been invented yet. And so we’ll need to
    make it the product of an advanced civilisation.

    Why hasn’t this civilisation left more evidence of its
    visits to our time and planet? People from there don’t visit
    us very often.

    But then why did the craft’s owner visit us? Let’s make him
    an exile keeping away from his people.

    But that might make him hard for people to relate to. And so
    we’ll give him a human companion.

    Etc. etc. etc.

    All nice and simple. Every step makes sense. Every step leads
    on to the next one.

    But even if someone in the Doctor Who production team had
    copied this book, it still wouldn’t necessarily be Sydney
    Newman.

    Because (and this goes back to my original point) Newman
    was not the sole creator of Doctor Who. He was mainly an
    administrator who delegated other people to create it for
    him.

    Not to find an anazon.ca option.


    Check out alt.drwho creative.

    First two chapters of "Doctor Omega" by Arnould Galopin
    supplied... for research purposes... and for people to get a
    gist of what people are actually talking about here.




    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu Aug 21 00:29:28 2025
    On 20/08/2025 11:59, solar imbecile wrote:

    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 19/08/2025 18:37, solar penguin wrote:

    We need to tell stories set anywhere in time and space.
    And so we’ll need a craft that can take our protagonists
    anywhere in time and space.


    Let's try to reinvent the brief that Galopin could have used...


    It’s also what the creators of DW could have used. That’s my point.


    Reverse engineering prior work. Yes. That's how creativity works. That's
    how AI works. That's how people learn. By copying others.

    All nice and simple. Every step makes sense. Every step
    leads on to the next one.


    This reads like a defence for plagiarism. Ed Sheeran used a similar
    defence when he was accused of copying other peoples musical notes.

    Ah, you must know you’re losing. You’re trying to distract by
    changing the subject.

    I'm not losing. I've not changed the subject. You don't even understand
    the argument. I've already won it.


    Well, I’ll have to disappoint you. I’m not going to get drawn into
    a debate about whether an exact, specific sequence of musical
    notes is the same thing as the vague background idea behind
    a story.

    You've lost the plot. Read Sheeran's defence for plagiarism. There are
    only certain pre-defined ways musical notes can be arranged together to
    make a tune people will like and these musical scales have been known
    and constantly used for over 2,500 years since before the time of
    Pythagoras. All good music is based on them and that is why AI is now
    better at composing music than most humans. Because AI follows the rules
    based on all of the music that has ever been composed which was used to
    train its AI model.

    Literature works the same way. There's only a certain way words and
    ideas can be put together to write good description, dialogue, and a
    good story. Why do you think AI writes better than most humans? Just
    look at TV and the movies and everything you see contains the same stock phrases and lines of speech repeated in every single show and movie.


    AI can use that defence too and can even provide the actual
    brief, but everyone can figure out what it's read from what
    it's written.


    More distractions. No-one is claiming that AI created DW. (Or

    More evidence of your inability to understand the subject we are
    discussing.

    that Ed Sheeran is an AI, or whatever irrelevant point you think
    you’re trying to distract us with.)


    Proving once again that you have no comprehension of what was previously written. Even an AI can do a better job of understanding what people say
    and acting on it than you can.


    But even if _someone_ in the Doctor Who production team had
    copied this book, it still wouldn’t necessarily be Sydney Newman.


    The reason why Newman had a production team and why all TV shows have
    production teams is to cover up plagiarism with plausible deniability.

    ( *snip* )

    He led them in the direction of Doctor Omega to make others think it was
    an independent idea so he and the BBC couldn't be sued for plagiarism.

    That’s a very cynical worldview. Do you really believe people can’t
    be creative without deliberately copying other people’s work?

    Let's take the example of Tarnsman of Gor by John Norman which he
    readily admits, along with the entire Gor series, is based on A Princess
    of Mars and the Barsoom series by Edgar Rice Burroughs, which Burroughs himself copied from Gulliver of Mars by Edwin Lester Arnold.

    On top of that it is a well known readily admitted fact that Jerry
    Siegel based the character of Superman along with Superman's entire
    premise on John Carter of Mars from Burroughs' Barsoom series. Alien is transported to another world with lower gravity and thus he is stronger,
    more athletic, and faster than everyone else on it. He learns the
    language and adopts the culture which he declares is superior to his
    own, along with his desire to protect the planet, and falls in love. The entire premise of the relationship between Clark Kent and Lois Lane, and Kent's dual personality as Superman derives directly from the double
    identity of Gahan of Gathol/Turan the Panthan and his relationship with
    Tara Princess of Helium in The Chess Men of Mars the 5th book in the
    Barsoom series.

    Burroughs also copied Arthur Conan Doyle's Lost World to base The Land
    that Time Forgot and his Caspak series on.

    And of course let us not forget that Genesis of the Daleks is a complete rip-off of the first 6 or so chapters of Synthetic Men of Mars by Edgar
    Rice Burroughs including the character Davros which is Ras Thavas from
    that story and the earlier story The Master Mind of Mars, whose names
    Terry Nation wrote in reverse order, following the example of Burroughs
    set with another character in Synthetic Men to give Thava-Ras and thus
    Davros.

    Even the idea of the Daleks themselves comes from the penultimate
    chapter of The Time Machine by H G Wells, also copied by Burrough's for
    the Kaldane (anagram of Dalekan) in The Chessmen of Mars, which also
    make a cameo Synthetic Men of Mars. Nation also copied the Martian war machines from The War of the Worlds for the Dalek travel machines. The original Daleks would have looked like those. Also the entire idea of
    the war between the Dals/Daleks/Kaleds/Kaldane and the Thals was ripped
    off from the war between Kondalek and Mardonale in E E Smith's The
    Skylark of Space.

    You can take if for granted that Newman reverse engineered the brief for Doctor Who from Doctor Omega if Terrance Dicks description is accurate.


    If so, it says more about you than about them.


    It says that I know the original sources which you clearly have never
    heard of, read, or understood, and that I understand how good literature
    is created and you don't have a clue where to even begin.

    It's not like Galopin didn't get ideas from The First Men in the Moon,
    The War of the Worlds, and Sherlock Holmes for his novels.


    Then the BBC needn’t’ve worried about being sued if Galopin didn’t
    even come up with those ideas himself.

    Do you think anyone ever had an original idea, ever?


    Not if what they wrote was good. All good work comes from copying
    others. You don't go around reinventing the wheel. You think of things
    you can do with it.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu Aug 21 00:58:47 2025
    On 20/08/2025 00:21, The Doctor wrote:
    In article <108294p$3qsjh$1@dont-email.me>,
    The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
    On 15/08/2025 16:57, The Doctor wrote:
    In article <107njah$1610g$2@dont-email.me>,
    The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
    On 15/08/2025 15:00, The Doctor wrote:
    In article <107n836$13lme$2@dont-email.me>,
    The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
    On 15/08/2025 12:23, stupid penguin wrote:

    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 14/08/2025 20:59, solar penguin wrote:

    You forgot to change it to ‘solar imbecile’. You’re no fun anymore.


    Idiot!


    That’s Aggy for you.

    You know that scene in ‘Frontier in Space’ where the Doctor says: >>>>>>>>> ‘Allow me to congratulate you, sir. You have the most totally closed
    mind that I've ever encountered.’

    I’m reminded of that every time Aggy posts.


    And you are a complete uneducated moron.

    Doctor Who was created by Sidney Newman who was male

    That depends what you mean by ‘created’.

    Sydney (not Sidney) Newman didn’t think up any of the ideas
    behind Doctor Who. He delegated other people to do that for
    him.

    He told them what he wanted, gave them the brief for Doctor Who taken >>>>> >from Doctor Omega and they got on with making it.


    The only idea of his own Newman made to the show was that
    there should be no bug eyed monsters. See how that worked!


    He obviously didn't want to be sue for copyright infringement.

    and Canadian and
    ripped the idea off Doctor Omega (Le Docteur Omga) by Arnould Galopin.


    You think that just because some Canadians speak French, all
    Canadians are familiar with every obscure children’s book in
    that language?

    (It wouldn’t be the craziest thing you’ve believed!)


    Newman was more than familiar with it. He stole the entire concept of >>>>>> Doctor Who from it. This is widely acknowledged even by Terrance Dicks >>>>>> who wrote the forward to the English translation.


    The original is French?

    Oui.


    Merci.


    I've looked up the forward by Terrance Dicks in a copy of the book on
    Amazon which confirms everything I've said and more.

    1. The character of Doctor Omega, including original artwork, looks like
    William Hartnell playing the first Doctor.

    2. Doctor Omega is not of this world but a fugitive from another which
    is much more technically advanced.

    3. The ship that Doctor Omega builds can travel through time and takes
    the crew to Mars billions of years in the past when it was still habitable. >>
    This is the entire basis and origin story of Doctor Who. Dicks says it
    could all be coincidence, but that's the usual excuse used by writers
    and composers to excuse alleged plagiarism.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Doctor-Omega-French-Science-Fiction-ebook/dp/B006KNEUR0?crid=2K9PDCSM2E07C&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.hEYKFjS7kg1hyzCZdTfCVZnJw6GjHV_ueOhBr51Qo_bVTam6cqFwdjYOeuEEjkuGtYx7i0gLNzccfpNSHpG79Gh8FlsqCzjEH973H7U_LuKB6NWUsRVv8vgWZHWr7JTWkq7HhA_9wtHy4xqL-4EDtnJECZcGhDKNa5p1B39z2Q-iUWcLzRxrp42VaqFgKJ_doJx04AHDnwR5w6C3GhiF8UWcMVgyz8fwoYdJ4Ep58gY.JFXdVG0LNI6xO8uZ92rxGK7wPevXNguQzp1vKcyD-EY&dib_tag=se&keywords=Doctor+Omega&qid=1755389833&sprefix=doctor+omega%2Caps%2C352&sr=8-4&asin=B006KNEUR0&revisionId=f272875d&format=3&depth=1


    I wonder if amazon.ca has this.


    Use a VPN. Apparently the new update of Edge now has one built in to circumvent the censorship brought by totalitarian Online Safety Act.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu Aug 21 01:30:01 2025
    Verily, in article <1084m49$cfq6$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    Literature works the same way. There's only a certain way words and
    ideas can be put together to write good description, dialogue, and a
    good story. Why do you think AI writes better than most humans?

    It's because most people can't write very well.

    My own writing is better than an AI's writing. So is yours, for that
    matter.

    Just
    look at TV and the movies and everything you see contains the same stock phrases and lines of speech repeated in every single show and movie.

    Only in cliched works. It's not a good thing when the audience can
    deliver expected lines like "Hey... be careful" or "NOOOOO!" right along
    with the characters, on the first viewing.

    This is becoming a problem in literature,too. One commentary I heard
    thinks it's bleedthrough from fanfic. Fanfic is often hashtagged with
    things like #longlostsister or #hurtcomfort so that readers can pick
    works with particular emotions involved, and -- terrifingly -- BookTok
    is starting to ask why traditionally published works don't have similar hashtags.

    The books we love and remember generally contain some things we
    *weren't* expecting.



    --
    A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
    depend on the support of Paul.
    --George Bernard Shaw

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu Aug 21 03:03:30 2025
    On 20/08/2025 17:24, solar idiot wrote:
    The True Doctor wrote:

    Literature works the same way. There's only a certain way words and
    ideas can be put together to write good description, dialogue, and a
    good story.

    “The day must come—if the world lasts long enough——” said Arthur, “when
    every possible tune will have been composed—every possible pun perpetrated——” (Lady Muriel wrung her hands, like a tragedy-queen) “and,
    worse than that, every possible _book_ written! For the number of
    _words_ is finite.”

    “It’ll make very little difference to the _authors_,” I suggested. “Instead of saying ‘_what_ book shall I write?’ an author will ask himself ‘_which_ book shall I write?’ A mere verbal distinction!”

    Lady Muriel gave me an approving smile. “But _lunatics_ would always
    write new books, surely?” she went on. “They _couldn’t_ write the sane books over again!”

    “True,” said Arthur. “But _their_ books would come to an end, also. The number of lunatic _books_ is as finite as the number of lunatics.”


    That's Davies and Chibnall, and all the woke writers for you. A bunch of lunatics refusing to come up with sane writing because they think the
    insanity of wokery is better.


    -- from ‘Sylvie and Bruno Concluded’ by Lewis Carroll


    Sounds familiar.


    Were you deliberately copying his ideas, or just converging on
    a similar conclusion by following a similar train of thought?


    I probably heard it somewhere before, learned and understood the ideas
    it was discussing, and then forget where I obtained the knowledge from.
    Or I could have derived it from Lewis Carroll's previous work and works derived from Lewis Carroll, and Lewis Carroll probably copied it from something he'd read or heard before. That's how AI and learning works.
    Carroll figured it all out 150 years ago, as did Douglas Adams, but that
    was more like 50 years ago. It's probably the source of his rant on Time
    Lord AI in City of Death and I know I know that.

    All the good ideas have already been thought of in literature and music. Everything else is a derivative work, or insane people like the woke
    writing crap because they consider writing to a wrapper in which to
    insert political messages so the writing must not distract from the
    message by being good. And of course Ed Sheeran's defence lawyers must
    have read Lewis Carroll too and I read his defence.

    A story must contain a beginning, a middle, and an end. Woke lunatics
    like Davies and Chibnall don't even want to follow that. Instead they
    write like uneducated infants inserting stuff at random that is totally incoherent like a stupid child playing with Lego bricks and not even
    having the intelligence to put bricks which are the same colour together
    to build a house, or even build a house which actually looks like a house.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu Aug 21 06:18:51 2025
    On 20/08/2025 18:20, solar idiot wrote:

    Melissa mentioned:

    Verily, in article <1084m49$cfq6$1@dont-email.me>, did
    agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    Literature works the same way. There's only a certain way words and
    ideas can be put together to write good description, dialogue, and a
    good story. Why do you think AI writes better than most humans?

    It's because most people can't write very well.

    And even then, AI can only handle the part of writing that involves
    choosing words to express ideas. It can’t come up up with those
    ideas in the first place. You literally have to give it prompt.

    What do you think a story brief is? Back in the days of Tom Baker the
    writers were even given the title the episode had to be called and had
    to come up with ideas based on that, such as Revenge of the Cybermen or
    The Ark in Space. If you ask an AI to write as story, poem, or draw a
    picture it will ask you what it should contain and even suggest ideas
    for you, so it's perfectly capable of coming up with ideas.


    BTW notice how Aggy has shifted the goalposts from creating ideas
    (like the idea of Doctor Who) to arranging words to fit ideas
    that already exist. Another sign he knows he’s losing.


    I've not moved any goalposts, and if you think I did it indicates that
    you are the one who has lost the argument. The subject was and still is
    how Doctor Who was created. Newman reverse engineered it from Doctor
    Omega by guiding the writers he hired to come up with ideas that led in
    that direction.


    My own writing is better than an AI's writing. So is yours, for that
    matter.


    Have you read any of Aggy’s fiction? ‘Planet of the Cybermen’ is possibly the worst fanfic I’ve ever read. Not just DW fanfic. All
    fanfic ever. It makes ‘My Immortal’ look good. I’m not exaggerating.


    Planet of the Cybermen beats every single episode written by Chibnall
    ever, and everything written by Davies in the last 3 years, by it's
    quality, coherence, characters, characterisation, plot, and story
    telling. It contains two strong feminine female characters as
    companions, a mature masculine Doctor that doesn't bully or harass
    others, a military which consists of men who act and behave like men and
    are not totally incompetent, and villains which don't come out of a
    Loony Tunes or Merry Melodies cartoon.
    And true to his philosophy, it’s mostly recycled ideas. The main
    plot is ‘Destiny of the Daleks’ but with Cybermen instead. The

    And what exactly is wrong with Destiny of the Daleks?
    Movellans are replaced by clones, Romana is replaced by
    two generic bimbos, and Douglas Adams’s wit and humour is

    Romana was not a bimbo and neither are the companions I created who I
    based on real women. Women who I actually know. They were also based on sketches by Dawn French and Jennifer Saunders, and I even subsequently
    rewrote one of the scenes on the manner of French and Saunders to prove
    it. So add them to my influences.

    I even predicted the character that Matt Smith would play when he became
    the Doctor before he was even cast, since that is how I imagined him, a
    cross between Sid James and David Tennant.

    replaced by crude sex jokes.


    There is nothing crude about the humour I used. It was infinity superior
    to the disgusting sexual harassment that RTD inserted into The Well
    where he bullies people who won't accept his authority instead of
    proving himself, attacks and demeans them by calling them babes and hun
    when he doubles down on his sexual harassment, and even sexually
    harasses his companion and her mum by saying he wants to whistle at
    Belinda's mothers arse and make her sing as if she were a trumpet.

    If you think Planet of the Cybermen is bad then think again.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu Aug 21 20:29:12 2025

    solar penguin wrote:

    Have you read any of Aggy’s fiction? ‘Planet of the Cybermen’
    is possibly the worst fanfic I’ve ever read. Not just DW
    fanfic. All fanfic ever. It makes ‘My Immortal’ look good. I’m
    not exaggerating.

    Steady on old chap... I have read some awful fanfic over the
    years and there's no way it could be the absolute worst! At
    least AGA can write. I have read fanwanky fanfic that
    came across like it was written by a dyslexic on steroids.

    And true to his philosophy, it’s mostly recycled ideas. The
    main plot is ‘Destiny of the Daleks’ but with Cybermen
    instead.

    He should have sent the idea to Big Finish, they love that
    sort of thing.

    The Movellans are replaced by clones, Romana is replaced
    by two generic bimbos, and Douglas Adams’s wit and humour
    is replaced by crude sex jokes.

    Bimbos and crude sex jokes?! Scandalous.

    <goes away to re-read AGA's story as clearly I forgot the most
    important bits!>




    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu Aug 21 20:49:41 2025
    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 20/08/2025 18:20, solar idiot wrote:

    And true to his philosophy, it’s mostly recycled ideas.
    The main plot is ‘Destiny of the Daleks’ but with Cybermen
    instead.

    And what exactly is wrong with Destiny of the Daleks?

    Well...

    I didn't like the Movellans, I thought they were a bad idea -
    and that was before John Peel made them even worse. They didn't
    seem to pose much of a threat, yet they were a match for the
    Daleks! So much so, the Daleks needed to resurrect Davros to try
    and defeat them. Yet we saw no evidence of them being equals of
    the Daleks.

    The Daleks are not logical machines either, they a bubbling
    blobs of hate. Mutants inside a travel machine. Making Daleks
    purely logical for the sake of the plot to create a logic
    stalemate with the Movellans was out of place and went against
    established Dalek behaviour. Daleks are not robots.

    I didn't like the Doctor flippantly mocking the Dalek for not
    being able to follow him through the air duct. It was a funny
    line which the fans understood... but in-universe, why would
    the Daleks have air ducts in their city on Skaro that a Dalek
    couldn't reach?!

    Generally, Destiny of the Daleks was just a re-hash of Genesis
    of the Daleks... and a poor one at that.

    And that's without mentioning Romana's regeneration scene where
    she chooses what she looks like. Which went against what the
    show had established with the Doctor's regenerations. Again, it
    was a funny scene but if Time Lords could choose their look then
    why have they not done so since?

    The episode looked shit as well, the background scenery looked
    like a gust of wind would blow it down.




    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Daniel70@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu Aug 21 22:47:29 2025
    On 21/08/2025 12:29 am, The True Doctor wrote:

    <Snip>

    Not if what they wrote was good. All good work comes from copying
    others. You don't go around reinventing the wheel. You think of things
    you can do with it.

    Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a rip-off
    of various other Authors (whom you have read or seen anyway), why do you
    even bother with 'Doctor Who', even back in the days when you accepted
    it as 'Doctor Who'??
    --
    Daniel70

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Daniel70@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu Aug 21 23:03:02 2025
    On 21/08/2025 4:52 pm, solar penguin wrote:
    The True loon blah blah something beginning with L that I can’t even be bothered to think up:
    On 20/08/2025 18:20, solar idiot wrote:

    And even then, AI can only handle the part of writing that involves
    choosing words to express ideas. It can’t come up up with those
    ideas in the first place. You literally have to give it prompt.

    What do you think a story brief is? Back in the days of Tom Baker the
    writers were even given the title the episode had to be called and had
    to come up with ideas based on that, such as Revenge of the Cybermen or
    The Ark in Space.

    Well, ‘Revenge…’ was originally to be called ‘Return of the Cybermen’. But let’s ignore that for now.

    We were supposed to be discussing who created Doctor Who,
    not who created some Tom Baker era episode titles.

    Hmm! I thought this thread was supposed to be about discussion of "The
    Cartmel Master Plan"!! ;-)
    --
    Daniel70

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 22 02:07:05 2025
    On 21/08/2025 07:52, solar imbecile wrote:
    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 20/08/2025 18:20, solar idiot wrote:

    And even then, AI can only handle the part of writing that involves
    choosing words to express ideas. It can’t come up up with those
    ideas in the first place. You literally have to give it prompt.

    What do you think a story brief is? Back in the days of Tom Baker the
    writers were even given the title the episode had to be called and had
    to come up with ideas based on that, such as Revenge of the Cybermen or
    The Ark in Space.

    Well, ‘Revenge…’ was originally to be called ‘Return of the Cybermen’. But let’s ignore that for now.

    We were supposed to be discussing who created Doctor Who,
    not who created some Tom Baker era episode titles.

    There is a difference!

    No there isn't. You've completely lost the argument which is one about literary influences, so you're refusing to discuss it any further.
    You're a total moron that refuses to consider anything other that
    challenges your preconceptions.



    I've not moved any goalposts, and if you think I did it indicates that
    you are the one who has lost the argument. The subject was and still is
    how Doctor Who was created.

    So you can remember that when it suits you? Good!

    Then stop changing the subject to AI or Ed Sheeran or Tom
    Baker’s story titles!

    You are the one changing the subject and refusing to discuss any of the related issues because you've already lost.


    To determine who created Doctor Who we need to look at the
    minutes and memos and other paperwork regarding its creation.
    That’s all.

    We already know who created Doctor Who. Sydney Newman.


    And the paperwork just plain doesn’t support your version of events.


    Wrong. The paperwork all points in the direction of Doctor Omega as
    being one of the main literary influences of Doctor Who. It can all be summarised as stories about "a mad man in a box".

    You are too stupid and narrow minded to understand how literature is developed. It isn't pulled out of thin air from nothing. It is based on everything that has come before it, either directly or indirectly,
    unless you're an insane moron who comes up with incoherent shit
    generated at random, defying all the rules of good writing, like the
    crap coming from Chibnall and Davies.

    Sydney Newman didn't decide to reinvent the wheel by coming up with the
    genera of science fiction. Science fiction was already there and Newman
    used what was already there to create Doctor Who.

    A True Story by Lucian > From Earth to the Moon and Round the Moon by
    Jules Verne > The First Men in the Moon + The Time Machine + The War of
    the Worlds by H G Wells > Doctor Omega by Arnould Galopin > The Skylark
    of Space by E E Smith + Armageddon 2419 AD by Philip Francis Nowlan
    (both published on the same day in the same magazine) > Flash Gordon by
    Alex Raymond > numerous derivative works including Doctor Who

    George Lucas didn't create Star Wars out of nothing either. Or are going
    to deny that he based it on The Hidden Fortress by Akira Kurosawa,
    despite there being more in common between Doctor Who and Doctor Omega
    than there is between Star Wars and The Hidden Fortress?


    Planet of the Cybermen beats every single episode written by Chibnall
    ever, and everything written by Davies in the last 3 years,

    Don’t waste your time lying to me. I’ve read it. I know the truth.


    You know nothing.

    If you think Planet of the Cybermen is bad then think again.


    OK.

    ( *thinks* )

    It hasn’t changed. It’s still bad.


    Not compared to the pile of garbage written by RTD over the last 3
    years. Compared to that Planet of the Cybermen would win a Pulitzer Prize.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 22 02:58:41 2025
    On 21/08/2025 13:47, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 21/08/2025 12:29 am, The True Doctor wrote:

    <Snip>

    Not if what they wrote was good. All good work comes from copying
    others. You don't go around reinventing the wheel. You think of things
    you can do with it.

    Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a rip-off
    of various other Authors (whom you have read or seen anyway), why do you even bother with 'Doctor Who', even back in the days when you accepted
    it as 'Doctor Who'??

    For the same reason I watched Doctor Who to begin with. Robot was a
    rip-off of Godzilla and every Kaiju movie, The Ark in Space was the
    basis for Alien and Aliens, Genesis of the Daleks was a rip-off of
    Synthetic Men of Mars, Planet of Evil was a rip-off of The Forbidden
    Planet, Pyramids of Mars was a rip-off of every Mummy movie, The Brain
    of Morbius was a rip-off of Frankenstein, The Seeds of Doom was a
    rip-off of Quatermas, and The Thing from Another World, The Hand of Fear
    was a rip-off of yet another horror film sub-genre because Robert Holmes
    had a thing for copying classic horror, The Robots of Death was a
    rip-off of Isaac Asimov's Robot anthology, The Talons of Weng-Chiang was
    a rip-off of the Fu-Manchu series of novels by Sax Rohmer, The Invisible
    Enemy was a rip-off of Fantastic Voyage, The Pirate Planet was a rip-off
    of concepts from E E Smith's Lensman series, The Androids of Tara was a rip-off of The Prisoner of Zenda, The Armageddon Factor was an attempt
    to rip-off Star Wars, I mean The Hidden Fortress, both, The Horns of
    Nimon was a rip-off of Theseus and the Minotaur, and State of Decay was
    a Dracula rip-off.

    Doctor Who was never as good when it didn't rip-off other stuff by other writers that came earlier and do its take on them. When it started to
    rip-off itself, as it has done since 2005, because the writers had
    totally ran out of ideas, since they were nothing more than a bunch of clueless soap opera hacks that had not read or watch any science fiction previous, that's when it went totally down the toilet. I could do a
    comparison of which Doctor Who stores the modern series has tried to
    copy but it would take to long. I will just point out that the Jodie
    Whittaker story, The Battle of Ranskoor Av Kolos, was a rip-off of The
    Pirate Planet which I mentioned earlier, but the moron Chris Chibnall
    clearly didn't have a clue about any of the source material that Douglas
    Adams based The Pirate Planet on, so what he wrote is exactly what comes
    out of your kolos, shit!

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 22 04:25:10 2025
    On 21/08/2025 11:55, solar imbecile wrote:

    Blueshirt bamboozled me:


    solar penguin wrote:

    Have you read any of Aggy’s fiction? ‘Planet of the Cybermen’
    is possibly the worst fanfic I’ve ever read. Not just DW
    fanfic. All fanfic ever. It makes ‘My Immortal’ look good. I’m
    not exaggerating.

    Steady on old chap... I have read some awful fanfic over the
    years and there's no way it could be the absolute worst! At
    least AGA can write. I have read fanwanky fanfic that
    came across like it was written by a dyslexic on steroids.


    OK. I’ll yield to your greater experience with these things.
    It might not be the all-time worst ever.

    But I still insist it’s the worst I’ve read.

    And true to his philosophy, it’s mostly recycled ideas. The
    main plot is ‘Destiny of the Daleks’ but with Cybermen
    instead.

    He should have sent the idea to Big Finish, they love that
    sort of thing.


    Unfortunately, when a Dalek story has a weaker author rewrite
    it and turn its Daleks into Cybermen, the results aren’t always
    good. (See ‘Silver Nemesis’ for another example.)


    I didn't rewrite Destiny of the Daleks. I took the basic premise of
    Daleks fighting Movelans and reinterpreted it as Cybermen fighting
    Clones with barely any other elements of that story such as the rescue
    of Davros, computers and Daleks that only work based on logic leading to stalemate, and rock, paper, scissors, being depicted. You could at least
    give me credit for copying Attack of the Clones by George Lucas which
    did exactly the same thing with Robots fighting Clones. But you don't
    have the faintest clue about how literature is written or what it's
    based on because you refuse to learn anything that contradicts your
    existing preconceptions.

    Turning Cybermen into Daleks was a bad idea, but it wasn't my bad idea.
    Doctor Who had already made them indistinguishable since at least
    Revelation of the Daleks. In the new series there's no difference
    whatsoever between them at all with Davros being turned into Lumic.

    I did a better job in Realm of Warcraft/Onset of the Cybermen/Onslaught
    of the Cybermen by taking the concept of the Cybermen back to it's
    original roots of humans voluntarily enhancing their bodies and
    replacing broken down parts in order to gain supremacy. The Cyberman are Communists who want to make everyone exactly like them, the more that volunteer for it the better. The Daleks on the other hand are Fascists,
    Nazis, and racists and believe they are already superior and will never
    allow anyone who does not share the same DNA as them to be like them. Revelation of the Daleks totally fucked that up and turned the Daleks
    into Cybermen.

    The Daleks and Davros were primerily based on Synthetic Men of Mars by
    Edgar Rice Burroughs. Thus the next step in their evolution, based on
    the original source material, is for them to return to humanoid form
    again, not to turn humans into Daleks and become more mechanical and
    thus devoid of feelings and emotions which is what Cybermen do. And of
    course turning Daleks into computers in Destiny of the Daleks was
    another fuck up. They're supposed to be Nazis not Allen Turing. It's no
    wonder Terry Nation got John Peel to erase Destiny and everything after
    it from canon.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 22 22:27:07 2025
    Daniel70 wrote:

    On 21/08/2025 12:29 am, The True Doctor wrote:

    <Snip>

    Not if what they wrote was good. All good work comes from
    copying others. You don't go around reinventing the wheel.
    You think of things you can do with it.

    Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than
    a rip-off of various other Authors (whom you have read or seen
    anyway), why do you even bother with 'Doctor Who', even back
    in the days when you accepted it as 'Doctor Who'??

    I think the term "rip-off" is a bit harsh, but I think it's
    highly likely the show's creators and writing team were
    influenced by a variety of sci-fi novels and short stories.

    For anybody who had read H.G. Wells, Jules Verne, John Wyndham
    .... or Arnould Galopin even, it would be hard to claim the idea
    of "Doctor Who" was a totally original idea. Once a novel has
    been published then the knowledge itself is out there. It's not
    plagiarism if someone restates ideas from a variety of sci-fi
    books to create a TV show based on a mix of those ideas in their
    own words... it's just natural influence.

    Doctor Who became it's own thing once it had been created... and
    it has then gone on to influence other TV shows and give other producers/writers ideas for them to re-use...

    Same as it ever was.

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eternal-September (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Daniel70@3:633/280.2 to All on Fri Aug 22 22:31:10 2025
    On 22/08/2025 2:58 am, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 21/08/2025 13:47, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 21/08/2025 12:29 am, The True Doctor wrote:

    <Snip>

    Not if what they wrote was good. All good work comes from copying
    others. You don't go around reinventing the wheel. You think of
    things you can do with it.

    Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a
    rip-off of various other Authors (whom you have read or seen anyway),
    why do you even bother with 'Doctor Who', even back in the days when
    you accepted it as 'Doctor Who'??

    For the same reason I watched Doctor Who to begin with. Robot was a
    rip-off of Godzilla and every Kaiju movie, The Ark in Space was the
    basis for Alien and Aliens, Genesis of the Daleks was a rip-off of
    Synthetic Men of Mars, Planet of Evil was a rip-off of The Forbidden
    Planet, Pyramids of Mars was a rip-off of every Mummy movie, The Brain
    of Morbius was a rip-off of Frankenstein, The Seeds of Doom was a
    rip-off of Quatermas, and The Thing from Another World, The Hand of Fear
    was a rip-off of yet another horror film sub-genre because Robert Holmes
    had a thing for copying classic horror, The Robots of Death was a
    rip-off of Isaac Asimov's Robot anthology, The Talons of Weng-Chiang was
    a rip-off of the Fu-Manchu series of novels by Sax Rohmer, The Invisible Enemy was a rip-off of Fantastic Voyage, The Pirate Planet was a rip-off
    of concepts from E E Smith's Lensman series, The Androids of Tara was a rip-off of The Prisoner of Zenda, The Armageddon Factor was an attempt
    to rip-off Star Wars, I mean The Hidden Fortress, both, The Horns of
    Nimon was a rip-off of Theseus and the Minotaur, and State of Decay was
    a Dracula rip-off.

    Doctor Who was never as good when it didn't rip-off other stuff by other writers that came earlier and do its take on them. When it started to rip-off itself, as it has done since 2005, because the writers had
    totally ran out of ideas, since they were nothing more than a bunch of clueless soap opera hacks that had not read or watch any science fiction previous, that's when it went totally down the toilet. I could do a comparison of which Doctor Who stores the modern series has tried to
    copy but it would take to long. I will just point out that the Jodie Whittaker story, The Battle of Ranskoor Av Kolos, was a rip-off of The Pirate Planet which I mentioned earlier, but the moron Chris Chibnall clearly didn't have a clue about any of the source material that Douglas Adams based The Pirate Planet on, so what he wrote is exactly what comes
    out of your kolos, shit!

    Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a rip-off
    of various other Authors (whom you have read or seen anyway), why do you
    even bother with 'Doctor Who', even back in the days when you accepted
    it as 'Doctor Who'??
    --
    Daniel70

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 23 00:36:55 2025
    On 22/08/2025 13:31, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 22/08/2025 2:58 am, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 21/08/2025 13:47, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 21/08/2025 12:29 am, The True Doctor wrote:

    <Snip>

    Not if what they wrote was good. All good work comes from copying
    others. You don't go around reinventing the wheel. You think of
    things you can do with it.

    Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a rip-
    off of various other Authors (whom you have read or seen anyway), why
    do you even bother with 'Doctor Who', even back in the days when you
    accepted it as 'Doctor Who'??

    For the same reason I watched Doctor Who to begin with. Robot was a
    rip-off of Godzilla and every Kaiju movie, The Ark in Space was the
    basis for Alien and Aliens, Genesis of the Daleks was a rip-off of
    Synthetic Men of Mars, Planet of Evil was a rip-off of The Forbidden
    Planet, Pyramids of Mars was a rip-off of every Mummy movie, The Brain
    of Morbius was a rip-off of Frankenstein, The Seeds of Doom was a rip-
    off of Quatermas, and The Thing from Another World, The Hand of Fear
    was a rip-off of yet another horror film sub-genre because Robert
    Holmes had a thing for copying classic horror, The Robots of Death was
    a rip-off of Isaac Asimov's Robot anthology, The Talons of Weng-Chiang
    was a rip-off of the Fu-Manchu series of novels by Sax Rohmer, The
    Invisible Enemy was a rip-off of Fantastic Voyage, The Pirate Planet
    was a rip-off of concepts from E E Smith's Lensman series, The
    Androids of Tara was a rip-off of The Prisoner of Zenda, The
    Armageddon Factor was an attempt to rip-off Star Wars, I mean The
    Hidden Fortress, both, The Horns of Nimon was a rip-off of Theseus and
    the Minotaur, and State of Decay was a Dracula rip-off.

    Doctor Who was never as good when it didn't rip-off other stuff by
    other writers that came earlier and do its take on them. When it
    started to rip-off itself, as it has done since 2005, because the
    writers had totally ran out of ideas, since they were nothing more
    than a bunch of clueless soap opera hacks that had not read or watch
    any science fiction previous, that's when it went totally down the
    toilet. I could do a comparison of which Doctor Who stores the modern
    series has tried to copy but it would take to long. I will just point
    out that the Jodie Whittaker story, The Battle of Ranskoor Av Kolos,
    was a rip-off of The Pirate Planet which I mentioned earlier, but the
    moron Chris Chibnall clearly didn't have a clue about any of the
    source material that Douglas Adams based The Pirate Planet on, so what
    he wrote is exactly what comes out of your kolos, shit!

    Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a rip-off
    of various other Authors (whom you have read or seen anyway), why do you even bother with 'Doctor Who', even back in the days when you accepted
    it as 'Doctor Who'??

    I already answered that above. Did you bother to actually read what I wrote?

    Doctor Who was at its best when it was inspired by copying other science fiction writers who had nothing to do with writing Doctor Who and
    evolving their woke. That is where all the best kind of writing comes
    from. Copying what was written in the past and trying to improve on it.

    Where do you think Alexander Dumas' description of all of the battle
    scenes in The Three Musketeers came from? Homer's Iliad!

    Even the bible copied Noah's Ark from Gilgamesh.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 23 01:04:48 2025
    On 22/08/2025 13:27, Blueshirt wrote:
    Daniel70 wrote:

    On 21/08/2025 12:29 am, The True Doctor wrote:

    <Snip>

    Not if what they wrote was good. All good work comes from
    copying others. You don't go around reinventing the wheel.
    You think of things you can do with it.

    Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than
    a rip-off of various other Authors (whom you have read or seen
    anyway), why do you even bother with 'Doctor Who', even back
    in the days when you accepted it as 'Doctor Who'??

    I think the term "rip-off" is a bit harsh, but I think it's

    Ripping off other work is good. It's the degenerate copyright industry
    that has conspired to make it look bad because they don't want to lose
    money to better writers who can make better use of their ideas. This is another good reason why copyright should be abolished or limited just to
    one year after publication since it stifles creativity.

    highly likely the show's creators and writing team were
    influenced by a variety of sci-fi novels and short stories.

    For anybody who had read H.G. Wells, Jules Verne, John Wyndham
    ... or Arnould Galopin even, it would be hard to claim the idea
    of "Doctor Who" was a totally original idea. Once a novel has
    been published then the knowledge itself is out there. It's not
    plagiarism if someone restates ideas from a variety of sci-fi
    books to create a TV show based on a mix of those ideas in their
    own words... it's just natural influence.

    You need to tell the copyright industry that as well as politicians so
    that they can abolish the copyright laws. Look at how the music industry
    has gone completely down the toilet because of them with the Marvin Gay
    estate suing anyone who some much dares to include a drum beat in their
    song, because Marvin Gay thought of including a drum beat first.


    Doctor Who became it's own thing once it had been created... and
    it has then gone on to influence other TV shows and give other producers/writers ideas for them to re-use...

    Same as it ever was.


    Unfortunately the degenerate woke soap opera hacks writing it now have
    never read any science fiction and as such have no ideas that they can
    copy and improve on. All they're now doing is trying to rewrite previous Doctor Who stories without understanding where they came from and
    recycling the same 3 or 4 feeble woke story briefs over and over again.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 23 05:02:16 2025
    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 22/08/2025 13:27, Blueshirt wrote:
    Daniel70 wrote:

    On 21/08/2025 12:29 am, The True Doctor wrote:

    Not if what they wrote was good. All good work comes
    from copying others. You don't go around reinventing
    the wheel. You think of things you can do with it.

    Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more
    than a rip-off of various other Authors (whom you have
    read or seen anyway), why do you even bother with 'Doctor
    Who', even back in the days when you accepted it as
    'Doctor Who'??

    I think the term "rip-off" is a bit harsh,

    Ripping off other work is good. It's the degenerate copyright
    industry that has conspired to make it look bad because they
    don't want to lose money to better writers who can make better
    use of their ideas. This is another good reason why copyright
    should be abolished or limited just to one year after
    publication since it stifles creativity.

    There's very few completely original ideas around now... if any.
    It's all variations on a theme.

    Then again, I suppose if it hasn't been done by 2025 it ain't
    worth doing.

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Daniel70@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 23 22:43:35 2025
    On 23/08/2025 12:36 am, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 22/08/2025 13:31, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 22/08/2025 2:58 am, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 21/08/2025 13:47, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 21/08/2025 12:29 am, The True Doctor wrote:

    <Snip>

    Not if what they wrote was good. All good work comes from copying
    others. You don't go around reinventing the wheel. You think of
    things you can do with it.

    Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a
    rip- off of various other Authors (whom you have read or seen
    anyway), why do you even bother with 'Doctor Who', even back in the
    days when you accepted it as 'Doctor Who'??

    For the same reason I watched Doctor Who to begin with. Robot was a
    rip-off of Godzilla and every Kaiju movie, The Ark in Space was the
    basis for Alien and Aliens, Genesis of the Daleks was a rip-off of
    Synthetic Men of Mars, Planet of Evil was a rip-off of The Forbidden
    Planet, Pyramids of Mars was a rip-off of every Mummy movie, The
    Brain of Morbius was a rip-off of Frankenstein, The Seeds of Doom was
    a rip- off of Quatermas, and The Thing from Another World, The Hand
    of Fear was a rip-off of yet another horror film sub-genre because
    Robert Holmes had a thing for copying classic horror, The Robots of
    Death was a rip-off of Isaac Asimov's Robot anthology, The Talons of
    Weng-Chiang was a rip-off of the Fu-Manchu series of novels by Sax
    Rohmer, The Invisible Enemy was a rip-off of Fantastic Voyage, The
    Pirate Planet was a rip-off of concepts from E E Smith's Lensman
    series, The Androids of Tara was a rip-off of The Prisoner of Zenda,
    The Armageddon Factor was an attempt to rip-off Star Wars, I mean The
    Hidden Fortress, both, The Horns of Nimon was a rip-off of Theseus
    and the Minotaur, and State of Decay was a Dracula rip-off.

    Doctor Who was never as good when it didn't rip-off other stuff by
    other writers that came earlier and do its take on them. When it
    started to rip-off itself, as it has done since 2005, because the
    writers had totally ran out of ideas, since they were nothing more
    than a bunch of clueless soap opera hacks that had not read or watch
    any science fiction previous, that's when it went totally down the
    toilet. I could do a comparison of which Doctor Who stores the modern
    series has tried to copy but it would take to long. I will just point
    out that the Jodie Whittaker story, The Battle of Ranskoor Av Kolos,
    was a rip-off of The Pirate Planet which I mentioned earlier, but the
    moron Chris Chibnall clearly didn't have a clue about any of the
    source material that Douglas Adams based The Pirate Planet on, so
    what he wrote is exactly what comes out of your kolos, shit!

    Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a
    rip-off of various other Authors (whom you have read or seen anyway),
    why do you even bother with 'Doctor Who', even back in the days when
    you accepted it as 'Doctor Who'??

    I already answered that above. Did you bother to actually read what I
    wrote?

    Doctor Who was at its best when it was inspired by copying other science fiction writers who had nothing to do with writing Doctor Who and
    evolving their woke. That is where all the best kind of writing comes
    from. Copying what was written in the past and trying to improve on it.

    Where do you think Alexander Dumas' description of all of the battle
    scenes in The Three Musketeers came from? Homer's Iliad!

    Even the bible copied Noah's Ark from Gilgamesh.

    Whoooooosh!! Straight over Aggy's head .... for the second time.

    Why do I bother??
    --
    Daniel70

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Daniel70@3:633/280.2 to All on Sat Aug 23 23:00:36 2025
    On 23/08/2025 1:04 am, The True Doctor wrote:

    <Snip>

    You need to tell the copyright industry that as well as politicians so
    that they can abolish the copyright laws. Look at how the music industry
    has gone completely down the toilet because of them with the Marvin Gay estate suing anyone who some much dares to include a drum beat in their song, because Marvin Gay thought of including a drum beat first.

    Marvin Gaye
    American singer (1939–1984)

    So, Aggy, did NO TUNES prior to, say, 1950 include a Drum beat at all??

    I'm sure I've seen Drums used in WWII Films, Even WW1 Films Oh and films
    where the Poms invaded France or Vice Versa ..... and I'm sure The 1812 Overture featured Drums (as well as Canons)!!

    Hey, Aggy, are you really Binky in disguise!!
    --
    Daniel70

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 24 04:45:46 2025
    On 23/08/2025 13:43, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 23/08/2025 12:36 am, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 22/08/2025 13:31, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 22/08/2025 2:58 am, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 21/08/2025 13:47, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 21/08/2025 12:29 am, The True Doctor wrote:

    <Snip>

    Not if what they wrote was good. All good work comes from copying >>>>>> others. You don't go around reinventing the wheel. You think of
    things you can do with it.

    Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a
    rip- off of various other Authors (whom you have read or seen
    anyway), why do you even bother with 'Doctor Who', even back in the >>>>> days when you accepted it as 'Doctor Who'??

    For the same reason I watched Doctor Who to begin with. Robot was a
    rip-off of Godzilla and every Kaiju movie, The Ark in Space was the
    basis for Alien and Aliens, Genesis of the Daleks was a rip-off of
    Synthetic Men of Mars, Planet of Evil was a rip-off of The Forbidden
    Planet, Pyramids of Mars was a rip-off of every Mummy movie, The
    Brain of Morbius was a rip-off of Frankenstein, The Seeds of Doom
    was a rip- off of Quatermas, and The Thing from Another World, The
    Hand of Fear was a rip-off of yet another horror film sub-genre
    because Robert Holmes had a thing for copying classic horror, The
    Robots of Death was a rip-off of Isaac Asimov's Robot anthology, The
    Talons of Weng-Chiang was a rip-off of the Fu-Manchu series of
    novels by Sax Rohmer, The Invisible Enemy was a rip-off of Fantastic
    Voyage, The Pirate Planet was a rip-off of concepts from E E Smith's
    Lensman series, The Androids of Tara was a rip-off of The Prisoner
    of Zenda, The Armageddon Factor was an attempt to rip-off Star Wars,
    I mean The Hidden Fortress, both, The Horns of Nimon was a rip-off
    of Theseus and the Minotaur, and State of Decay was a Dracula rip-off. >>>>
    Doctor Who was never as good when it didn't rip-off other stuff by
    other writers that came earlier and do its take on them. When it
    started to rip-off itself, as it has done since 2005, because the
    writers had totally ran out of ideas, since they were nothing more
    than a bunch of clueless soap opera hacks that had not read or watch
    any science fiction previous, that's when it went totally down the
    toilet. I could do a comparison of which Doctor Who stores the
    modern series has tried to copy but it would take to long. I will
    just point out that the Jodie Whittaker story, The Battle of
    Ranskoor Av Kolos, was a rip-off of The Pirate Planet which I
    mentioned earlier, but the moron Chris Chibnall clearly didn't have
    a clue about any of the source material that Douglas Adams based The
    Pirate Planet on, so what he wrote is exactly what comes out of your
    kolos, shit!

    Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a rip-
    off of various other Authors (whom you have read or seen anyway), why
    do you even bother with 'Doctor Who', even back in the days when you
    accepted it as 'Doctor Who'??

    I already answered that above. Did you bother to actually read what I
    wrote?

    Doctor Who was at its best when it was inspired by copying other
    science fiction writers who had nothing to do with writing Doctor Who
    and evolving their woke. That is where all the best kind of writing
    comes from. Copying what was written in the past and trying to improve
    on it.

    Where do you think Alexander Dumas' description of all of the battle
    scenes in The Three Musketeers came from? Homer's Iliad!

    Even the bible copied Noah's Ark from Gilgamesh.

    Whoooooosh!! Straight over Aggy's head .... for the second time.

    Why do I bother??

    Straight over your head you mean. I answered you question twice and
    still you can't comprehend the reply. Just how stupid are you? Can you understand English?

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 24 04:52:48 2025
    On 23/08/2025 14:00, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 23/08/2025 1:04 am, The True Doctor wrote:

    <Snip>

    You need to tell the copyright industry that as well as politicians so
    that they can abolish the copyright laws. Look at how the music
    industry has gone completely down the toilet because of them with the
    Marvin Gay estate suing anyone who some much dares to include a drum
    beat in their song, because Marvin Gay thought of including a drum
    beat first.

    Marvin Gaye
    American singer (1939–1984)

    So, Aggy, did NO TUNES prior to, say, 1950 include a Drum beat at all??


    The Marvin Gay estate seems to think they didn't.

    I'm sure I've seen Drums used in WWII Films, Even WW1 Films Oh and films where the Poms invaded France or Vice Versa ..... and I'm sure The 1812 Overture featured Drums (as well as Canons)!!

    Those drums were not used in pop music. Try using other examples.


    Hey, Aggy, are you really Binky in disguise!!

    Once again you've proved your total lack of comprehension skills.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Melissa Hollingsworth@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 24 05:47:00 2025
    Verily, in article <108d2m1$2b0mg$4@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    So, Aggy, did NO TUNES prior to, say, 1950 include a Drum beat at all??


    The Marvin Gay estate seems to think they didn't.

    I'm sure I've seen Drums used in WWII Films, Even WW1 Films Oh and films where the Poms invaded France or Vice Versa ..... and I'm sure The 1812 Overture featured Drums (as well as Canons)!!

    Those drums were not used in pop music. Try using other examples.


    Enjoy the Andrews Sisters performing "Bei Mir Bist Du Schn," in 1937,
    with a very young Buddy Rich on drums.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGveTSQbH30

    --
    Trustworthy words are not pretty;
    Pretty words are not trustworthy.
    -Lao-Tzu

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From The True Doctor@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 24 12:01:38 2025
    On 23/08/2025 20:47, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Verily, in article <108d2m1$2b0mg$4@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
    So, Aggy, did NO TUNES prior to, say, 1950 include a Drum beat at all??


    The Marvin Gay estate seems to think they didn't.

    I'm sure I've seen Drums used in WWII Films, Even WW1 Films Oh and films >>> where the Poms invaded France or Vice Versa ..... and I'm sure The 1812
    Overture featured Drums (as well as Canons)!!

    Those drums were not used in pop music. Try using other examples.


    Enjoy the Andrews Sisters performing "Bei Mir Bist Du Schn," in 1937,
    with a very young Buddy Rich on drums.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGveTSQbH30


    Shush... Don't tell the Marvin Gay estate. They'll start suing.

    --
    The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

    "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Blueshirt@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 24 20:20:06 2025
    The True Doctor wrote:

    On 23/08/2025 20:47, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Verily, in article <108d2m1$2b0mg$4@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:

    So, Aggy, did NO TUNES prior to, say, 1950 include a
    Drum beat at all??

    The Marvin Gay estate seems to think they didn't.

    I'm sure I've seen Drums used in WWII Films, Even WW1
    Films Oh and films where the Poms invaded France or Vice
    Versa ..... and I'm sure The 1812 Overture featured
    Drums (as well as Canons)!!

    Those drums were not used in pop music. Try using other
    examples.

    Enjoy the Andrews Sisters performing "Bei Mir Bist Du
    Schn," in 1937, with a very young Buddy Rich on drums.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGveTSQbH30

    Shush... Don't tell the Marvin Gay estate. They'll start suing.

    It doesn't matter... they'll hear it through the grapevine.

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Eweka Internet Services (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Daniel70@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 24 21:08:57 2025
    On 24/08/2025 4:45 am, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 23/08/2025 13:43, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 23/08/2025 12:36 am, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 22/08/2025 13:31, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 22/08/2025 2:58 am, The True Doctor wrote:
    On 21/08/2025 13:47, Daniel70 wrote:
    On 21/08/2025 12:29 am, The True Doctor wrote:

    <Snip>

    Not if what they wrote was good. All good work comes from copying >>>>>>> others. You don't go around reinventing the wheel. You think of >>>>>>> things you can do with it.

    Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a
    rip- off of various other Authors (whom you have read or seen
    anyway), *why do you even bother with 'Doctor Who'* , even back in >>>>>> the days when you accepted it as 'Doctor Who'??

    For the same reason I watched Doctor Who to begin with. Robot was a >>>>> rip-off of Godzilla and every Kaiju movie, The Ark in Space was the >>>>> basis for Alien and Aliens, Genesis of the Daleks was a rip-off of
    Synthetic Men of Mars, Planet of Evil was a rip-off of The
    Forbidden Planet, Pyramids of Mars was a rip-off of every Mummy
    movie, The Brain of Morbius was a rip-off of Frankenstein, The
    Seeds of Doom was a rip- off of Quatermas, and The Thing from
    Another World, The Hand of Fear was a rip-off of yet another horror >>>>> film sub-genre because Robert Holmes had a thing for copying
    classic horror, The Robots of Death was a rip-off of Isaac Asimov's >>>>> Robot anthology, The Talons of Weng-Chiang was a rip-off of the
    Fu-Manchu series of novels by Sax Rohmer, The Invisible Enemy was a >>>>> rip-off of Fantastic Voyage, The Pirate Planet was a rip-off of
    concepts from E E Smith's Lensman series, The Androids of Tara was
    a rip-off of The Prisoner of Zenda, The Armageddon Factor was an
    attempt to rip-off Star Wars, I mean The Hidden Fortress, both, The >>>>> Horns of Nimon was a rip-off of Theseus and the Minotaur, and State >>>>> of Decay was a Dracula rip-off.

    Doctor Who was never as good when it didn't rip-off other stuff by
    other writers that came earlier and do its take on them. When it
    started to rip-off itself, as it has done since 2005, because the
    writers had totally ran out of ideas, since they were nothing more
    than a bunch of clueless soap opera hacks that had not read or
    watch any science fiction previous, that's when it went totally
    down the toilet. I could do a comparison of which Doctor Who stores >>>>> the modern series has tried to copy but it would take to long. I
    will just point out that the Jodie Whittaker story, The Battle of
    Ranskoor Av Kolos, was a rip-off of The Pirate Planet which I
    mentioned earlier, but the moron Chris Chibnall clearly didn't have >>>>> a clue about any of the source material that Douglas Adams based
    The Pirate Planet on, so what he wrote is exactly what comes out of >>>>> your kolos, shit!

    Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a
    rip- off of various other Authors (whom you have read or seen
    anyway), *why do you even bother with 'Doctor Who'* , even back in the >>>> days when you accepted it as 'Doctor Who'??

    I already answered that above. Did you bother to actually read what I
    wrote?

    Doctor Who was at its best when it was inspired by copying other
    science fiction writers who had nothing to do with writing Doctor Who
    and evolving their woke. That is where all the best kind of writing
    comes from. Copying what was written in the past and trying to
    improve on it.

    Where do you think Alexander Dumas' description of all of the battle
    scenes in The Three Musketeers came from? Homer's Iliad!

    Even the bible copied Noah's Ark from Gilgamesh.

    Whoooooosh!! Straight over Aggy's head .... for the second time.

    Why do I bother??

    Straight over your head you mean. I answered you question twice and
    still you can't comprehend the reply. Just how stupid are you? Can you understand English?

    No, Aggy, NOT "Straight over your head you mean" because, Aggy, the
    Question I was basically asking was "why do you even bother with 'Doctor Who'??" (See, I've highlighted them above) ..... and you SURE AS SHIT
    haven't answered that.
    --
    Daniel70

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Daniel70@3:633/280.2 to All on Sun Aug 24 21:20:16 2025
    On 24/08/2025 8:20 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
    The True Doctor wrote:
    On 23/08/2025 20:47, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
    Verily, in article <108d2m1$2b0mg$4@dont-email.me>, did
    agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:

    So, Aggy, did NO TUNES prior to, say, 1950 include a
    Drum beat at all??

    The Marvin Gay estate seems to think they didn't.

    I'm sure I've seen Drums used in WWII Films, Even WW1
    Films Oh and films where the Poms invaded France or Vice
    Versa ..... and I'm sure The 1812 Overture featured
    Drums (as well as Canons)!!

    Those drums were not used in pop music. Try using other
    examples.

    Enjoy the Andrews Sisters performing "Bei Mir Bist Du
    Schn," in 1937, with a very young Buddy Rich on drums.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGveTSQbH30

    Shush... Don't tell the Marvin Gay estate. They'll start suing.

    It doesn't matter... they'll hear it through the grapevine.

    Ah!! Might that be what the song "I heard it on thee Grapevine" might
    have been all about??


    --
    Daniel70

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)