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?
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
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
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?
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.
A lot of Andrew Cartmel's ideas were later used in the Virgin NA
novels and some Big Finish audios.
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
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.
BBC controller were anti-scifi at the time.
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!
In article <xn0p9hrgp144as001@news.eternal-september.org>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
When Cartmel's ideas were incorporated into some of the
Virgin NA novels it did become confusing and weird!
The Novels should have never taken place.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p9hrgp144as001@news.eternal-september.org>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
When Cartmel's ideas were incorporated into some of the
Virgin NA novels it did become confusing and weird!
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 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?
Blueshirt brought forth for us:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p9hrgp144as001@news.eternal-september.org>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
When Cartmel's ideas were incorporated into some of the
Virgin NA novels it did become confusing and weird!
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.
(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!)
--
solar penguin
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
(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!)
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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"!
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!!!
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.)
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
glimpsers of the mystery Andrew Cartmel wanted to bring to the
character.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.)
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
glimpsers of the mystery Andrew Cartmel wanted to bring to the
character.
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.
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.
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.
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
On 14/08/2025 8:44 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:I find it hard to follow the 'Half-Human' bit, too. I mean would a
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!!!
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
On 14/08/2025 8:44 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:I find it hard to follow the 'Half-Human' bit, too. I mean would a
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!!!
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.
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 s*t 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 s*t 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 s* 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
Verily, in article <107kkqf$f1rv$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Yes there is. It's bad story telling. From his very first appearance in
Action Comics #1 everyone knew Superman's origin story and it never
changed.
That's not so. The original Superman was "the man of tomorrow," and no
extraterrestrial origin was mentioned until later. Early Superman
couldn't fly and didn't have any special vision powers. He was just
really strong, really tough, really fast, and really smart -- a man, but
more so.
He morphed into the version we know pretty quickly, early in the 40s,
but in the 30s he wasn't quite the same guy.
Verily, in article <107kpip$fsoa$5@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
As was Leela and Andred getting married, and the Time Lord's didn't have
a problem with that.
On the other hand, only a few years prior, Sarah Jane wasn't even
allowed to set foot on Gallifrey.
Verily, in article <107kkqf$f1rv$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Andrew Cartmel?s plans would have destroyed the show, which is why it
was cancelled. Oh look, the Doctor is actually God! What's he ever done
to show it? Absolutely nothing! Why would anyone watch the show because
they've been told that the character is the greatest when the writing is
absolute crap and doesn't show it?
This is exactly what's happening in the modern area. We're supposed to
be impressed by all these big revelations about who the Doctor truly is
and what he means to the cosmos, but we don't care, because that's not
the Doctor we know. It's not a good SF adventure *or* a good character development story.
This is the degenerate style of writing of a woman as was witnessed in
Star Trek: Discovery.
Enh, I think you're off base there. Women and men do write somewhat differently, but it's more that women focus on the social aspects of the story while men want more adventure.
As far as bigging up the main character into God, surely the worst
offender there is Stephen Moffat. *All* of his protagonists turn into superhuman idols for the rest of us to admire from afar. Even Jekyll was eventually declared to be made of love (and ubersexy), which is utter contradiction of the source material. And Sherlock. Good God, Sherlock.
I like Stephen Moffat as a writer, but as a showrunner, he keeps doing
that.
In article <107kl8q$fsoa$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 14/08/2025 13:18, The Doctor wrote:
RTD is from the 1960s/1970s. Is he that out of touch?
RTD is gay. That is why he is out of touch. The bigot
thought the show was too heterosexual.
And now he make JN-T looks great.
In article <xn0p9jc3d1or7to000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
A show with some interesting storylines as opposed to
Liquorice Allsort villains might have been something of
an improvement! The Seventh Doctor didn't have much
else going for him.
You anti-MCCoyers are a real laugh shack.
Sylvester McCoy was
... given shit scripts to work with and bad directors.
He should what he could do when given decent
material and good directing in the TVM.
JNT turning the show into a pantomime was a result of
Cartmel and the bad scripts that resulted.
Melissa Hollingsworth <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
It's honestly kind of funny that you keep insisting no female person
could ever write science fiction, when so many have already done so. You
keep saying this in the Doctor Who group, of all places, and the Doctor
was created by a woman.
That’s Aggy for you.
You know that scene in ‘Frontier in Space’ where the Doctor says: ‘Allow me to congratulate you, sir. You have the most totally closed
mind that I've ever encountered.’
I’m reminded of that every time Aggy posts.
Verily, in article <107laqf$lq31$2@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 14/08/2025 18:01, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Enh, I think you're off base there. Women and men do write somewhat
differently, but it's more that women focus on the social aspects of the >>> story while men want more adventure.
The differences are much more than that. It was shown by Lego that men
write stories the same way they play with toys, playing with each toy in
the manner that the character of the toy would act and behave, so they
play Superman as Superman, Batman as Batman, and Wonder Woman as Wonder
Woman all of which have different abilities and ways of speaking,
acting, behaving, and dealing with others.
Yes, I saw the same study. The people who want to make much of it are neglecting to mention that the *boys* were also playing "wrong."
If you introduce kids to Spider-Man and then give them Spider-Man toys,
the toddler girls will have Spider-Man go shopping and make dinner. The toddler boys, on the other hand, will reenact the story they just saw. Neither of these things is a good Spider-Man story, which is why we
don't let toddlers write screenplays.
I noticed this myself, when my son was small. To me, a former girl, it
was very strange that he kept replaying *the same* scenario over and
over. That's what boys do as toddlers, though. As they develop, the boys
and girls will both gain more imagination.
It's honestly kind of funny that you keep insisting no female person
could ever write science fiction, when so many have already done so. You
keep saying this in the Doctor Who group, of all places, and the Doctor
was created by a woman.
Verily, in article <107lk1h$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.
Verily, in article <107lob5$nmav$3@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
And this is all explained by the findings of other studies which show
that girls' brains are hard wired and preprogrammed from birth with what
they need to know to survive, and they learn very little after that,
I BWAHed out loud at this.
Wow. Also, yay. I can see we're going to have quite a future together.
On 14/08/2025 18:13, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <107kpip$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
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.
--
solar penguin
The True Doctor wrote:
Sylvester McCoy was
...a s*t actor who should never have been the Doctor
in the first place. The job was above his talents.
... given s*t 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.
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.
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 Oméga) 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
Verily, in article <107lf6v$n0po$1@dont-email.me>, did >solar.penguin@gmail.com deliver unto us this message:
That?s Aggy for you.
You know that scene in ?Frontier in Space? where the Doctor says:
?Allow me to congratulate you, sir. You have the most totally closed
mind that I've ever encountered.?
I?m reminded of that every time Aggy posts.
Yeah, you're probably right. There's no point in arguing about it.
--
Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time
This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] >https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423
Verily, in article <107lq73$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.
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$3@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
And this is all explained by the findings of other studies which show
that girls' brains are hard wired and preprogrammed from birth with what >> >> they need to know to survive, and they learn very little after that,
I BWAHed out loud at this.
Wow. Also, yay. I can see we're going to have quite a future together.
Welcome aboard.
You have been very welcoming, to me and others, so thank you.
--
Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time
This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] >https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p9jc3d1or7to000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
A show with some interesting storylines as opposed to
Liquorice Allsort villains might have been something of
an improvement! The Seventh Doctor didn't have much
else going for him.
You anti-MCCoyers are a real laugh shack.
I laugh at the people who think the Sylvester McCoy era of
the show was good.
Clearly they missed the Pertwee/Baker era so didn't know any
better.
Dave Shariff Yadallee - wrote:
BBC controller were anti-scifi at the time.
And JNT was anti too much of Andrew Cartmel's 'master plan'
in one go... preferring his pantomime approach to the show!
The True Doctor wrote:
Sylvester McCoy was
...a shit actor who should never have been the Doctor
in the first place. The job was above his talents.
... given shit scripts to work with and bad directors.
Pantomime scripts.
He should what he could do when given decent
material and good directing in the TVM.
Decent material? Like how to get shot and die?!
JNT turning the show into a pantomime was a result of
Cartmel and the bad scripts that resulted.
JNT was the boss, what you saw on screen was what he
wanted. That era of the show - the era that the general
public didn't want to watch - was JNT's vision of the show.
In article <107kpip$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:I find it hard to follow the 'Half-Human' bit, too. I mean would a
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!!!
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.
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 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’.
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.
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.
In article <xn0p9jnb7hbt1j9001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
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.
The problem was the BBC lost its way.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Canadian and
ripped the idea off Doctor Omega (Le Docteur Oméga) 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!)
On 14/08/2025 21:19, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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:I find it hard to follow the 'Half-Human' bit, too. I mean would a
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!!!
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
On 14/08/2025 21:16, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Sylvester McCoy was
...a s*t 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 s*t actor and has more range than >either Whittaker or Gatwa. Now those two are s*t actors.
... given s*t 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
The True loon was very unladylike:
On 14/08/2025 20:59, solar penguin wrote:
You forgot to change it to ‘solar imbecile’. You’re no fun anymore.
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.
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 Canadian and
ripped the idea off Doctor Omega (Le Docteur Oméga) 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!)
--
solar penguin
The True loon didn’t look at the words and letters:
On 14/08/2025 21:16, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Sylvester McCoy was
...a s*t 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 s*t actor
Your original post said ‘was’ not ‘is’.
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.
and has more range than
either Whittaker or Gatwa. Now those two are s*t actors.
I’ve seen Whittaker on stage, and you’re just plain wrong.
--
solar penguin
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 * 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 * actor
Your original post said ‘was’ not ‘is’.
My original post said, "Sylvester McCoy was given * 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 * 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
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p9jnb7hbt1j9001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
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.
The problem was the BBC lost its way.
If the show had record ratings the BBC would have tried to keep
it on-air... because viewership was declining it made it easier
for the BBC to just get rid of Doctor Who and spend its budget
on other things.
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!
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
The True Doctor wrote:
On 14/08/2025 21:19, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
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.
They are misguided fools then, aren't they?!
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 and has more
range than either Whittaker or Gatwa. Now those two are shit
actors.
I stand by my claim that he was not good enough to be the Doctor.
Even in a lot of the Big Finish audios he comes across as wooden.
If you enjoyed McCoy on stage in whatever you saw him in, then
great. I'm glad you had fun. Maybe his acting has improved or
maybe Doctor Who was just beyond his range. <shrugs>
It's not personal, it's just business...
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
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.
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
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
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 Oméga) 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?
--
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
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
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.
--
Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time
This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] >https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423
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.
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
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
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
On 16/08/2025 12:24 am, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <107nd2m$151ta$1@dont-email.me>, did daniel47Ah!! Well! That's the sort of Society WE have here, Melissa!! ;-P
@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
--
Daniel70
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 Oméga) 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
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
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.
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!!!
for copyright infringement.
Oh, you mean ‘sued’.
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.
(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.)
and Canadian and
ripped the idea off Doctor Omega (Le Docteur Oméga) 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
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?
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!)
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!
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
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.
That’s why I pick RNT over JTD. Or perhaps the other way
round.
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
The True loon was even less ladylike:
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.
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!!!
for copyright infringement.
Oh, you mean ‘sued’.
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.
(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.)
and Canadian and
ripped the idea off Doctor Omega (Le Docteur Oméga) 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
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?
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!)
--
solar penguin
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
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.
That’s why I pick RNT over JTD. Or perhaps the other way
round.
--
solar penguin
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
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?
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
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.
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?)
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.
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.
Matt Smith was the best Doctor of the new era followed
by Christopher Eccleston.
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.
The show is dead Tennant or not. Matt Smith was the best Doctor of the
new era followed by Christopher Eccleston.
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 Oméga) 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?
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??
YEAP!! As right up yourself as ever, Aggy!!and Canadian and ripped the idea off Doctor Omega (Le
Docteur Oméga) 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?
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?)
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! :-)
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.
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
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?)
--
solar penguin
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.
Stating "Doctor Who was created by a woman" is like a
declaration of war to some people!
It can only end in tears...
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! :-)
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...
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <107kkqf$f1rv$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Andrew Cartmel?s plans would have destroyed the show, which
is why it was cancelled. Oh look, the Doctor is actually
God! What's he ever done to show it? Absolutely nothing! Why
would anyone watch the show because they've been told that
the character is the greatest when the writing is absolute
crap and doesn't show it?
This is exactly what's happening in the modern area. We're
supposed to be impressed by all these big revelations about
who the Doctor truly is and what he means to the cosmos, but
we don't care, because that's not the Doctor we know. It's not
a good SF adventure or a good character development story.
Actually, the modern trend is that it's the companion who is
generally important or special to the cosmos in some way or
other... and we get big revelations about them or their
family.
The 'special' companion has become THE trope of modern Who.
On 16/08/2025 6:44 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
The show is dead Tennant or not. Matt Smith was the best Doctor of theSorry! WHO are you and what have you done with OUR Aggy!!
new era followed by Christopher Eccleston.
--
Daniel70
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <107kkqf$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.
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.
YEAP!! As right up yourself as ever, Aggy!!and Canadian and ripped the idea off Doctor Omega (Le
Docteur Oméga) 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?
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
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
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.
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.
If someone copies an existing story then that is a good thing. MaybeYEAP!! As right up yourself as ever, Aggy!!
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?
He still hasn't answered my question.
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.
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:
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.
But if PRODUCERS don't INFLUENCE a program what the fuck DO
they do??
In article <xn0p9lwuijg6u1q006@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Actually, the modern trend is that it's the companion who
is generally important or special to the cosmos in some
way or another... and then 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.
David Tennant appears to have lost his damn mind. In a
way, it's sad.
On 16/08/2025 10:22 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
On 16/08/2025 04:24, Hornplayer9599 wrote:Well, now you have at least TYPED something misogynistic!!
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.
--
Daniel70
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
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:
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.
But if PRODUCERS don't INFLUENCE a program what DO
they do??
Er... they Produce? ;-)
But yeah, the Producer is usually the person who's vision for
a TV show is what you end up seeing on screen when the finished
programme airs. What a writer writes can - and is - often edited
by the script-editor or amended by the show's Director and/or
Producer, so whilst a writer obviously influences a TV show with
his scripts, what we see in the finished product isn't all his
own work.
Nowadays of course, the Producer and Writer are often the same
person...
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p9lwuijg6u1q006@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Actually, the modern trend is that it's the companion who
is generally important or special to the cosmos in some
way or another... and then 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.
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.)
[Yawn]
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$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 15/08/2025 13:12, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p9jnddhbw885002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
And now he make JN-T looks great.
No, he doesn't.
I'd still take RTD over JNT...
The toehjr way around for me.
I can't write-off the highs of the show post-2005 just because
of the last two years... Doctor Who was a huge success when it
returned and RTD is the man responsible for that.
Two years? You mean 11 years since the show went woke when Moffat turned >> >>> the Master into a woman and the ratings collapsed.
It's just a pity RTD is living on those past glories and feels
the need to regurgitate his greatest hits rather than try
something new... if the show returns in 2026/27 with RTD as the
showrunner it's almost guaranteed that David Tennant will be a
part of it somehow, alongside Billie Piper. That's not going
forward!
The show is dead Tennant or not. Matt Smith was the best Doctor of the >> >>> new era followed by Christopher Eccleston.
And Capaldi?
He's now risen above Tennant after Tennant's disgraceful appearance on
the woke anniversary specials to be insulted for being male.
Works for me.
David Tennant appears to have lost his damn mind. In a way, it's sad.
I'm guessing he's going nuts doubling down because he has begun to
suspect that he made a terrible mistake by transing his kid.
It's usually the people making money from a mania who have the hardest
time giving it up, but in this case the parents who bought in have an
even more powerful motive.
--
Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time
This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] >https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423
Verily, in article <xn0p9lwuijg6u1q006@post.eweka.nl>, did >blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <107kkqf$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
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.
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.
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!
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
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...
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?
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!)
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>
Who's 'He' and what was your question??If someone copies an existing story then that is a good thing. MaybeYEAP!! As right up yourself as ever, Aggy!!
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?
He still hasn't answered my question.
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?
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 ....
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?
He still hasn't answered my question.
Who’s ‘he’?
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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>
Who's 'He' and what was your question??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 orYEAP!! As right up yourself as ever, Aggy!!
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?
He still hasn't answered my 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
I've never said anything misogynistic ever. A man's job is to protect
women from coming to harm.
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!)
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
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!
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 loon’s lessened his links to reality:
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Maybe you tell and existing story
in a batter way.
Not with sentences like that.
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?
I know what a past participle is. You don’t. It’s pretty obvious
which of us paid more attention in English class.
(See, that comment earlier wasn’t just random pedantry for
its own sake but actually foreshadowing. Oh, wait. Foreshadowing.
That’s another thing they teach in English classes!)
--
solar penguin
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....bull. 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.
--
Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
--Carl Sagan
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
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.
On 16/08/2025 10:22 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
On 16/08/2025 04:24, Hornplayer9599 wrote:Well, now you have at least TYPED something misogynistic!!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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...
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.”
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
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
The True loon made little effort to learn:
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.”
--
solar penguin
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!!!
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.
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
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
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!!!
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.
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:Well, now you have at least TYPED something misogynistic!!
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.
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?
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.
On 17/08/2025 11:44 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 16/08/2025 14:22, Daniel70 wrote:Roughly along the lines of "Poor little women HAVE to be protected by
On 16/08/2025 10:22 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
On 16/08/2025 04:24, Hornplayer9599 wrote:Well, now you have at least TYPED something misogynistic!!
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.
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 Men .... even when it's The Men that are attacking the Women!!".
On 8/16/2025 23:46, 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.
Aggy's claim also reminds me of Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #60:
"Keep your lies consistent".
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
On 17/08/2025 11:44 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 16/08/2025 14:22, Daniel70 wrote:Roughly along the lines of "Poor little women HAVE to be protected by
On 16/08/2025 10:22 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
On 16/08/2025 04:24, Hornplayer9599 wrote:Well, now you have at least TYPED something misogynistic!!
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.
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 Men .... even when it's The Men that are attacking the Women!!".
--
Daniel70
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.
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.
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.
On 18/08/2025 12:32 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
On 18/08/2025 03:10, Hornplayer9599 wrote:Pick ME!! I know who to believe .... and I've got bad news for YOU, Aggy
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.
.... it's seldom you!!
--
Daniel70
On 18/08/2025 12:32 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
On 18/08/2025 03:10, Hornplayer9599 wrote:Pick ME!! I know who to believe .... and I've got bad news for YOU,
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.
Aggy .... it's seldom you!!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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 Oméga) 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.
Aggy actually amazed me (and in a good way)
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.
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.
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.
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.
--
solar penguin
On 15/08/2025 16:57, The Doctor wrote:9wtHy4xqL-4EDtnJECZcGhDKNa5p1B39z2Q-iUWcLzRxrp42VaqFgKJ_doJx04AHDnwR5w6C3GhiF8UWcMVgyz8fwoYdJ4Ep58gY.JFXdVG0LNI6xO8uZ92rxGK7wPevXNguQzp1vKcyD-EY&dib_tag=se&keywords=Doctor+Omega&qid=1755389833&sprefix=doctor+omega%2Caps%2C352&sr=8-4&asin=B006KNEUR0&
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 Oméga) 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_
--
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
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? :-)
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.
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.
Blueshirt brought us bits of a book:
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.
Thanks. So far nothing about Doctor Omega being from an
advanced, time-travelling civilisation. He seems to be a human
inventor, very like H.G. Wells’s Cavor (even with the
exact same
invention!) I’m not getting much of a Doctor Who feel so far.
Maybe the time-travelling civilisation is a plot twist that comes
later, or maybe Aggy is just plain wrong.
Either way, thanks once again.
--
solar penguin
Thanks. So far nothing about Doctor Omega being from an
advanced, time-travelling civilisation. He seems to be a human
inventor, very like H.G. Wells’s Cavor (even with the
exact same
invention!) I’m not getting much of a Doctor Who feel so far.
Maybe the time-travelling civilisation is a plot twist that
comes later, or maybe Aggy is just plain wrong.
Either way, thanks once again.
In article <108294p$3qsjh$1@dont-email.me>,9wtHy4xqL-4EDtnJECZcGhDKNa5p1B39z2Q-iUWcLzRxrp42VaqFgKJ_doJx04AHDnwR5w6C3GhiF8UWcMVgyz8fwoYdJ4Ep58gY.JFXdVG0LNI6xO8uZ92rxGK7wPevXNguQzp1vKcyD-EY&dib_tag=se&keywords=Doctor+Omega&qid=1755389833&sprefix=doctor+omega%2Caps%2C352&sr=8-4&asin=B006KNEUR0&
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 Oméga) 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_
I wonder if amazon.ca has this.
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.
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.
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.
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
that Ed Sheeran is an AI, or whatever irrelevant point you think
you’re trying to distract us with.)
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?
If so, it says more about you than about them.
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?
solar penguin wrote:
Thanks. So far nothing about Doctor Omega being from an
advanced, time-travelling civilisation. He seems to be a human
inventor, very like H.G. Wells’s Cavor (even with the
exact same
invention!) I’m not getting much of a Doctor Who feel so far.
Maybe the time-travelling civilisation is a plot twist that
comes later, or maybe Aggy is just plain wrong.
Either way, thanks once again.
I could post a link to a PDF of it in my Dropbox but it's all
moot anyway as unless we were in that room when the show's
creators/writers were throwing ideas around about this new idea
for a TV show, we'll never know for sure where they got their
influences from. We can make logical guesses, but not enough to
be 100% certain of every book those people had read... or hadn't
read.
On 20/08/2025 00:21, The Doctor wrote:9wtHy4xqL-4EDtnJECZcGhDKNa5p1B39z2Q-iUWcLzRxrp42VaqFgKJ_doJx04AHDnwR5w6C3GhiF8UWcMVgyz8fwoYdJ4Ep58gY.JFXdVG0LNI6xO8uZ92rxGK7wPevXNguQzp1vKcyD-EY&dib_tag=se&keywords=Doctor+Omega&qid=1755389833&sprefix=doctor+omega%2Caps%2C352&sr=8-4&asin=B006KNEUR0&
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 Oméga) 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_
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
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.”
-- from ‘Sylvie and Bruno Concluded’ by Lewis Carroll
Were you deliberately copying his ideas, or just converging on
a similar conclusion by following a similar train of thought?
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?
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 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.
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 s*t as well, the background scenery looked
like a gust of wind would blow it down.
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
On 21/08/2025 12:29 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Not if what they wrote was good. All good work comes from copyingHey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a rip-off
others. You don't go around reinventing the wheel. You think of things
you can do with it.
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'??
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 copyingHey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a
others. You don't go around reinventing the wheel. You think of
things you can do with it.
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!
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 wrote:
On 21/08/2025 12:29 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Not if what they wrote was good. All good work comes fromHey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than
copying others. You don't go around reinventing the wheel.
You think of things you can do with it.
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.
On 22/08/2025 2:58 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 21/08/2025 13:47, Daniel70 wrote:Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a rip-off
On 21/08/2025 12:29 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Not if what they wrote was good. All good work comes from copyingHey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a rip-
others. You don't go around reinventing the wheel. You think of
things you can do with it.
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!
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'??
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.
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 fromHey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than
copying others. You don't go around reinventing the wheel.
You think of things you can do with it.
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.
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:Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a rip-off
On 21/08/2025 12:29 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Not if what they wrote was good. All good work comes from copyingHey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a rip-
others. You don't go around reinventing the wheel. You think of
things you can do with it.
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!
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
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 fromHey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than
copying others. You don't go around reinventing the wheel.
You think of things you can do with it.
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
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:
Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more
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.
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.
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:Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a
On 21/08/2025 12:29 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Not if what they wrote was good. All good work comes from copyingHey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a
others. You don't go around reinventing the wheel. You think of
things you can do with it.
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!
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.
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.
On 23/08/2025 12:36 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/08/2025 13:31, Daniel70 wrote:Whoooooosh!! Straight over Aggy's head .... for the second time.
On 22/08/2025 2:58 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 21/08/2025 13:47, Daniel70 wrote:Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a
On 21/08/2025 12:29 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Not if what they wrote was good. All good work comes from copyingHey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a
others. You don't go around reinventing the wheel. You think of
things you can do with it.
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!
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.
Why do I bother??
--
Daniel70
On 23/08/2025 1:04 am, The True Doctor wrote:^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted
<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
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!!
On 23/08/2025 12:36 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/08/2025 13:31, Daniel70 wrote:Whoooooosh!! Straight over Aggy's head .... for the second time.
On 22/08/2025 2:58 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 21/08/2025 13:47, Daniel70 wrote:Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a rip-
On 21/08/2025 12:29 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Not if what they wrote was good. All good work comes from copyingHey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a
others. You don't go around reinventing the wheel. You think of
things you can do with it.
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!
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.
Why do I bother??
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
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:Whoooooosh!! Straight over Aggy's head .... for the second time.
On 22/08/2025 2:58 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 21/08/2025 13:47, Daniel70 wrote:Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a rip-
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 ofHey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a
things you can do with it.
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!
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.
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
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 Schön," in 1937,
with a very young Buddy Rich on drums.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGveTSQbH30
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:Whoooooosh!! Straight over Aggy's head .... for the second time.
On 22/08/2025 2:58 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 21/08/2025 13:47, Daniel70 wrote:Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a
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 ofHey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a
things you can do with it.
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!
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.
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?
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
Schön," 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 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
Schön," 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.
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
Schön," 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.
On 24/08/2025 4:45 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 23/08/2025 13:43, Daniel70 wrote:No, Aggy, NOT "Straight over your head you mean" because, Aggy, the
On 23/08/2025 12:36 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/08/2025 13:31, Daniel70 wrote:Whoooooosh!! Straight over Aggy's head .... for the second time.
On 22/08/2025 2:58 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 21/08/2025 13:47, Daniel70 wrote:Hey, Aggy, if, as you claim, 'Doctor Who' is nothing more than a
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!
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.
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?
Question I was basically asking was "why do you even bother with 'Doctor >Who'??" (See, I've highlighted them above) ..... and you
haven't answered that.
--
Daniel70
Daniel declared:
On 24/08/2025 8:20 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:Ah!! Might that be what the song "I heard it on thee Grapevine" might
Shush... Don't tell the Marvin Gay estate. They'll start suing.
It doesn't matter... they'll hear it through the grapevine.
have been all about??
That post needs textual healing!
--
solar penguin
Daniel declared:
On 24/08/2025 8:20 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:Ah!! Might that be what the song "I heard it on thee
Shush... Don't tell the Marvin Gay estate. They'll start
suing.
It doesn't matter... they'll hear it through the grapevine.
Grapevine" might have been all about??
That post needs textual healing!
solar penguin wrote:
Daniel declared:
On 24/08/2025 8:20 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:Ah!! Might that be what the song "I heard it on thee
Shush... Don't tell the Marvin Gay estate. They'll start
suing.
It doesn't matter... they'll hear it through the grapevine.
Grapevine" might have been all about??
That post needs textual healing!
What's going on?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 168:11:24 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,545 |