S09E06 The Woman Who Lived

[Agamemnon]

New title sequence... must I wait any longer?

Spoilers

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0

The Woman Who Lived

A vast improvement over last week. Maybe Moffat should employ a few more
female writers in future.

Still there are a few issues. Moffat is turning the show into a comedy
fest, but at least it was done better than the moronic bullying that
went on last week. Rather than concentrate on plot Moffat wants to do
relationships so the episode becomes a series of set pieces jumping from
one to an other with the dramatic stuff that led to them and the tension
building all missing.

There was all the bullshit with the Eye of Hades (which should have been
the Eye of Osiris who existed much earlier than Hades) being activated
by someone giving their life, and opening a door to another dimension.
Yer, like where does the energy come from? If you're going to come up
with bullshit like this then at least provide a plausible scientific or
philosophical explanation. Moffat thinks this a fantasy relationship
based comedy rather than a family science fiction based drama.

Presumably Clara had to be in the final scene for contractual reason.
Maybe Maisie Williams would make a much better companion for the 12th
Doctor. They seem to work so much better together. The only issue is
that Maisie might still be contracted to GoT.

10/10 for entertainment.

89/100 for script writing. Best of series 9 so far I think.

Next week it's Zygons. I wonder if it's set before or after the
Cyber-rubbish at the end of last season. When is someone ever going to
do the Cybermen properly.

[The Doctor]

Post by Agamemnon
New title sequence... must I wait any longer?

Doubtful

Post by Agamemnon
Spoilers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
The Woman Who Lived
A vast improvement over last week. Maybe Moffat should employ a few more
female writers in future.
Still there are a few issues. Moffat is turning the show into a comedy
fest, but at least it was done better than the moronic bullying that
went on last week. Rather than concentrate on plot Moffat wants to do
relationships so the episode becomes a series of set pieces jumping from
one to an other with the dramatic stuff that led to them and the tension
building all missing.
There was all the bullshit with the Eye of Hades (which should have been
the Eye of Osiris who existed much earlier than Hades) being activated
by someone giving their life, and opening a door to another dimension.
Yer, like where does the energy come from? If you're going to come up
with bullshit like this then at least provide a plausible scientific or
philosophical explanation. Moffat thinks this a fantasy relationship
based comedy rather than a family science fiction based drama.
Presumably Clara had to be in the final scene for contractual reason.
Maybe Maisie Williams would make a much better companion for the 12th
Doctor. They seem to work so much better together. The only issue is
that Maisie might still be contracted to GoT.
10/10 for entertainment.
89/100 for script writing. Best of series 9 so far I think.
Next week it's Zygons. I wonder if it's set before or after the
Cyber-rubbish at the end of last season. When is someone ever going to
do the Cybermen properly.

I will review both at once.

[Andrew M]

Post by Agamemnon
New title sequence... must I wait any longer?

Yes, because you're the only person - as far as I can make out - who
has any problem with it. But heigh-ho - personal taste and all that

Post by Agamemnon
Spoilers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
The Woman Who Lived
A vast improvement over last week. Maybe Moffat should employ a few
more female writers in future.

I think it was an improvement over last week - but only because last
week was the weakest episode, so far, of this series. That said pretty
much every episode of this series has been way better than last season

Post by Agamemnon
Still there are a few issues. Moffat is turning the show into a comedy
fest, but at least it was done better than the moronic bullying that
went on last week. Rather than concentrate on plot Moffat wants to do
relationships so the episode becomes a series of set pieces jumping
from one to an other with the dramatic stuff that led to them and the
tension building all missing.

"Plot" and "relationships" are not antagonistic. Both are necessary for
good drama. I think the weakness you identify regarding lack of tension
comes down, I'm afraid, to Maisie Williams's performance and the lines
she was given. There were too many clunky lines in there and she could
not delier them in a way that made us want to believe in her character

Post by Agamemnon
There was all the bullshit with the Eye of Hades (which should have
been the Eye of Osiris who existed much earlier than Hades) being
activated by someone giving their life, and opening a door to another
dimension. Yer, like where does the energy come from? If you're going
to come up with bullshit like this then at least provide a plausible
scientific or philosophical explanation. Moffat thinks this a fantasy
relationship based comedy rather than a family science fiction based
drama.

It's scarcely the first time in history that the idea that the giving
of a life supplies "energy" of some form or another

Post by Agamemnon
Presumably Clara had to be in the final scene for contractual reason.
Maybe Maisie Williams would make a much better companion for the 12th
Doctor. They seem to work so much better together. The only issue is
that Maisie might still be contracted to GoT.

She certainly is

Post by Agamemnon
10/10 for entertainment.
89/100 for script writing. Best of series 9 so far I think.
Next week it's Zygons. I wonder if it's set before or after the
Cyber-rubbish at the end of last season. When is someone ever going to
do the Cybermen properly.

On the whole I agree with your points but I think you overstate them.
This was - as you say - a very good episode. This series has had many
of them. We should celebrate, I think, all the good things that aere
happening with Doctor Who without being blind to the weaknesses

[The Doctor]

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
New title sequence... must I wait any longer?

Yes, because you're the only person - as far as I can make out - who
has any problem with it. But heigh-ho - personal taste and all that

Post by Agamemnon
Spoilers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
The Woman Who Lived
A vast improvement over last week. Maybe Moffat should employ a few
more female writers in future.

I think it was an improvement over last week - but only because last
week was the weakest episode, so far, of this series. That said pretty
much every episode of this series has been way better than last season

Post by Agamemnon
Still there are a few issues. Moffat is turning the show into a comedy
fest, but at least it was done better than the moronic bullying that
went on last week. Rather than concentrate on plot Moffat wants to do
relationships so the episode becomes a series of set pieces jumping
from one to an other with the dramatic stuff that led to them and the
tension building all missing.

"Plot" and "relationships" are not antagonistic. Both are necessary for
good drama. I think the weakness you identify regarding lack of tension
comes down, I'm afraid, to Maisie Williams's performance and the lines
she was given. There were too many clunky lines in there and she could
not delier them in a way that made us want to believe in her character

Post by Agamemnon
There was all the bullshit with the Eye of Hades (which should have
been the Eye of Osiris who existed much earlier than Hades) being
activated by someone giving their life, and opening a door to another
dimension. Yer, like where does the energy come from? If you're going
to come up with bullshit like this then at least provide a plausible
scientific or philosophical explanation. Moffat thinks this a fantasy
relationship based comedy rather than a family science fiction based
drama.

It's scarcely the first time in history that the idea that the giving
of a life supplies "energy" of some form or another

Post by Agamemnon
Presumably Clara had to be in the final scene for contractual reason.
Maybe Maisie Williams would make a much better companion for the 12th
Doctor. They seem to work so much better together. The only issue is
that Maisie might still be contracted to GoT.

She certainly is

Post by Agamemnon
10/10 for entertainment.
89/100 for script writing. Best of series 9 so far I think.
Next week it's Zygons. I wonder if it's set before or after the
Cyber-rubbish at the end of last season. When is someone ever going to
do the Cybermen properly.

On the whole I agree with your points but I think you overstate them.
This was - as you say - a very good episode. This series has had many
of them. We should celebrate, I think, all the good things that aere
happening with Doctor Who without being blind to the weaknesses

So Part 2 is better than PArt 1.

[Agamemnon]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
New title sequence... must I wait any longer?

Yes, because you're the only person - as far as I can make out - who
has any problem with it. But heigh-ho - personal taste and all that

Post by Agamemnon
Spoilers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
The Woman Who Lived
A vast improvement over last week. Maybe Moffat should employ a few
more female writers in future.

I think it was an improvement over last week - but only because last
week was the weakest episode, so far, of this series. That said pretty
much every episode of this series has been way better than last season

Post by Agamemnon
Still there are a few issues. Moffat is turning the show into a comedy
fest, but at least it was done better than the moronic bullying that
went on last week. Rather than concentrate on plot Moffat wants to do
relationships so the episode becomes a series of set pieces jumping
from one to an other with the dramatic stuff that led to them and the
tension building all missing.

"Plot" and "relationships" are not antagonistic. Both are necessary for
good drama. I think the weakness you identify regarding lack of tension
comes down, I'm afraid, to Maisie Williams's performance and the lines
she was given. There were too many clunky lines in there and she could
not delier them in a way that made us want to believe in her character

Post by Agamemnon
There was all the bullshit with the Eye of Hades (which should have
been the Eye of Osiris who existed much earlier than Hades) being
activated by someone giving their life, and opening a door to another
dimension. Yer, like where does the energy come from? If you're going
to come up with bullshit like this then at least provide a plausible
scientific or philosophical explanation. Moffat thinks this a fantasy
relationship based comedy rather than a family science fiction based
drama.

It's scarcely the first time in history that the idea that the giving
of a life supplies "energy" of some form or another

Post by Agamemnon
Presumably Clara had to be in the final scene for contractual reason.
Maybe Maisie Williams would make a much better companion for the 12th
Doctor. They seem to work so much better together. The only issue is
that Maisie might still be contracted to GoT.

She certainly is

Post by Agamemnon
10/10 for entertainment.
89/100 for script writing. Best of series 9 so far I think.
Next week it's Zygons. I wonder if it's set before or after the
Cyber-rubbish at the end of last season. When is someone ever going to
do the Cybermen properly.

On the whole I agree with your points but I think you overstate them.
This was - as you say - a very good episode. This series has had many
of them. We should celebrate, I think, all the good things that aere
happening with Doctor Who without being blind to the weaknesses

So Part 2 is better than PArt 1.

It's not even really a part 2. Might as well have been a separate
episode shown anywhere in the series.

[The Doctor]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
New title sequence... must I wait any longer?

Yes, because you're the only person - as far as I can make out - who
has any problem with it. But heigh-ho - personal taste and all that

Post by Agamemnon
Spoilers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
The Woman Who Lived
A vast improvement over last week. Maybe Moffat should employ a few
more female writers in future.

I think it was an improvement over last week - but only because last
week was the weakest episode, so far, of this series. That said pretty
much every episode of this series has been way better than last season

Post by Agamemnon
Still there are a few issues. Moffat is turning the show into a comedy
fest, but at least it was done better than the moronic bullying that
went on last week. Rather than concentrate on plot Moffat wants to do
relationships so the episode becomes a series of set pieces jumping
from one to an other with the dramatic stuff that led to them and the
tension building all missing.

"Plot" and "relationships" are not antagonistic. Both are necessary for
good drama. I think the weakness you identify regarding lack of tension
comes down, I'm afraid, to Maisie Williams's performance and the lines
she was given. There were too many clunky lines in there and she could
not delier them in a way that made us want to believe in her character

Post by Agamemnon
There was all the bullshit with the Eye of Hades (which should have
been the Eye of Osiris who existed much earlier than Hades) being
activated by someone giving their life, and opening a door to another
dimension. Yer, like where does the energy come from? If you're going
to come up with bullshit like this then at least provide a plausible
scientific or philosophical explanation. Moffat thinks this a fantasy
relationship based comedy rather than a family science fiction based
drama.

It's scarcely the first time in history that the idea that the giving
of a life supplies "energy" of some form or another

Post by Agamemnon
Presumably Clara had to be in the final scene for contractual reason.
Maybe Maisie Williams would make a much better companion for the 12th
Doctor. They seem to work so much better together. The only issue is
that Maisie might still be contracted to GoT.

She certainly is

Post by Agamemnon
10/10 for entertainment.
89/100 for script writing. Best of series 9 so far I think.
Next week it's Zygons. I wonder if it's set before or after the
Cyber-rubbish at the end of last season. When is someone ever going to
do the Cybermen properly.

On the whole I agree with your points but I think you overstate them.
This was - as you say - a very good episode. This series has had many
of them. We should celebrate, I think, all the good things that aere
happening with Doctor Who without being blind to the weaknesses

So Part 2 is better than PArt 1.

It's not even really a part 2. Might as well have been a separate
episode shown anywhere in the series.

I might have to concur. Still this is focused on the character
Mairie Williams interprets.

[Agamemnon]

Post by Agamemnon
New title sequence... must I wait any longer?

Yes, because you're the only person - as far as I can make out - who has
any problem with it. But heigh-ho - personal taste and all that

Nope. I think the majority of viewers didn't like it.

Post by Agamemnon
Spoilers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
The Woman Who Lived
A vast improvement over last week. Maybe Moffat should employ a few
more female writers in future.

I think it was an improvement over last week - but only because last
week was the weakest episode, so far, of this series. That said pretty
much every episode of this series has been way better than last season

Post by Agamemnon
Still there are a few issues. Moffat is turning the show into a comedy
fest, but at least it was done better than the moronic bullying that
went on last week. Rather than concentrate on plot Moffat wants to do
relationships so the episode becomes a series of set pieces jumping
from one to an other with the dramatic stuff that led to them and the
tension building all missing.

"Plot" and "relationships" are not antagonistic. Both are necessary for
good drama. I think the weakness you identify regarding lack of tension
comes down, I'm afraid, to Maisie Williams's performance and the lines
she was given. There were too many clunky lines in there and she could
not delier them in a way that made us want to believe in her character

It wasn't Maisie Williams that was to blame. It was the whole attempt to
make this episode about the relationship between her character and the
Doctor and Maisie's story through time rather than plot. Everything in
the feeble excuse for a plot was alluded too in the dialogue rather than
shown and Moffat always falls back on the moronic psychic paper and
sonic this or that rather than devising exciting ways to get out of
sticky situations.

How and where did Maisie meet the space cat, Leonid or whatever he was
called. It was all glossed over and brushed away in a line of dialogue.
Why wasn't it shown.

Who first discovered the Eye of Horus or Osiris or Hades or whatever and
how did it come into the possession of some Lord or Lady or other and
how did Maisie track it down to that carriage? Why weren't their
characters built up and made to do something other than being written as
morons.

How did Maisie know the Eye could do what it did and what proof was
given to her other than the cat's word for it.

How did that highwayman get caught. Why wasn't it shown. Why wasn't
anything done to build up tension like torturing him to blab on Maisie.

Who were the guards/gendarmes who confronted the Doctor and why were
they so easy to bribe. Their characters were unbelievable as was that of
the hangman who fell for the psychic paper. Once again they were all
written to be morons and that's the problem.

Moffat can't come up with plots. He's recycling RTD's old story briefs
over and over again (which RTD recycled from the McCoy era in the first
place) and all he's doing is relationships broken up by isolated set
pieces and narrating what happened rather than showing it. RTD had the
same trouble with lack of contents and he chose to do soap and slapstic.
Now Moffat is doing 2/3 relationships and vaudeville/stand-up and only
1/3 is plot or story telling and development which is even worse than
RTD's ratio of plot and story to soap and slapstick. While RTD got
better as he went along especially with the David Tennant specials,
Moffat is getting worse and worse.

What is missing in Moffat's stories is adventure and romance.

Post by Agamemnon
There was all the bullshit with the Eye of Hades (which should have
been the Eye of Osiris who existed much earlier than Hades) being
activated by someone giving their life, and opening a door to another
dimension. Yer, like where does the energy come from? If you're going
to come up with bullshit like this then at least provide a plausible
scientific or philosophical explanation. Moffat thinks this a fantasy
relationship based comedy rather than a family science fiction based
drama.

It's scarcely the first time in history that the idea that the giving of
a life supplies "energy" of some form or another

How does that excuse the lack of explanation? How are the viewers
supposed to know how the mechanism supplying this energy works? Even if
you turned all the mass the a person's body into energy it still
wouldn't be enough to open a doorway to another dimension, and like
death which doesn't even involve mass energy conversion is? Is Doctor
Who supposed to be about supernatural forces or science fiction? If you
read Jules Verne he devoted entire chapters to explaining things as did
most science fiction writers.

Post by Agamemnon
Presumably Clara had to be in the final scene for contractual reason.
Maybe Maisie Williams would make a much better companion for the 12th
Doctor. They seem to work so much better together. The only issue is
that Maisie might still be contracted to GoT.

She certainly is

Well things could soon change at the rate characters from GoT are being
killed off.

Post by Agamemnon
10/10 for entertainment.
89/100 for script writing. Best of series 9 so far I think.
Next week it's Zygons. I wonder if it's set before or after the
Cyber-rubbish at the end of last season. When is someone ever going to
do the Cybermen properly.

On the whole I agree with your points but I think you overstate them.
This was - as you say - a very good episode. This series has had many of
them. We should celebrate, I think, all the good things that aere
happening with Doctor Who without being blind to the weaknesses

It's not too difficult to beat Kill the Moon and In the Forest of the
Night or The Caretaker or Listen the latter of which was almost entirely
relationships crap rather than plot and turned out to be no more than a
damp squib when Danny was killed off in the Cyber-rubbish.

[Andrew M]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon
New title sequence... must I wait any longer?

Yes, because you're the only person - as far as I can make out - who has
any problem with it. But heigh-ho - personal taste and all that

Nope. I think the majority of viewers didn't like it.

Post by Agamemnon
Spoilers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
The Woman Who Lived
A vast improvement over last week. Maybe Moffat should employ a few
more female writers in future.

I think it was an improvement over last week - but only because last
week was the weakest episode, so far, of this series. That said pretty
much every episode of this series has been way better than last season

Post by Agamemnon
Still there are a few issues. Moffat is turning the show into a comedy
fest, but at least it was done better than the moronic bullying that
went on last week. Rather than concentrate on plot Moffat wants to do
relationships so the episode becomes a series of set pieces jumping
from one to an other with the dramatic stuff that led to them and the
tension building all missing.

"Plot" and "relationships" are not antagonistic. Both are necessary for
good drama. I think the weakness you identify regarding lack of tension
comes down, I'm afraid, to Maisie Williams's performance and the lines
she was given. There were too many clunky lines in there and she could
not delier them in a way that made us want to believe in her character

It wasn't Maisie Williams that was to blame. It was the whole attempt
to make this episode about the relationship between her character and
the Doctor and Maisie's story through time rather than plot. Everything
in the feeble excuse for a plot was alluded too in the dialogue rather
than shown and Moffat always falls back on the moronic psychic paper
and sonic this or that rather than devising exciting ways to get out of
sticky situations.
How and where did Maisie meet the space cat, Leonid or whatever he was
called. It was all glossed over and brushed away in a line of dialogue.
Why wasn't it shown.
Who first discovered the Eye of Horus or Osiris or Hades or whatever
and how did it come into the possession of some Lord or Lady or other
and how did Maisie track it down to that carriage? Why weren't their
characters built up and made to do something other than being written
as morons.
How did Maisie know the Eye could do what it did and what proof was
given to her other than the cat's word for it.
How did that highwayman get caught. Why wasn't it shown. Why wasn't
anything done to build up tension like torturing him to blab on Maisie.
Who were the guards/gendarmes who confronted the Doctor and why were
they so easy to bribe. Their characters were unbelievable as was that
of the hangman who fell for the psychic paper. Once again they were all
written to be morons and that's the problem.
Moffat can't come up with plots. He's recycling RTD's old story briefs
over and over again (which RTD recycled from the McCoy era in the first
place) and all he's doing is relationships broken up by isolated set
pieces and narrating what happened rather than showing it. RTD had the
same trouble with lack of contents and he chose to do soap and
slapstic. Now Moffat is doing 2/3 relationships and vaudeville/stand-up
and only 1/3 is plot or story telling and development which is even
worse than RTD's ratio of plot and story to soap and slapstick. While
RTD got better as he went along especially with the David Tennant
specials, Moffat is getting worse and worse.
What is missing in Moffat's stories is adventure and romance.

Post by Agamemnon
There was all the bullshit with the Eye of Hades (which should have
been the Eye of Osiris who existed much earlier than Hades) being
activated by someone giving their life, and opening a door to another
dimension. Yer, like where does the energy come from? If you're going
to come up with bullshit like this then at least provide a plausible
scientific or philosophical explanation. Moffat thinks this a fantasy
relationship based comedy rather than a family science fiction based
drama.

It's scarcely the first time in history that the idea that the giving of
a life supplies "energy" of some form or another

How does that excuse the lack of explanation? How are the viewers
supposed to know how the mechanism supplying this energy works? Even if
you turned all the mass the a person's body into energy it still
wouldn't be enough to open a doorway to another dimension, and like
death which doesn't even involve mass energy conversion is? Is Doctor
Who supposed to be about supernatural forces or science fiction? If you
read Jules Verne he devoted entire chapters to explaining things as did
most science fiction writers.

That's a whole different medium and simply cannot be compared with TV
in that way. Do the viewer need to know how the mechanism supplying the
energy works? I don't think so. I think a long-winded explanation would
simply have detracted from the story being told.

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon
Presumably Clara had to be in the final scene for contractual reason.
Maybe Maisie Williams would make a much better companion for the 12th
Doctor. They seem to work so much better together. The only issue is
that Maisie might still be contracted to GoT.

She certainly is

Well things could soon change at the rate characters from GoT are being
killed off.

Post by Agamemnon
10/10 for entertainment.
89/100 for script writing. Best of series 9 so far I think.
Next week it's Zygons. I wonder if it's set before or after the
Cyber-rubbish at the end of last season. When is someone ever going to
do the Cybermen properly.

On the whole I agree with your points but I think you overstate them.
This was - as you say - a very good episode. This series has had many of
them. We should celebrate, I think, all the good things that aere
happening with Doctor Who without being blind to the weaknesses

It's not too difficult to beat Kill the Moon and In the Forest of the
Night or The Caretaker or Listen the latter of which was almost
entirely relationships crap rather than plot and turned out to be no
more than a damp squib when Danny was killed off in the Cyber-rubbish.

[Siri Cruz]

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
How does that excuse the lack of explanation? How are the viewers
supposed to know how the mechanism supplying this energy works? Even if
you turned all the mass the a person's body into energy it still
wouldn't be enough to open a doorway to another dimension, and like
death which doesn't even involve mass energy conversion is? Is Doctor
Who supposed to be about supernatural forces or science fiction? If you
read Jules Verne he devoted entire chapters to explaining things as did
most science fiction writers.

That's a whole different medium and simply cannot be compared with TV
in that way. Do the viewer need to know how the mechanism supplying the
energy works? I don't think so. I think a long-winded explanation would
simply have detracted from the story being told.

Pulling a trigger looses a bullet with far more energy than the finger itself
transferred. Often all that's needed to some activation energy to move a system
out of local minimum to release a large amount of energy as it moves to the next
minimum.

[Agamemnon]

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
How does that excuse the lack of explanation? How are the viewers
supposed to know how the mechanism supplying this energy works? Even if
you turned all the mass the a person's body into energy it still
wouldn't be enough to open a doorway to another dimension, and like
death which doesn't even involve mass energy conversion is? Is Doctor
Who supposed to be about supernatural forces or science fiction? If you
read Jules Verne he devoted entire chapters to explaining things as did
most science fiction writers.

That's a whole different medium and simply cannot be compared with TV
in that way. Do the viewer need to know how the mechanism supplying the
energy works? I don't think so. I think a long-winded explanation would
simply have detracted from the story being told.

Pulling a trigger looses a bullet with far more energy than the finger itself
transferred. Often all that's needed to some activation energy to move a system
out of local minimum to release a large amount of energy as it moves to the next
minimum.

Which Moffat could have easily explained as well as where the hidden
energy came from and why only a humanoid life force would interact with
it. It wouldn't have taken very long at all.

[The Doctor]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
How does that excuse the lack of explanation? How are the viewers
supposed to know how the mechanism supplying this energy works? Even if
you turned all the mass the a person's body into energy it still
wouldn't be enough to open a doorway to another dimension, and like
death which doesn't even involve mass energy conversion is? Is Doctor
Who supposed to be about supernatural forces or science fiction? If you
read Jules Verne he devoted entire chapters to explaining things as did
most science fiction writers.

That's a whole different medium and simply cannot be compared with TV
in that way. Do the viewer need to know how the mechanism supplying the
energy works? I don't think so. I think a long-winded explanation would
simply have detracted from the story being told.

Pulling a trigger looses a bullet with far more energy than the finger itself
transferred. Often all that's needed to some activation energy to move a system
out of local minimum to release a large amount of energy as it moves to the next
minimum.

Which Moffat could have easily explained as well as where the hidden
energy came from and why only a humanoid life force would interact with
it. It wouldn't have taken very long at all.

There are some things left to our imagination to explain.

[Agamemnon]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
How does that excuse the lack of explanation? How are the viewers
supposed to know how the mechanism supplying this energy works? Even if
you turned all the mass the a person's body into energy it still
wouldn't be enough to open a doorway to another dimension, and like
death which doesn't even involve mass energy conversion is? Is Doctor
Who supposed to be about supernatural forces or science fiction? If you
read Jules Verne he devoted entire chapters to explaining things as did
most science fiction writers.

That's a whole different medium and simply cannot be compared with TV
in that way. Do the viewer need to know how the mechanism supplying the
energy works? I don't think so. I think a long-winded explanation would
simply have detracted from the story being told.

Pulling a trigger looses a bullet with far more energy than the finger itself
transferred. Often all that's needed to some activation energy to move a system
out of local minimum to release a large amount of energy as it moves to the next
minimum.

Which Moffat could have easily explained as well as where the hidden
energy came from and why only a humanoid life force would interact with
it. It wouldn't have taken very long at all.

There are some things left to our imagination to explain.

That's illustrative of bad writing. It's like writing a story and not
describing what any of the characters or surroundings look like.
Nothing should be left to the imagination.

[Mike M]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
How does that excuse the lack of explanation? How are the viewers
supposed to know how the mechanism supplying this energy works? Even if
you turned all the mass the a person's body into energy it still
wouldn't be enough to open a doorway to another dimension, and like
death which doesn't even involve mass energy conversion is? Is Doctor
Who supposed to be about supernatural forces or science fiction? If you
read Jules Verne he devoted entire chapters to explaining things as did
most science fiction writers.

That's a whole different medium and simply cannot be compared with TV
in that way. Do the viewer need to know how the mechanism supplying the
energy works? I don't think so. I think a long-winded explanation would
simply have detracted from the story being told.

Pulling a trigger looses a bullet with far more energy than the finger itself
transferred. Often all that's needed to some activation energy to move a system
out of local minimum to release a large amount of energy as it moves to the next
minimum.

Which Moffat could have easily explained as well as where the hidden
energy came from and why only a humanoid life force would interact with
it. It wouldn't have taken very long at all.

There are some things left to our imagination to explain.

That's illustrative of bad writing. It's like writing a story and not
describing what any of the characters or surroundings look like.
Nothing should be left to the imagination.

How dreary life would be with nothing left to the imagination and
everything explained to the smallest detail. Glowy amulet + portal opened
by sacrifice = necromantic magic. No "scientific" explanation would be
credible, so why bother to bore us all with something absurd?

Far better to do as the show did, just accept the story logic and move on.
Do you also need a detailed explanation of how Leandro came to Earth, how
come his eyes glow like lasers, how it is he can apparently breathe fire,
what's the deal with his crown, how can Me get away in society without a
normal name, how a presumed minor is allowed unencumbered ownership of
substantial property assets, how come the Doctor is on wanted posters and
those recognisably bear his silhouette, why given that he has a time
machine he didn't just wait for Clara's class to finish before coming to
the seventeenth century, how and why the amulet glows, how psychic paper
actually works, why Rufus Hound wasn't wearing a mask when all his gang
were ....

There'd be no room for the story if "nothing is left to the imagination ".

[Agamemnon]

Post by Mike M

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
How does that excuse the lack of explanation? How are the viewers
supposed to know how the mechanism supplying this energy works? Even if
you turned all the mass the a person's body into energy it still
wouldn't be enough to open a doorway to another dimension, and like
death which doesn't even involve mass energy conversion is? Is Doctor
Who supposed to be about supernatural forces or science fiction? If you
read Jules Verne he devoted entire chapters to explaining things as did
most science fiction writers.

That's a whole different medium and simply cannot be compared with TV
in that way. Do the viewer need to know how the mechanism supplying the
energy works? I don't think so. I think a long-winded explanation would
simply have detracted from the story being told.

Pulling a trigger looses a bullet with far more energy than the finger itself
transferred. Often all that's needed to some activation energy to move a system
out of local minimum to release a large amount of energy as it moves to the next
minimum.

Which Moffat could have easily explained as well as where the hidden
energy came from and why only a humanoid life force would interact with
it. It wouldn't have taken very long at all.

There are some things left to our imagination to explain.

That's illustrative of bad writing. It's like writing a story and not
describing what any of the characters or surroundings look like.
Nothing should be left to the imagination.

How dreary life would be with nothing left to the imagination and
everything explained to the smallest detail. Glowy amulet + portal opened
by sacrifice = necromantic magic. No "scientific" explanation would be
credible, so why bother to bore us all with something absurd?

The reason for the explanation is to inspire people's imaginations and
creativity by giving them the basic principles and building blocks to
play with and show them worlds that they would probably never experience
themselves directly. That was the whole motivation behind Jules Verne.

Post by Mike M
Far better to do as the show did, just accept the story logic and move on.

No. The way the show is currently been written is one of the worst
examples of bad writing you could possibly show to students of literature.

Post by Mike M
Do you also need a detailed explanation of how Leandro came to Earth, how
come his eyes glow like lasers, how it is he can apparently breathe fire,
what's the deal with his crown, how can Me get away in society without a
normal name, how a presumed minor is allowed unencumbered ownership of
substantial property assets, how come the Doctor is on wanted posters and
those recognisably bear his silhouette, why given that he has a time
machine he didn't just wait for Clara's class to finish before coming to
the seventeenth century, how and why the amulet glows, how psychic paper
actually works, why Rufus Hound wasn't wearing a mask when all his gang
were ....

Explanations for all of the above would have enriched the story and the
story telling experience.

Post by Mike M
There'd be no room for the story if "nothing is left to the imagination ".

No.

[Tim Bruening]

Post by Mike M

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
How does that excuse the lack of explanation? How are the viewers
supposed to know how the mechanism supplying this energy works? Even if
you turned all the mass the a person's body into energy it still
wouldn't be enough to open a doorway to another dimension, and like
death which doesn't even involve mass energy conversion is? Is Doctor
Who supposed to be about supernatural forces or science fiction? If you
read Jules Verne he devoted entire chapters to explaining things as did
most science fiction writers.

That's a whole different medium and simply cannot be compared with TV
in that way. Do the viewer need to know how the mechanism supplying the
energy works? I don't think so. I think a long-winded explanation would
simply have detracted from the story being told.

Pulling a trigger looses a bullet with far more energy than the finger itself
transferred. Often all that's needed to some activation energy to move a system
out of local minimum to release a large amount of energy as it moves to the next
minimum.

Which Moffat could have easily explained as well as where the hidden
energy came from and why only a humanoid life force would interact with
it. It wouldn't have taken very long at all.

There are some things left to our imagination to explain.

That's illustrative of bad writing. It's like writing a story and not
describing what any of the characters or surroundings look like.
Nothing should be left to the imagination.

How dreary life would be with nothing left to the imagination and
everything explained to the smallest detail. Glowy amulet + portal opened
by sacrifice = necromantic magic. No "scientific" explanation would be
credible, so why bother to bore us all with something absurd?
Far better to do as the show did, just accept the story logic and move on.
Do you also need a detailed explanation of how Leandro came to Earth, how
come his eyes glow like lasers, how it is he can apparently breathe fire,
what's the deal with his crown, how can Me get away in society without a
normal name, how a presumed minor is allowed unencumbered ownership of
substantial property assets

A presumed FEMALE minor, at a time well before Women's Lib!

, how come the Doctor is on wanted posters and

Post by Mike M
those recognisably bear his silhouette, why given that he has a time
machine he didn't just wait for Clara's class to finish before coming to
the seventeenth century, how and why the amulet glows, how psychic paper
actually works, why Rufus Hound wasn't wearing a mask when all his gang
were ....

And how the TARDIS travels in time.

[The Doctor]

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Mike M

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
How does that excuse the lack of explanation? How are the viewers
supposed to know how the mechanism supplying this energy works? Even if
you turned all the mass the a person's body into energy it still
wouldn't be enough to open a doorway to another dimension, and like
death which doesn't even involve mass energy conversion is? Is Doctor
Who supposed to be about supernatural forces or science fiction? If you
read Jules Verne he devoted entire chapters to explaining things as did
most science fiction writers.

That's a whole different medium and simply cannot be compared with TV
in that way. Do the viewer need to know how the mechanism supplying the
energy works? I don't think so. I think a long-winded explanation would
simply have detracted from the story being told.

Pulling a trigger looses a bullet with far more energy than the

finger itself

Post by Mike M

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Siri Cruz
transferred. Often all that's needed to some activation energy to

move a system

Post by Mike M

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Siri Cruz
out of local minimum to release a large amount of energy as it

moves to the next

Post by Mike M

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Siri Cruz
minimum.

Which Moffat could have easily explained as well as where the hidden
energy came from and why only a humanoid life force would interact with
it. It wouldn't have taken very long at all.

There are some things left to our imagination to explain.

That's illustrative of bad writing. It's like writing a story and not
describing what any of the characters or surroundings look like.
Nothing should be left to the imagination.

How dreary life would be with nothing left to the imagination and
everything explained to the smallest detail. Glowy amulet + portal opened
by sacrifice = necromantic magic. No "scientific" explanation would be
credible, so why bother to bore us all with something absurd?
Far better to do as the show did, just accept the story logic and move on.
Do you also need a detailed explanation of how Leandro came to Earth, how
come his eyes glow like lasers, how it is he can apparently breathe fire,
what's the deal with his crown, how can Me get away in society without a
normal name, how a presumed minor is allowed unencumbered ownership of
substantial property assets

A presumed FEMALE minor, at a time well before Women's Lib!
, how come the Doctor is on wanted posters and

Post by Mike M
those recognisably bear his silhouette, why given that he has a time
machine he didn't just wait for Clara's class to finish before coming to
the seventeenth century, how and why the amulet glows, how psychic paper
actually works, why Rufus Hound wasn't wearing a mask when all his gang
were ....

And how the TARDIS travels in time.

Via Black hole.

[The Doctor]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
How does that excuse the lack of explanation? How are the viewers
supposed to know how the mechanism supplying this energy works? Even if
you turned all the mass the a person's body into energy it still
wouldn't be enough to open a doorway to another dimension, and like
death which doesn't even involve mass energy conversion is? Is Doctor
Who supposed to be about supernatural forces or science fiction? If you
read Jules Verne he devoted entire chapters to explaining things as did
most science fiction writers.

That's a whole different medium and simply cannot be compared with TV
in that way. Do the viewer need to know how the mechanism supplying the
energy works? I don't think so. I think a long-winded explanation would
simply have detracted from the story being told.

Pulling a trigger looses a bullet with far more energy than the finger itself
transferred. Often all that's needed to some activation energy to move a system
out of local minimum to release a large amount of energy as it moves to the next
minimum.

Which Moffat could have easily explained as well as where the hidden
energy came from and why only a humanoid life force would interact with
it. It wouldn't have taken very long at all.

There are some things left to our imagination to explain.

That's illustrative of bad writing. It's like writing a story and not
describing what any of the characters or surroundings look like.
Nothing should be left to the imagination.

6 in one, half a dozen the other.

[TB]

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
How does that excuse the lack of explanation? How are the viewers
supposed to know how the mechanism supplying this energy works? Even if
you turned all the mass the a person's body into energy it still
wouldn't be enough to open a doorway to another dimension, and like
death which doesn't even involve mass energy conversion is? Is Doctor
Who supposed to be about supernatural forces or science fiction? If you
read Jules Verne he devoted entire chapters to explaining things as did
most science fiction writers.

That's a whole different medium and simply cannot be compared with TV
in that way. Do the viewer need to know how the mechanism supplying the
energy works? I don't think so. I think a long-winded explanation would
simply have detracted from the story being told.

Pulling a trigger looses a bullet with far more energy than the finger itself
transferred. Often all that's needed to some activation energy to move a system
out of local minimum to release a large amount of energy as it moves to the next
minimum.

IIRC, pulling the trigger causes a spark which ignites the gun powder which explodes which propels the bullet.

[Agamemnon]

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
How does that excuse the lack of explanation? How are the viewers
supposed to know how the mechanism supplying this energy works? Even if
you turned all the mass the a person's body into energy it still
wouldn't be enough to open a doorway to another dimension, and like
death which doesn't even involve mass energy conversion is? Is Doctor
Who supposed to be about supernatural forces or science fiction? If you
read Jules Verne he devoted entire chapters to explaining things as did
most science fiction writers.

That's a whole different medium and simply cannot be compared with TV
in that way. Do the viewer need to know how the mechanism supplying the
energy works? I don't think so. I think a long-winded explanation would
simply have detracted from the story being told.

Pulling a trigger looses a bullet with far more energy than the finger itself
transferred. Often all that's needed to some activation energy to move a system
out of local minimum to release a large amount of energy as it moves to the next
minimum.

IIRC, pulling the trigger causes a spark which ignites the gun powder which explodes which propels the bullet.

What's a bullet and what's a trigger. What's a gun even? Did anyone
actually mention gun? What's gun powder. How would you describe all of
that along with a cup of tea to an alien visiting this planet for the
first time. I'm starting to sound like one of my former English
teachers. I shouldn't have to be saying this to Moffat and co.

[Siri Cruz]

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
How does that excuse the lack of explanation? How are the viewers
supposed to know how the mechanism supplying this energy works? Even if
you turned all the mass the a person's body into energy it still
wouldn't be enough to open a doorway to another dimension, and like
death which doesn't even involve mass energy conversion is? Is Doctor
Who supposed to be about supernatural forces or science fiction? If you
read Jules Verne he devoted entire chapters to explaining things as did
most science fiction writers.

That's a whole different medium and simply cannot be compared with TV
in that way. Do the viewer need to know how the mechanism supplying the
energy works? I don't think so. I think a long-winded explanation would
simply have detracted from the story being told.

Pulling a trigger looses a bullet with far more energy than the finger itself
transferred. Often all that's needed to some activation energy to move a system
out of local minimum to release a large amount of energy as it moves to the next
minimum.

IIRC, pulling the trigger causes a spark which ignites the gun powder which
explodes which propels the bullet.

Pulling a trigger causes a trigger effect where a small input effect creates a
large output effect because the system was only in somewhat stable state that
can be pushed into instability.

Flipping a light switch, turn the key in car ignition, firing demolition charges
in a building, rolling a ball over the top step of the stairs, etc.

Kicking a ball across a field isn't a trigger because with no change in gravity
at the start and finish, the kick can't tap into any energy reservoir. It can
only go as far as the kicker's leg kicked it. (Ignoring local hurricane
conditions.)

[Tim Bruening]

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
How does that excuse the lack of explanation? How are the viewers
supposed to know how the mechanism supplying this energy works? Even if
you turned all the mass the a person's body into energy it still
wouldn't be enough to open a doorway to another dimension, and like
death which doesn't even involve mass energy conversion is? Is Doctor
Who supposed to be about supernatural forces or science fiction? If you
read Jules Verne he devoted entire chapters to explaining things as did
most science fiction writers.

That's a whole different medium and simply cannot be compared with TV
in that way. Do the viewer need to know how the mechanism supplying the
energy works? I don't think so. I think a long-winded explanation would
simply have detracted from the story being told.

Pulling a trigger looses a bullet with far more energy than the finger itself
transferred. Often all that's needed to some activation energy to move a system
out of local minimum to release a large amount of energy as it moves to the next
minimum.

IIRC, pulling the trigger causes a spark which ignites the gun powder which
explodes which propels the bullet.

Pulling a trigger causes a trigger effect where a small input effect creates a
large output effect because the system was only in somewhat stable state that
can be pushed into instability.
Flipping a light switch, turn the key in car ignition, firing demolition charges
in a building, rolling a ball over the top step of the stairs, etc.
Kicking a ball across a field isn't a trigger because with no change in gravity
at the start and finish, the kick can't tap into any energy reservoir. It can
only go as far as the kicker's leg kicked it. (Ignoring local hurricane
conditions.)

So the Eye of Hades used a man's life force to trigger the opening of a wormhole without supplying all the necessary energy? I wonder where the rest of the necessary energy came from?

[The Doctor]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
How does that excuse the lack of explanation? How are the viewers
supposed to know how the mechanism supplying this energy

works? Even if

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
you turned all the mass the a person's body into energy it still
wouldn't be enough to open a doorway to another dimension, and like
death which doesn't even involve mass energy conversion is? Is Doctor
Who supposed to be about supernatural forces or science

fiction? If you

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
read Jules Verne he devoted entire chapters to explaining

things as did

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
most science fiction writers.

That's a whole different medium and simply cannot be compared with TV
in that way. Do the viewer need to know how the mechanism supplying the
energy works? I don't think so. I think a long-winded explanation would
simply have detracted from the story being told.

Pulling a trigger looses a bullet with far more energy than the finger itself
transferred. Often all that's needed to some activation energy to move a system
out of local minimum to release a large amount of energy as it

moves to the

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz
next
minimum.

IIRC, pulling the trigger causes a spark which ignites the gun powder which
explodes which propels the bullet.

Pulling a trigger causes a trigger effect where a small input effect

creates a

Post by Siri Cruz
large output effect because the system was only in somewhat stable state that
can be pushed into instability.
Flipping a light switch, turn the key in car ignition, firing

demolition charges

Post by Siri Cruz
in a building, rolling a ball over the top step of the stairs, etc.
Kicking a ball across a field isn't a trigger because with no change

in gravity

Post by Siri Cruz
at the start and finish, the kick can't tap into any energy reservoir. It can
only go as far as the kicker's leg kicked it. (Ignoring local hurricane
conditions.)

So the Eye of Hades used a man's life force to trigger the opening of a
wormhole without supplying all the necessary energy? I wonder where the
rest of the necessary energy came from?

Where do you get the Eye of Hades.

[Tim Bruening]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
How does that excuse the lack of explanation? How are the viewers
supposed to know how the mechanism supplying this energy

works? Even if

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
you turned all the mass the a person's body into energy it still
wouldn't be enough to open a doorway to another dimension, and like
death which doesn't even involve mass energy conversion is? Is Doctor
Who supposed to be about supernatural forces or science

fiction? If you

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
read Jules Verne he devoted entire chapters to explaining

things as did

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
most science fiction writers.

That's a whole different medium and simply cannot be compared with TV
in that way. Do the viewer need to know how the mechanism supplying the
energy works? I don't think so. I think a long-winded explanation would
simply have detracted from the story being told.

Pulling a trigger looses a bullet with far more energy than the finger itself
transferred. Often all that's needed to some activation energy to move a
system
out of local minimum to release a large amount of energy as it

moves to the

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz
next
minimum.

IIRC, pulling the trigger causes a spark which ignites the gun powder which
explodes which propels the bullet.

Pulling a trigger causes a trigger effect where a small input effect

creates a

Post by Siri Cruz
large output effect because the system was only in somewhat stable state that
can be pushed into instability.
Flipping a light switch, turn the key in car ignition, firing

demolition charges

Post by Siri Cruz
in a building, rolling a ball over the top step of the stairs, etc.
Kicking a ball across a field isn't a trigger because with no change

in gravity

Post by Siri Cruz
at the start and finish, the kick can't tap into any energy reservoir. It can
only go as far as the kicker's leg kicked it. (Ignoring local hurricane
conditions.)

So the Eye of Hades used a man's life force to trigger the opening of a
wormhole without supplying all the necessary energy? I wonder where the
rest of the necessary energy came from?

Where do you get the Eye of Hades.

From the Face of Hades?

[The Doctor]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
How does that excuse the lack of explanation? How are the viewers
supposed to know how the mechanism supplying this energy

works? Even if

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
you turned all the mass the a person's body into energy it still
wouldn't be enough to open a doorway to another dimension,

and like

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
death which doesn't even involve mass energy conversion is?

Is Doctor

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
Who supposed to be about supernatural forces or science

fiction? If you

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
read Jules Verne he devoted entire chapters to explaining

things as did

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
most science fiction writers.

That's a whole different medium and simply cannot be compared

with TV

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M
in that way. Do the viewer need to know how the mechanism

supplying the

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M
energy works? I don't think so. I think a long-winded

explanation would

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by Andrew M
simply have detracted from the story being told.

Pulling a trigger looses a bullet with far more energy than the finger
itself
transferred. Often all that's needed to some activation energy

to move a

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz
system
out of local minimum to release a large amount of energy as it

moves to the

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB

Post by Siri Cruz
next
minimum.

IIRC, pulling the trigger causes a spark which ignites the gun

powder which

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Siri Cruz

Post by TB
explodes which propels the bullet.

Pulling a trigger causes a trigger effect where a small input effect

creates a

Post by Siri Cruz
large output effect because the system was only in somewhat stable

state that

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Siri Cruz
can be pushed into instability.
Flipping a light switch, turn the key in car ignition, firing

demolition charges

Post by Siri Cruz
in a building, rolling a ball over the top step of the stairs, etc.
Kicking a ball across a field isn't a trigger because with no change

in gravity

Post by Siri Cruz
at the start and finish, the kick can't tap into any energy

reservoir. It can

Post by The Doctor

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Siri Cruz
only go as far as the kicker's leg kicked it. (Ignoring local hurricane
conditions.)

So the Eye of Hades used a man's life force to trigger the opening of a
wormhole without supplying all the necessary energy? I wonder where the
rest of the necessary energy came from?

Where do you get the Eye of Hades.

From the Face of Hades?

Hell!! Got you!!

[Agamemnon]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Agamemnon
New title sequence... must I wait any longer?

Yes, because you're the only person - as far as I can make out - who has
any problem with it. But heigh-ho - personal taste and all that

Nope. I think the majority of viewers didn't like it.

Post by Agamemnon
Spoilers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
The Woman Who Lived
A vast improvement over last week. Maybe Moffat should employ a few
more female writers in future.

I think it was an improvement over last week - but only because last
week was the weakest episode, so far, of this series. That said pretty
much every episode of this series has been way better than last season

Post by Agamemnon
Still there are a few issues. Moffat is turning the show into a comedy
fest, but at least it was done better than the moronic bullying that
went on last week. Rather than concentrate on plot Moffat wants to do
relationships so the episode becomes a series of set pieces jumping
from one to an other with the dramatic stuff that led to them and the
tension building all missing.

"Plot" and "relationships" are not antagonistic. Both are necessary for
good drama. I think the weakness you identify regarding lack of tension
comes down, I'm afraid, to Maisie Williams's performance and the lines
she was given. There were too many clunky lines in there and she could
not delier them in a way that made us want to believe in her character

It wasn't Maisie Williams that was to blame. It was the whole attempt
to make this episode about the relationship between her character and
the Doctor and Maisie's story through time rather than plot.
Everything in the feeble excuse for a plot was alluded too in the
dialogue rather than shown and Moffat always falls back on the moronic
psychic paper and sonic this or that rather than devising exciting
ways to get out of sticky situations.
How and where did Maisie meet the space cat, Leonid or whatever he was
called. It was all glossed over and brushed away in a line of
dialogue. Why wasn't it shown.
Who first discovered the Eye of Horus or Osiris or Hades or whatever
and how did it come into the possession of some Lord or Lady or other
and how did Maisie track it down to that carriage? Why weren't their
characters built up and made to do something other than being written
as morons.
How did Maisie know the Eye could do what it did and what proof was
given to her other than the cat's word for it.
How did that highwayman get caught. Why wasn't it shown. Why wasn't
anything done to build up tension like torturing him to blab on Maisie.
Who were the guards/gendarmes who confronted the Doctor and why were
they so easy to bribe. Their characters were unbelievable as was that
of the hangman who fell for the psychic paper. Once again they were
all written to be morons and that's the problem.
Moffat can't come up with plots. He's recycling RTD's old story briefs
over and over again (which RTD recycled from the McCoy era in the
first place) and all he's doing is relationships broken up by isolated
set pieces and narrating what happened rather than showing it. RTD had
the same trouble with lack of contents and he chose to do soap and
slapstic. Now Moffat is doing 2/3 relationships and
vaudeville/stand-up and only 1/3 is plot or story telling and
development which is even worse than RTD's ratio of plot and story to
soap and slapstick. While RTD got better as he went along especially
with the David Tennant specials, Moffat is getting worse and worse.
What is missing in Moffat's stories is adventure and romance.

Post by Agamemnon
There was all the bullshit with the Eye of Hades (which should have
been the Eye of Osiris who existed much earlier than Hades) being
activated by someone giving their life, and opening a door to another
dimension. Yer, like where does the energy come from? If you're going
to come up with bullshit like this then at least provide a plausible
scientific or philosophical explanation. Moffat thinks this a fantasy
relationship based comedy rather than a family science fiction based
drama.

It's scarcely the first time in history that the idea that the giving of
a life supplies "energy" of some form or another

How does that excuse the lack of explanation? How are the viewers
supposed to know how the mechanism supplying this energy works? Even
if you turned all the mass the a person's body into energy it still
wouldn't be enough to open a doorway to another dimension, and like
death which doesn't even involve mass energy conversion is? Is Doctor
Who supposed to be about supernatural forces or science fiction? If
you read Jules Verne he devoted entire chapters to explaining things
as did most science fiction writers.

That's a whole different medium and simply cannot be compared with TV in
that way. Do the viewer need to know how the mechanism supplying the
energy works? I don't think so.

Yes they do. Verne would have considered it his duty to explain any
mechanism that was out of the ordinary, so would Burroughs, Nolan, "Doc"
Smith and Asimov.

I think a long-winded explanation would
simply have detracted from the story being told.

The story was about this a psychic mechanism that opened a rift between
dimensions. That mechanism needs explaining just like Burroughs
explained a similar psychic mechanism that was the backbone of Thuvia
Maid of Mars.

Nolan and Burroughs both explained how their anti-gravity mechanisms
worked as well as wireless power transmission systems which can be seen
today in wireless mobile phone chargers. "Doc" Smith explained the
entire made up physics of how his space ship operated in The Skylark of
Space. Asimov invented an entire set of laws governing robots and
compliance with these laws formed the basis of his stories. Even George
Lucas eventually explained how the Force worked scientifically in The
Phantom Menace and Jurassic Park included an entire cartoon explaining
how dinosaurs were cloned and without that the movie would not have been
as good, talked about or interesting.

[TB]

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 5:23:54 PM UTC-7, Andrew M wrote:

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Post by Andrew M
It's scarcely the first time in history that the idea that the giving
of a life supplies "energy" of some form or another

It happened at the end of Buffy season 5. An evil god named Glory used the blood of Buffy's sister Dawn to open up a portal to a multitude of universes, including her own. The portal would close only when Dawn died. Then Buffy dived through the portal, and HER death closed it!

[Agamemnon]

Post by TB
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Post by Andrew M
It's scarcely the first time in history that the idea that the giving
of a life supplies "energy" of some form or another

It happened at the end of Buffy season 5. An evil god named Glory used the blood of Buffy's sister Dawn to open up a portal to a multitude of universes, including her own. The portal would close only when Dawn died. Then Buffy dived through the portal, and HER death closed it!

They used the same supernatural nonsense at the end of season 5 of Angel
where someone had to die to open a portal and Angel died to close it
meaning Spike was the one the prophesies were all about.

This is Doctor Who though which is supposed to be science fiction. Where
is the scientific explanation?

Did season 6 start with Buffy in a padded cell?

[TB]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by TB
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Post by Andrew M
It's scarcely the first time in history that the idea that the giving
of a life supplies "energy" of some form or another

It happened at the end of Buffy season 5. An evil god named Glory used the blood of Buffy's sister Dawn to open up a portal to a multitude of universes, including her own. The portal would close only when Dawn died. Then Buffy dived through the portal, and HER death closed it!

They used the same supernatural nonsense at the end of season 5 of Angel
where someone had to die to open a portal and Angel died to close it
meaning Spike was the one the prophesies were all about.
This is Doctor Who though which is supposed to be science fiction. Where
is the scientific explanation?
Did season 6 start with Buffy in a padded cell?

Thus eliminating the possibility of an Angel movie!

[Tim Bruening]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by TB
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Post by Andrew M
It's scarcely the first time in history that the idea that the giving
of a life supplies "energy" of some form or another

It happened at the end of Buffy season 5. An evil god named Glory used the blood of Buffy's sister Dawn to open up a portal to a multitude of universes, including her own. The portal would close only when Dawn died. Then Buffy dived through the portal, and HER death closed it!

They used the same supernatural nonsense at the end of season 5 of Angel
where someone had to die to open a portal and Angel died to close it
meaning Spike was the one the prophesies were all about.

End of Buffy Season 2: Angel (who had turned evil after losing his soul) used his blood to open a portal (consisting of a demon's mouth) to Hell. Buffy battled Angel for a while as the portal opened, then Willow restored Angel's soul, then Buffy stabbed Angel so that his blood would close the demon's mouth, sucking him into Hell.

[Tim Bruening]

Post by TB
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Post by Andrew M
It's scarcely the first time in history that the idea that the giving
of a life supplies "energy" of some form or another

It happened at the end of Buffy season 5. An evil god named Glory used the blood of Buffy's sister Dawn to open up a portal to a multitude of universes, including her own. The portal would close only when Dawn died. Then Buffy dived through the portal, and HER death closed it!

And then Willow brought Buffy back to life!

[The Doctor]

Post by TB

Post by TB
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Post by Andrew M
It's scarcely the first time in history that the idea that the giving
of a life supplies "energy" of some form or another

It happened at the end of Buffy season 5. An evil god named Glory

used the blood of Buffy's sister Dawn to open up a portal to a multitude
of universes, including her own. The portal would close only when Dawn
died. Then Buffy dived through the portal, and HER death closed it!
And then Willow brought Buffy back to life!

Big mistake.

[Tim Bruening]

Post by The Doctor

Post by TB

Post by TB
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Post by Andrew M
It's scarcely the first time in history that the idea that the giving
of a life supplies "energy" of some form or another

It happened at the end of Buffy season 5. An evil god named Glory

used the blood of Buffy's sister Dawn to open up a portal to a multitude
of universes, including her own. The portal would close only when Dawn
died. Then Buffy dived through the portal, and HER death closed it!
And then Willow brought Buffy back to life!

Big mistake.

Why was bringing Buffy back to lie a mistake? After all, she is needed to fight vampires!

[The Doctor]

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by TB

Post by TB
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Post by Andrew M
It's scarcely the first time in history that the idea that the giving
of a life supplies "energy" of some form or another

It happened at the end of Buffy season 5. An evil god named Glory

used the blood of Buffy's sister Dawn to open up a portal to a multitude
of universes, including her own. The portal would close only when Dawn
died. Then Buffy dived through the portal, and HER death closed it!
And then Willow brought Buffy back to life!

Big mistake.

Why was bringing Buffy back to lie a mistake? After all, she is needed to fight vampires!

Let the dead stay dead.

[Pudentame]

On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 01:23:52 +0100, Andrew M

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
New title sequence... must I wait any longer?

Yes, because you're the only person - as far as I can make out - who
has any problem with it. But heigh-ho - personal taste and all that

Post by Agamemnon
Spoilers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
The Woman Who Lived
A vast improvement over last week. Maybe Moffat should employ a few
more female writers in future.

I think it was an improvement over last week - but only because last
week was the weakest episode, so far, of this series. That said pretty
much every episode of this series has been way better than last season

I thought it was a bit weaker than the preceding episode. I enjoyed
it, but not as much as I enjoyed last week's episode.

[Peter J Ross]

Post by Pudentame
I thought it was a bit weaker than the preceding episode. I enjoyed
it, but not as much as I enjoyed last week's episode.

I also enjoyed it less than last week's episode.

Similarly, I'd probably enjoy cancer less than toothache.

[Siri Cruz]

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
Spoilers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0

It's scarcely the first time in history that the idea that the giving
of a life supplies "energy" of some form or another

Or to cut an openning through space to another world as in the Golden Compass.

[Peter J Ross]

Post by Andrew M

Post by Agamemnon
New title sequence... must I wait any longer?

Yes, because you're the only person - as far as I can make out - who
has any problem with it. But heigh-ho - personal taste and all that

I don't like it either, but I don't think it's any worse than the
"colonoscopy of an electrified bowel" titles that preceded it.

One day perhaps somebody will come up with something to rival the
elegantly creative idea of pointing a video camera at its own monitor
just to see what happens, but I'm not holding my breath. Genius is
uncommon.

I have nothing much to say about the episode. Like the Brigadier in
The Three Doctors, I complained when there were two Weird-Looking-
Bimbos-Who-Can't-Act at the start of the series, but I didn't know
when I was well off. Was it necessary for the third WLBWCA to whine
quite so much? Was it necessary to have a whole episode (otherwise a
pointless runaround) just to give the WLBWCA something to whine about?
And Evil Aslan was about as convincing a monster as the Monoids.

After a tolerably watchable base-under-siege two-parter, we're back to
the usual incoherent, self-indulgent, plotless crap. I'd be tempted to
rate both episodes 0/10, but I've now watched The Muslim Invasion, and
I don't give negative scores. 1/10.

[¡Gölök Z.L.F Buday AKA The Black Jester #theblackjester]

On 2 Nov 2015 21:09:53 GMT, in rec.arts.drwho Peter J Ross <***@gmx.com> wrote:

¡In rec.arts.drwho on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 01:23:52 +0100, Andrew M wrote:
¡
¡> On 2015-10-24 20:44:29 +0000, Agamemnon said:
¡>
¡>> New title sequence... must I wait any longer?
¡>
¡> Yes, because you're the only person - as far as I can make out - who
¡> has any problem with it. But heigh-ho - personal taste and all that
¡
¡I don't like it either, but I don't think it's any worse than the
¡"colonoscopy of an electrified bowel" titles that preceded it.
¡
¡One day perhaps somebody will come up with something to rival the
¡elegantly creative idea of pointing a video camera at its own monitor
¡just to see what happens, but I'm not holding my breath. Genius is
¡uncommon.
¡
¡I have nothing much to say about the episode. Like the Brigadier in
¡The Three Doctors, I complained when there were two Weird-Looking-
¡Bimbos-Who-Can't-Act at the start of the series, but I didn't know
¡when I was well off. Was it necessary for the third WLBWCA to whine
¡quite so much? Was it necessary to have a whole episode (otherwise a
¡pointless runaround) just to give the WLBWCA something to whine about?
¡And Evil Aslan was about as convincing a monster as the Monoids.
¡
¡After a tolerably watchable base-under-siege two-parter, we're back to
¡the usual incoherent, self-indulgent, plotless crap. I'd be tempted to
¡rate both episodes 0/10, but I've now watched The Muslim Invasion, and
¡I don't give negative scores. 1/10.
¡
¡
¡--
¡PJR :-)
¡

Hard to know which actor is getting the bigger ass kiss with massively self indulgent drivel that
makes the worst of the 3rd and 5th doctor seem tolerable (Kings Demons and Inferno).
The first of their Zygon Abortion sucks up more to her, the second a little to her but gives him the
grandios speech in a shrill voice that was badly enough written sanctimonius drivel but at least could
have had a baratone attached. Dude don't speak out of your nose and sound like an ass. Oh is the
head up there? Kiss up to her to make her willing to leave earrly and him to stay for specials?
Oh and all the mixed geek tropes they toss into this unverse while ignore this universe's tropes, granted
a trend started since Eccleston and the poorly done Nestine Invasion (Rose). Yes they never mentioned
that the autons are Nesties in plastic bodies. Ecclestone's life had to be saved by
The Leagye of Gentlemen, he showed how much he like pussy there (didn't see that show, won't get it).

Some acronym.
http://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/af.aspx?Acronym=WLBWCA&string=exact
I added it just now.

[TB]

Post by Agamemnon
New title sequence... must I wait any longer?
Spoilers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
The Woman Who Lived
There was all the bullshit with the Eye of Hades (which should have been
the Eye of Osiris who existed much earlier than Hades) being activated
by someone giving their life, and opening a door to another dimension.
Yer, like where does the energy come from? If you're going to come up
with bullshit like this then at least provide a plausible scientific or
philosophical explanation. Moffat thinks this a fantasy relationship
based comedy rather than a family science fiction based drama.

A few weeks ago, the Doctor regenerated an entire city!

Post by Agamemnon
Presumably Clara had to be in the final scene for contractual reason.
Maybe Maisie Williams would make a much better companion for the 12th
Doctor. They seem to work so much better together. The only issue is
that Maisie might still be contracted to GoT.
10/10 for entertainment.
89/100 for script writing. Best of series 9 so far I think.

Flor a score of 99/110, which factors down to 9/10?

Post by Agamemnon
Next week it's Zygons. I wonder if it's set before or after the
Cyber-rubbish at the end of last season. When is someone ever going to
do the Cybermen properly.

The preview I heard mentioned a cease fire breaking down. I assume that refers to the peace treaty the Doctor made humans and Zygons negotiate during "The Day of the Doctor".

The preview shows the fascinating sight of humans turning INTO Zygons!

Spoilers for later this season.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

I have read several posts saying that Clara's actress plans to leave the series soon. That would open up a slot for Maisie!

[Agamemnon]

Post by TB

Post by Agamemnon
New title sequence... must I wait any longer?
Spoilers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
The Woman Who Lived
There was all the bullshit with the Eye of Hades (which should have been
the Eye of Osiris who existed much earlier than Hades) being activated
by someone giving their life, and opening a door to another dimension.
Yer, like where does the energy come from? If you're going to come up
with bullshit like this then at least provide a plausible scientific or
philosophical explanation. Moffat thinks this a fantasy relationship
based comedy rather than a family science fiction based drama.

A few weeks ago, the Doctor regenerated an entire city!

Post by Agamemnon
Presumably Clara had to be in the final scene for contractual reason.
Maybe Maisie Williams would make a much better companion for the 12th
Doctor. They seem to work so much better together. The only issue is
that Maisie might still be contracted to GoT.
10/10 for entertainment.
89/100 for script writing. Best of series 9 so far I think.

Flor a score of 99/110, which factors down to 9/10?

Post by Agamemnon
Next week it's Zygons. I wonder if it's set before or after the
Cyber-rubbish at the end of last season. When is someone ever going to
do the Cybermen properly.

The preview I heard mentioned a cease fire breaking down. I assume that refers to the peace treaty the Doctor made humans and Zygons negotiate during "The Day of the Doctor".
The preview shows the fascinating sight of humans turning INTO Zygons!
Spoilers for later this season.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I have read several posts saying that Clara's actress plans to leave the series soon. That would open up a slot for Maisie!

I have no doubt Clara wouldn't mind opening up Maisie's slot.

[Tim Bruening]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by TB

Post by Agamemnon
New title sequence... must I wait any longer?
Spoilers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
The Woman Who Lived
There was all the bullshit with the Eye of Hades (which should have been
the Eye of Osiris who existed much earlier than Hades) being activated
by someone giving their life, and opening a door to another dimension.
Yer, like where does the energy come from? If you're going to come up
with bullshit like this then at least provide a plausible scientific or
philosophical explanation. Moffat thinks this a fantasy relationship
based comedy rather than a family science fiction based drama.

A few weeks ago, the Doctor regenerated an entire city!

Post by Agamemnon
Presumably Clara had to be in the final scene for contractual reason.
Maybe Maisie Williams would make a much better companion for the 12th
Doctor. They seem to work so much better together. The only issue is
that Maisie might still be contracted to GoT.
10/10 for entertainment.
89/100 for script writing. Best of series 9 so far I think.

Flor a score of 99/110, which factors down to 9/10?

Post by Agamemnon
Next week it's Zygons. I wonder if it's set before or after the
Cyber-rubbish at the end of last season. When is someone ever going to
do the Cybermen properly.

The preview I heard mentioned a cease fire breaking down. I assume that refers to the peace treaty the Doctor made humans and Zygons negotiate during "The Day of the Doctor".
The preview shows the fascinating sight of humans turning INTO Zygons!
Spoilers for later this season.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I have read several posts saying that Clara's actress plans to leave the series soon. That would open up a slot for Maisie!

I have no doubt Clara wouldn't mind opening up Maisie's slot.

Why would Clara open up Maisie's slot?

[Tim Bruening]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by TB

Post by Agamemnon
New title sequence... must I wait any longer?
Spoilers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
The Woman Who Lived
There was all the bullshit with the Eye of Hades (which should have been
the Eye of Osiris who existed much earlier than Hades) being activated
by someone giving their life, and opening a door to another dimension.
Yer, like where does the energy come from? If you're going to come up
with bullshit like this then at least provide a plausible scientific or
philosophical explanation. Moffat thinks this a fantasy relationship
based comedy rather than a family science fiction based drama.

A few weeks ago, the Doctor regenerated an entire city!

Post by Agamemnon
Presumably Clara had to be in the final scene for contractual reason.
Maybe Maisie Williams would make a much better companion for the 12th
Doctor. They seem to work so much better together. The only issue is
that Maisie might still be contracted to GoT.
10/10 for entertainment.
89/100 for script writing. Best of series 9 so far I think.

Flor a score of 99/110, which factors down to 9/10?

Post by Agamemnon
Next week it's Zygons. I wonder if it's set before or after the
Cyber-rubbish at the end of last season. When is someone ever going to
do the Cybermen properly.

The preview I heard mentioned a cease fire breaking down. I assume that refers to the peace treaty the Doctor made humans and Zygons negotiate during "The Day of the Doctor".
The preview shows the fascinating sight of humans turning INTO Zygons!
Spoilers for later this season.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I have read several posts saying that Clara's actress plans to leave the series soon. That would open up a slot for Maisie!

I have no doubt Clara wouldn't mind opening up Maisie's slot.

I thought that you didn't like same sex romances on TV!

[The Doctor]

Post by TB

Post by Agamemnon

Post by TB

Post by Agamemnon
New title sequence... must I wait any longer?
Spoilers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
The Woman Who Lived
There was all the bullshit with the Eye of Hades (which should have been
the Eye of Osiris who existed much earlier than Hades) being activated
by someone giving their life, and opening a door to another dimension.
Yer, like where does the energy come from? If you're going to come up
with bullshit like this then at least provide a plausible scientific or
philosophical explanation. Moffat thinks this a fantasy relationship
based comedy rather than a family science fiction based drama.

A few weeks ago, the Doctor regenerated an entire city!

Post by Agamemnon
Presumably Clara had to be in the final scene for contractual reason.
Maybe Maisie Williams would make a much better companion for the 12th
Doctor. They seem to work so much better together. The only issue is
that Maisie might still be contracted to GoT.
10/10 for entertainment.
89/100 for script writing. Best of series 9 so far I think.

Flor a score of 99/110, which factors down to 9/10?

Post by Agamemnon
Next week it's Zygons. I wonder if it's set before or after the
Cyber-rubbish at the end of last season. When is someone ever going to
do the Cybermen properly.

The preview I heard mentioned a cease fire breaking down. I assume

that refers to the peace treaty the Doctor made humans and Zygons
negotiate during "The Day of the Doctor".

Post by Agamemnon

Post by TB
The preview shows the fascinating sight of humans turning INTO Zygons!
Spoilers for later this season.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I have read several posts saying that Clara's actress plans to leave

the series soon. That would open up a slot for Maisie!

Post by Agamemnon
I have no doubt Clara wouldn't mind opening up Maisie's slot.

I thought that you didn't like same sex romances on TV!

Old hat.

[Tim Bruening]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
I have no doubt Clara wouldn't mind opening up Maisie's slot.

I thought that you didn't like same sex romances on TV!

Old hat.

How common have same sex romances been on TV?

[The Doctor]

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
I have no doubt Clara wouldn't mind opening up Maisie's slot.

I thought that you didn't like same sex romances on TV!

Old hat.

How common have same sex romances been on TV?

Coronation Street.

[Tim Bruening]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
I have no doubt Clara wouldn't mind opening up Maisie's slot.

I thought that you didn't like same sex romances on TV!

Old hat.

How common have same sex romances been on TV?

Coronation Street.

Any others?

Aren't heterosexual romances really old hat?

[The Doctor]

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
I have no doubt Clara wouldn't mind opening up Maisie's slot.

I thought that you didn't like same sex romances on TV!

Old hat.

How common have same sex romances been on TV?

Coronation Street.

Any others?

Bill and Heather in DW.

Post by Tim Bruening
Aren't heterosexual romances really old hat?

NO!

[Tim Bruening]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
I have no doubt Clara wouldn't mind opening up Maisie's slot.

I thought that you didn't like same sex romances on TV!

Old hat.

How common have same sex romances been on TV?

Coronation Street.

Any others?

Bill and Heather in DW.

Post by Tim Bruening
Aren't heterosexual romances really old hat?

NO!

But heterosexual romances are more common, so logically should be old hat!

[The Doctor]

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
I have no doubt Clara wouldn't mind opening up Maisie's slot.

I thought that you didn't like same sex romances on TV!

Old hat.

How common have same sex romances been on TV?

Coronation Street.

Any others?

Bill and Heather in DW.

Post by Tim Bruening
Aren't heterosexual romances really old hat?

NO!

But heterosexual romances are more common, so logically should be old hat!

Why??!!

[Tim Bruening]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
I have no doubt Clara wouldn't mind opening up Maisie's slot.

I thought that you didn't like same sex romances on TV!

Old hat.

How common have same sex romances been on TV?

Coronation Street.

Any others?

Bill and Heather in DW.

Post by Tim Bruening
Aren't heterosexual romances really old hat?

NO!

But heterosexual romances are more common, so logically should be old hat!

Why??!!

Doesn't "old hat" mean "commonplace"?

[The Doctor]

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
I have no doubt Clara wouldn't mind opening up Maisie's slot.

I thought that you didn't like same sex romances on TV!

Old hat.

How common have same sex romances been on TV?

Coronation Street.

Any others?

Bill and Heather in DW.

Post by Tim Bruening
Aren't heterosexual romances really old hat?

NO!

But heterosexual romances are more common, so logically should be old hat!

Why??!!

Doesn't "old hat" mean "commonplace"?

Egads!! Not these days.

[Timothy Bruening]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Agamemnon
I have no doubt Clara wouldn't mind opening up Maisie's slot.

I thought that you didn't like same sex romances on TV!

Old hat.

How common have same sex romances been on TV?

Coronation Street.

Any others?

Bill and Heather in DW.

Post by Tim Bruening
Aren't heterosexual romances really old hat?

NO!

But heterosexual romances are more common, so logically should be old hat!

Why??!!

Doesn't "old hat" mean "commonplace"?

Egads!! Not these days.

What DOES old hat mean?

[The Doctor]

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

In article

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 7:28:36 PM UTC-7,

Post by Agamemnon
I have no doubt Clara wouldn't mind opening up Maisie's slot.

I thought that you didn't like same sex romances on TV!

Old hat.

How common have same sex romances been on TV?

Coronation Street.

Any others?

Bill and Heather in DW.

Post by Tim Bruening
Aren't heterosexual romances really old hat?

NO!

But heterosexual romances are more common, so logically should be old hat!

Why??!!

Doesn't "old hat" mean "commonplace"?

Egads!! Not these days.

What DOES old hat mean?

Old!!

[Timothy Bruening]

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

In article

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 7:28:36 PM UTC-7,

Post by Agamemnon
I have no doubt Clara wouldn't mind opening up Maisie's slot.

I thought that you didn't like same sex romances on TV!

Old hat.

How common have same sex romances been on TV?

Coronation Street.

Any others?

Bill and Heather in DW.

Post by Tim Bruening
Aren't heterosexual romances really old hat?

NO!

But heterosexual romances are more common, so logically should be old hat!

Why??!!

Doesn't "old hat" mean "commonplace"?

Egads!! Not these days.

What DOES old hat mean?

Old!!

So heterosexual romances would qualify as "old hat".

[The Doctor]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

In article

Post by Tim Bruening

In article

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 7:28:36 PM UTC-7,

Post by Agamemnon
I have no doubt Clara wouldn't mind opening up

Maisie's slot.

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by Tim Bruening

I thought that you didn't like same sex romances on TV!

Old hat.

How common have same sex romances been on TV?

Coronation Street.

Any others?

Bill and Heather in DW.

Post by Tim Bruening
Aren't heterosexual romances really old hat?

NO!

But heterosexual romances are more common, so logically should

be old hat!

Post by Timothy Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor
Why??!!

Doesn't "old hat" mean "commonplace"?

Egads!! Not these days.

What DOES old hat mean?

Old!!

So heterosexual romances would qualify as "old hat".

No.

[TB]

Post by Agamemnon
New title sequence... must I wait any longer?
Spoilers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
The Woman Who Lived
A vast improvement over last week. Maybe Moffat should employ a few more
female writers in future.
Still there are a few issues. Moffat is turning the show into a comedy
fest, but at least it was done better than the moronic bullying that
went on last week. Rather than concentrate on plot Moffat wants to do
relationships so the episode becomes a series of set pieces jumping from
one to an other with the dramatic stuff that led to them and the tension
building all missing.
There was all the bullshit with the Eye of Hades (which should have been
the Eye of Osiris who existed much earlier than Hades) being activated
by someone giving their life, and opening a door to another dimension.
Yer, like where does the energy come from? If you're going to come up
with bullshit like this then at least provide a plausible scientific or
philosophical explanation.

I was half expecting that cat alien to use that Eye of Hades device on Ashildr, or Ashildr to use it on the cat alien!

Could that device have opened up the hole in space using the life force of something other than a humanoid?

[Tim Bruening]

Post by TB

Post by Agamemnon
New title sequence... must I wait any longer?
Spoilers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
The Woman Who Lived
A vast improvement over last week. Maybe Moffat should employ a few more
female writers in future.
Still there are a few issues. Moffat is turning the show into a comedy
fest, but at least it was done better than the moronic bullying that
went on last week. Rather than concentrate on plot Moffat wants to do
relationships so the episode becomes a series of set pieces jumping from
one to an other with the dramatic stuff that led to them and the tension
building all missing.
There was all the bullshit with the Eye of Hades (which should have been
the Eye of Osiris who existed much earlier than Hades) being activated
by someone giving their life, and opening a door to another dimension.
Yer, like where does the energy come from? If you're going to come up
with bullshit like this then at least provide a plausible scientific or
philosophical explanation.

I was half expecting that cat alien to use that Eye of Hades device on Ashildr, or Ashildr to use it on the cat alien!
Could that device have opened up the hole in space using the life force of something other than a humanoid?

What would have happened if the Eye of Hades had been slapped on the Doctor's chest? Would it have opened 12 portals? Could the Doctor have closed the portal by regenerating?

[The Doctor]

Post by TB

Post by TB

Post by Agamemnon
New title sequence... must I wait any longer?
Spoilers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
The Woman Who Lived
A vast improvement over last week. Maybe Moffat should employ a few more
female writers in future.
Still there are a few issues. Moffat is turning the show into a comedy
fest, but at least it was done better than the moronic bullying that
went on last week. Rather than concentrate on plot Moffat wants to do
relationships so the episode becomes a series of set pieces jumping from
one to an other with the dramatic stuff that led to them and the tension
building all missing.
There was all the bullshit with the Eye of Hades (which should have been
the Eye of Osiris who existed much earlier than Hades) being activated
by someone giving their life, and opening a door to another dimension.
Yer, like where does the energy come from? If you're going to come up
with bullshit like this then at least provide a plausible scientific or
philosophical explanation.

I was half expecting that cat alien to use that Eye of Hades device on

Ashildr, or Ashildr to use it on the cat alien!

Post by TB
Could that device have opened up the hole in space using the life

force of something other than a humanoid?
What would have happened if the Eye of Hades had been slapped on the
Doctor's chest? Would it have opened 12 portals? Could the Doctor have
closed the portal by regenerating?

Where do you get Eye of Hades from?

[Tim Bruening]

Post by The Doctor

Post by TB

Post by TB

Post by Agamemnon
New title sequence... must I wait any longer?
Spoilers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
The Woman Who Lived
A vast improvement over last week. Maybe Moffat should employ a few more
female writers in future.
Still there are a few issues. Moffat is turning the show into a comedy
fest, but at least it was done better than the moronic bullying that
went on last week. Rather than concentrate on plot Moffat wants to do
relationships so the episode becomes a series of set pieces jumping from
one to an other with the dramatic stuff that led to them and the tension
building all missing.
There was all the bullshit with the Eye of Hades (which should have been
the Eye of Osiris who existed much earlier than Hades) being activated
by someone giving their life, and opening a door to another dimension.
Yer, like where does the energy come from? If you're going to come up
with bullshit like this then at least provide a plausible scientific or
philosophical explanation.

I was half expecting that cat alien to use that Eye of Hades device on

Ashildr, or Ashildr to use it on the cat alien!

Post by TB
Could that device have opened up the hole in space using the life

force of something other than a humanoid?
What would have happened if the Eye of Hades had been slapped on the
Doctor's chest? Would it have opened 12 portals? Could the Doctor have
closed the portal by regenerating?

Where do you get Eye of Hades from?

From the Face of Evil, of course!

[The Doctor]

Post by Tim Bruening

Post by The Doctor

Post by TB

Post by TB

Post by Agamemnon
New title sequence... must I wait any longer?
Spoilers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
The Woman Who Lived
A vast improvement over last week. Maybe Moffat should employ a few more
female writers in future.
Still there are a few issues. Moffat is turning the show into a comedy
fest, but at least it was done better than the moronic bullying that
went on last week. Rather than concentrate on plot Moffat wants to do
relationships so the episode becomes a series of set pieces jumping from
one to an other with the dramatic stuff that led to them and the tension
building all missing.
There was all the bullshit with the Eye of Hades (which should have been
the Eye of Osiris who existed much earlier than Hades) being activated
by someone giving their life, and opening a door to another dimension.
Yer, like where does the energy come from? If you're going to come up
with bullshit like this then at least provide a plausible scientific or
philosophical explanation.

I was half expecting that cat alien to use that Eye of Hades device on

Ashildr, or Ashildr to use it on the cat alien!

Post by TB
Could that device have opened up the hole in space using the life

force of something other than a humanoid?
What would have happened if the Eye of Hades had been slapped on the
Doctor's chest? Would it have opened 12 portals? Could the Doctor have
closed the portal by regenerating?

Where do you get Eye of Hades from?

From the Face of Evil, of course!

That was the Doctor vs Xoanon.

[Tim Bruening]

Animals: Several horses. One ridden by Ashlidr as she attempts t rob a stagecoach pulled by tow horses. Then a horse ridde by the Doctor as he tries to prevent an execution.

The Doctor talking about fish passing in the night.

Ashildr mentions an elephant.

Ashildr claims that she remembers the Doctor, claiming that she wouldn't forget someone who saved her life. But she doesn't remember the name "Ashildr"! She calls herself "Me". She later reveals that her brain runs out of memory space, so she forgets long ago events, so wouldn't she have forgotten the Doctor long ago?

[Tim Bruening]

Animal: An intelligent cat from outer space/

[The Doctor]

Post by Tim Bruening
Animal: An intelligent cat from outer space/

And dangerous one.

[¡Gölök Z.L.F Buday AKA The Black Jester #theblackjester]

On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 21:44:29 +0100, in rec.arts.drwho Agamemnon <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:

¡New title sequence... must I wait any longer?
¡
¡Spoilers
¡
¡1
¡2
¡3
¡4
¡5
¡6
¡7
¡8
¡9
¡0
¡1
¡2
¡3
¡4
¡5
¡6
¡7
¡8
¡9
¡0
¡
¡The Woman Who Lived
¡
¡A vast improvement over last week. Maybe Moffat should employ a few more
¡female writers in future.
¡
¡Still there are a few issues. Moffat is turning the show into a comedy
¡fest, but at least it was done better than the moronic bullying that
¡went on last week. Rather than concentrate on plot Moffat wants to do
¡relationships so the episode becomes a series of set pieces jumping from
¡one to an other with the dramatic stuff that led to them and the tension
¡building all missing.
¡
¡There was all the bullshit with the Eye of Hades (which should have been
¡the Eye of Osiris who existed much earlier than Hades) being activated
¡by someone giving their life, and opening a door to another dimension.
¡Yer, like where does the energy come from? If you're going to come up
¡with bullshit like this then at least provide a plausible scientific or
¡philosophical explanation. Moffat thinks this a fantasy relationship
¡based comedy rather than a family science fiction based drama.
¡
¡Presumably Clara had to be in the final scene for contractual reason.
¡Maybe Maisie Williams would make a much better companion for the 12th
¡Doctor. They seem to work so much better together. The only issue is
¡that Maisie might still be contracted to GoT.
¡
¡10/10 for entertainment.
¡
¡89/100 for script writing. Best of series 9 so far I think.

So all that crap and your saying "more female writers."
I am not against a female writing, but you make it sound like it's
nice to watch them fall.

¡Next week it's Zygons. I wonder if it's set before or after the
¡Cyber-rubbish at the end of last season. When is someone ever going to
¡do the Cybermen properly.

Doctor Fury returns.

[Timothy Bruening]

What effect would the Eye of Hades have on Jack Harkness?

[solar penguin]

Post by Timothy Bruening
What effect would the Eye of Hades have on Jack Harkness?

It would give him him perfect smoky eye.

[The Doctor]

Post by solar penguin

Post by Timothy Bruening
What effect would the Eye of Hades have on Jack Harkness?

It would give him him perfect smoky eye.

:-)

[The Doctor]

Post by Timothy Bruening
What effect would the Eye of Hades have on Jack Harkness?

More homosexial.

[solar penguin]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening
What effect would the Eye of Hades have on Jack Harkness?

More homosexial.
--

So, less omnisexual?

[The Doctor]

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening
What effect would the Eye of Hades have on Jack Harkness?

More homosexial.
--

So, less omnisexual?

Correct.

[Daniel60]

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening
What effect would the Eye of Hades have on Jack Harkness?

More homosexial.

So, less omnisexual?

Correct.

Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be homosexual
than omnisexual??

[The Doctor]

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening
What effect would the Eye of Hades have on Jack Harkness?

More homosexial.

So, less omnisexual?

Correct.

Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be homosexual
than omnisexual??
--
Daniel

No.

[Daniel60]

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening
What effect would the Eye of Hades have on Jack Harkness?

More homosexial.

So, less omnisexual?

Correct.

Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be homosexual
than omnisexual??

No.

So you prefer Omnisexual's, then,idiot

[The Doctor]

Post by Daniel60

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening
What effect would the Eye of Hades have on Jack Harkness?

More homosexial.

So, less omnisexual?

Correct.

Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be homosexual
than omnisexual??

No.

So you prefer Omnisexual's, then,idiot
--
Daniel

No. Try again!

[Daniel60]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening
What effect would the Eye of Hades have on Jack Harkness?

More homosexial.

So, less omnisexual?

Correct.

Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be homosexual
than omnisexual??

No.

So you prefer Omnisexual's, then,idiot

No. Try again!

Only two options, Homosexual or Omnisexual. And you stated you don't
prefer either over the other, idiot!!

[solar penguin]

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by Daniel60
Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be
homosexual than omnisexual??

No.

So you prefer Omnisexual's, then,idiot

No. Try again!

Only two options, Homosexual or Omnisexual. And you stated you don't
prefer either over the other, idiot!!

He obviously likes both, and would enjoy nothing more than having a hot
threesome with both a homosexual and an omnisexual.

[The Doctor]

Post by solar penguin

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by Daniel60
Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be
homosexual than omnisexual??

No.

So you prefer Omnisexual's, then,idiot

No. Try again!

Only two options, Homosexual or Omnisexual. And you stated you don't
prefer either over the other, idiot!!

He obviously likes both, and would enjoy nothing more than having a hot
threesome with both a homosexual and an omnisexual.

No. Just heterosexual.

[solar penguin]

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by Daniel60
Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be
homosexual than omnisexual??

No.

So you prefer Omnisexual's, then,idiot

No. Try again!

Only two options, Homosexual or Omnisexual. And you stated you don't
prefer either over the other, idiot!!

He obviously likes both, and would enjoy nothing more than having a hot
threesome with both a homosexual and an omnisexual.

No. Just heterosexual.
--

So you were lying when you claimed you wanted Captain Jack to be more
homosexual?

[The Doctor]

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by Daniel60
Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be
homosexual than omnisexual??

No.

So you prefer Omnisexual's, then,idiot

No. Try again!

Only two options, Homosexual or Omnisexual. And you stated you don't
prefer either over the other, idiot!!

He obviously likes both, and would enjoy nothing more than having a hot
threesome with both a homosexual and an omnisexual.

No. Just heterosexual.
--

So you were lying when you claimed you wanted Captain Jack to be more
homosexual?

No.. Jack is sexually sick.

[The Other Doctor]

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by Daniel60
Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be
homosexual than omnisexual??

No.

So you prefer Omnisexual's, then,idiot

No. Try again!

Only two options, Homosexual or Omnisexual. And you stated you don't
prefer either over the other, idiot!!

He obviously likes both, and would enjoy nothing more than having a hot
threesome with both a homosexual and an omnisexual.

No. Just heterosexual.
--

So you were lying when you claimed you wanted Captain Jack to be more
homosexual?

No.. Jack is sexually sick.

You're just jealous. Jack is sexually active. You are sexually inactive.

[The Doctor]

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by Daniel60
Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be
homosexual than omnisexual??

No.

So you prefer Omnisexual's, then,idiot

No. Try again!

Only two options, Homosexual or Omnisexual. And you stated you don't
prefer either over the other, idiot!!

He obviously likes both, and would enjoy nothing more than having a hot
threesome with both a homosexual and an omnisexual.

No. Just heterosexual.
--

So you were lying when you claimed you wanted Captain Jack to be more
homosexual?

No.. Jack is sexually sick.

You're just jealous. Jack is sexually active. You are sexually inactive.

SW scores 0/10 !

[The Other Doctor]

Post by The Doctor

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by Daniel60
Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be
homosexual than omnisexual??

No.

So you prefer Omnisexual's, then,idiot

No. Try again!

Only two options, Homosexual or Omnisexual. And you stated you don't
prefer either over the other, idiot!!

He obviously likes both, and would enjoy nothing more than having a hot
threesome with both a homosexual and an omnisexual.

No. Just heterosexual.
--

So you were lying when you claimed you wanted Captain Jack to be more
homosexual?

No.. Jack is sexually sick.

You're just jealous. Jack is sexually active. You are sexually inactive.

SW scores 0/10 !

Yads - I'm sure you enjoy covorting with Madam Palm and her five lovely
daughters. You enjoy conducting yourself in the solo symphony. But indulging
in the pleasures of the palm does not make you sexually active.

[The Doctor]

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by The Doctor

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by Daniel60
Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be
homosexual than omnisexual??

No.

So you prefer Omnisexual's, then,idiot

No. Try again!

Only two options, Homosexual or Omnisexual. And you stated you don't
prefer either over the other, idiot!!

He obviously likes both, and would enjoy nothing more than having a hot
threesome with both a homosexual and an omnisexual.

No. Just heterosexual.
--

So you were lying when you claimed you wanted Captain Jack to be more
homosexual?

No.. Jack is sexually sick.

You're just jealous. Jack is sexually active. You are sexually inactive.

SW scores 0/10 !

Yads - I'm sure you enjoy covorting with Madam Palm and her five lovely
daughters. You enjoy conducting yourself in the solo symphony. But indulging
in the pleasures of the palm does not make you sexually active.

SW is semen in 6 foot form.

[The Other Doctor]

Post by The Doctor

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by The Doctor

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by Daniel60
Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be
homosexual than omnisexual??

No.

So you prefer Omnisexual's, then,idiot

No. Try again!

Only two options, Homosexual or Omnisexual. And you stated you don't
prefer either over the other, idiot!!

He obviously likes both, and would enjoy nothing more than having a hot
threesome with both a homosexual and an omnisexual.

No. Just heterosexual.
--

So you were lying when you claimed you wanted Captain Jack to be more
homosexual?

No.. Jack is sexually sick.

You're just jealous. Jack is sexually active. You are sexually inactive.

SW scores 0/10 !

Yads - I'm sure you enjoy covorting with Madam Palm and her five lovely
daughters. You enjoy conducting yourself in the solo symphony. But indulging
in the pleasures of the palm does not make you sexually active.

SW is semen in 6 foot form.

I have no desire whatsoever to be dragged into your bizarre fantasies.
Please cease and desist.

[The Doctor]

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by The Doctor

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by The Doctor

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by Daniel60
Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be
homosexual than omnisexual??

No.

So you prefer Omnisexual's, then,idiot

No. Try again!

Only two options, Homosexual or Omnisexual. And you stated you don't
prefer either over the other, idiot!!

He obviously likes both, and would enjoy nothing more than having a hot
threesome with both a homosexual and an omnisexual.

No. Just heterosexual.
--

So you were lying when you claimed you wanted Captain Jack to be more
homosexual?

No.. Jack is sexually sick.

You're just jealous. Jack is sexually active. You are sexually inactive.

SW scores 0/10 !

Yads - I'm sure you enjoy covorting with Madam Palm and her five lovely
daughters. You enjoy conducting yourself in the solo symphony. But indulging
in the pleasures of the palm does not make you sexually active.

SW is semen in 6 foot form.

I have no desire whatsoever to be dragged into your bizarre fantasies.
Please cease and desist.

SW is required to unsubscribed from rec.arts.drwho !

[The Other Doctor]

Post by The Doctor

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by The Doctor

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by The Doctor

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by Daniel60
Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be
homosexual than omnisexual??

No.

So you prefer Omnisexual's, then,idiot

No. Try again!

Only two options, Homosexual or Omnisexual. And you stated you don't
prefer either over the other, idiot!!

He obviously likes both, and would enjoy nothing more than having
a
hot
threesome with both a homosexual and an omnisexual.

No. Just heterosexual.
--

So you were lying when you claimed you wanted Captain Jack to be more
homosexual?

No.. Jack is sexually sick.

You're just jealous. Jack is sexually active. You are sexually inactive.

SW scores 0/10 !

Yads - I'm sure you enjoy covorting with Madam Palm and her five lovely
daughters. You enjoy conducting yourself in the solo symphony. But indulging
in the pleasures of the palm does not make you sexually active.

SW is semen in 6 foot form.

I have no desire whatsoever to be dragged into your bizarre fantasies.
Please cease and desist.

SW is required to unsubscribed from rec.arts.drwho !

Who made you king of radw?

[The Doctor]

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by The Doctor

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by The Doctor

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by The Doctor

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by Daniel60
Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be
homosexual than omnisexual??

No.

So you prefer Omnisexual's, then,idiot

No. Try again!

Only two options, Homosexual or Omnisexual. And you stated you
don't
prefer either over the other, idiot!!

He obviously likes both, and would enjoy nothing more than having
a
hot
threesome with both a homosexual and an omnisexual.

No. Just heterosexual.
--

So you were lying when you claimed you wanted Captain Jack to be more
homosexual?

No.. Jack is sexually sick.

You're just jealous. Jack is sexually active. You are sexually inactive.

SW scores 0/10 !

Yads - I'm sure you enjoy covorting with Madam Palm and her five lovely
daughters. You enjoy conducting yourself in the solo symphony. But indulging
in the pleasures of the palm does not make you sexually active.

SW is semen in 6 foot form.

I have no desire whatsoever to be dragged into your bizarre fantasies.
Please cease and desist.

SW is required to unsubscribed from rec.arts.drwho !

Who made you king of radw?

You wanted to cease and desist.

[solar penguin]

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by Daniel60
Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be
homosexual than omnisexual??

No.

So you prefer Omnisexual's, then,idiot

No. Try again!

Only two options, Homosexual or Omnisexual. And you stated you don't
prefer either over the other, idiot!!

He obviously likes both, and would enjoy nothing more than having a hot
threesome with both a homosexual and an omnisexual.

No. Just heterosexual.
--

So you were lying when you claimed you wanted Captain Jack to be more
homosexual?

No.. Jack is sexually sick.
--

You weren't lying. And you think becoming more homosexual cures sexual
diseases. Riiight...

[Timothy Bruening]

Post by Agamemnon

Post by TB
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Post by Andrew M
It's scarcely the first time in history that the idea that the giving
of a life supplies "energy" of some form or another

It happened at the end of Buffy season 5. An evil god named Glory used the blood of Buffy's sister Dawn to open up a portal to a multitude of universes, including her own. The portal would close only when Dawn died. Then Buffy dived through the portal, and HER death closed it!

They used the same supernatural nonsense at the end of season 5 of Angel
where someone had to die to open a portal and Angel died to close it
meaning Spike was the one the prophesies were all about.

Buffy Season 2 End: Angelus (Angel without a soul) uses his blood to open a portal to Hell via a demon's mouth. Then Buffy battles Angelus until Willow restores his soul, making him Angel again. Then Buffy drives a sword right through him & into the portal so as to get his blood on the portal. The portal sucks Angel into Hell and closes.

[The Doctor]

Post by TB

Post by Agamemnon

Post by TB
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Post by Andrew M
It's scarcely the first time in history that the idea that the giving
of a life supplies "energy" of some form or another

It happened at the end of Buffy season 5. An evil god named Glory

used the blood of Buffy's sister Dawn to open up a portal to a multitude
of universes, including her own. The portal would close only when Dawn
died. Then Buffy dived through the portal, and HER death closed it!

Post by Agamemnon
They used the same supernatural nonsense at the end of season 5 of Angel
where someone had to die to open a portal and Angel died to close it
meaning Spike was the one the prophesies were all about.

Buffy Season 2 End: Angelus (Angel without a soul) uses his blood to
open a portal to Hell via a demon's mouth. Then Buffy battles Angelus
until Willow restores his soul, making him Angel again. Then Buffy
drives a sword right through him & into the portal so as to get his
blood on the portal. The portal sucks Angel into Hell and closes.

Who cares.

[The Doctor]

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by Daniel60
Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be
homosexual than omnisexual??

No.

So you prefer Omnisexual's, then,idiot

No. Try again!

Only two options, Homosexual or Omnisexual. And you stated you don't
prefer either over the other, idiot!!

He obviously likes both, and would enjoy nothing more than having a hot
threesome with both a homosexual and an omnisexual.

No. Just heterosexual.
--

So you were lying when you claimed you wanted Captain Jack to be more
homosexual?

No.. Jack is sexually sick.
--

You weren't lying. And you think becoming more homosexual cures sexual
diseases. Riiight...

Nope! You just described how AIDS spread.

[The Other Doctor]

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by Daniel60
Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be
homosexual than omnisexual??

No.

So you prefer Omnisexual's, then,idiot

No. Try again!

Only two options, Homosexual or Omnisexual. And you stated you don't
prefer either over the other, idiot!!

He obviously likes both, and would enjoy nothing more than having a hot
threesome with both a homosexual and an omnisexual.

No. Just heterosexual.
--

So you were lying when you claimed you wanted Captain Jack to be more
homosexual?

No.. Jack is sexually sick.
--

You weren't lying. And you think becoming more homosexual cures sexual
diseases. Riiight...

Nope! You just described how AIDS spread.

Yads lies again.

[The Other Doctor]

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by Daniel60
Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be
homosexual than omnisexual??

No.

So you prefer Omnisexual's, then,idiot

No. Try again!

Only two options, Homosexual or Omnisexual. And you stated you don't
prefer either over the other, idiot!!

He obviously likes both, and would enjoy nothing more than having a hot
threesome with both a homosexual and an omnisexual.

No. Just heterosexual.

You'd like to have a threesome with people who are heterosexual? How does
that work?

[The Doctor]

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening
What effect would the Eye of Hades have on Jack Harkness?

More homosexial.

So, less omnisexual?

Correct.

Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be homosexual
than omnisexual??

No.

So you prefer Omnisexual's, then,idiot

No. Try again!

Only two options, Homosexual or Omnisexual. And you stated you don't
prefer either over the other, idiot!!
--
Daniel

To which none of the above.

[The Other Doctor]

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening
What effect would the Eye of Hades have on Jack Harkness?

More homosexial.

So, less omnisexual?

Correct.

Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be homosexual
than omnisexual??

Apparently he's more homosexial.

[The Doctor]

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening
What effect would the Eye of Hades have on Jack Harkness?

More homosexial.

So, less omnisexual?

Correct.

Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be homosexual
than omnisexual??

Apparently he's more homosexial.

Say what?

[The Other Doctor]

Post by The Doctor

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening
What effect would the Eye of Hades have on Jack Harkness?

More homosexial.

So, less omnisexual?

Correct.

Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be homosexual
than omnisexual??

Apparently he's more homosexial.

Say what?

Why are you asking me? You're the one who said it.

[The Doctor]

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by The Doctor

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening
What effect would the Eye of Hades have on Jack Harkness?

More homosexial.

So, less omnisexual?

Correct.

Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be homosexual
than omnisexual??

Apparently he's more homosexial.

Say what?

Why are you asking me? You're the one who said it.

You said homosexial.

[The Other Doctor]

Post by The Doctor

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by The Doctor

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening
What effect would the Eye of Hades have on Jack Harkness?

More homosexial.

So, less omnisexual?

Correct.

Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be homosexual
than omnisexual??

Apparently he's more homosexial.

Say what?

Why are you asking me? You're the one who said it.

You said homosexial.

You really did hit every single branch on the way down when you fell out of
the stupid tree.

So autistic...

[The Doctor]

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by The Doctor

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by The Doctor

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by Daniel60

Post by The Doctor

Post by solar penguin

Post by The Doctor

Post by Timothy Bruening
What effect would the Eye of Hades have on Jack Harkness?

More homosexial.

So, less omnisexual?

Correct.

Hmm!! So does that mean that the idiot prefers people to be homosexual
than omnisexual??

Apparently he's more homosexial.

^^^^^^^^^^

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by The Doctor

Post by The Other Doctor

Post by The Doctor
Say what?

Why are you asking me? You're the one who said it.

You said homosexial.

You really did hit every single branch on the way down when you fell out of
the stupid tree.
So autistic...

You might qualify to do a Ronald Reagan imitation.