Verily, in article <1114qse$9aa$23@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
I wonder what Melissa vs Dan looks like?
I'm pretty sure Daniel could take me.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
Verily, in article <1114r0s$9aa$28@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <MPG.449f7c82f263282d98a0a2@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
brother a proper burial. Compassioin is a female trait.
Her motive is family honor. She risks her own life to achieve this goal. >> >You don't think that's heroic?
Antigone was a tragedy.
True. The Greeks wrote a lot of tragedies.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
I don't seem to have a copy of AGA's message, so I'll respond to Dave's >response.
Verily, in article <1114r6f$9aa$35@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <1114m1v$3mh7l$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 19/06/2026 22:19, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <11147ma$3iscr$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
If you want a few traditional examples, have you ever noticed that
Gretel saves both herself and Hansel? In mythology, consider that Psyche
Gretel is written as a female child character. She isn't a hero, she's a >> >>> heroine. Hansel wants to fight the wild. Gretel wants him to drop
breadcrumbs.
In every version of this story I've ever heard, the breadcrumbs are
Hansel's idea. In the end it's Gretel who makes a successful plan and
sees it through, saving Hansel and herself.
Whatever. Hansel is still written as a boy and Gretel is written as a
girl.
Yes, one's a boy and one's a girl.
If they're both 6 years old there'll be little difference between
them. If they're older then there will be more differences.
Hansel is often portrayed as a little older, but they're both still
small. It's the subgenre known as "babes in the woods," after all.
They are really co-protagonists. Both receive a call to adventure,
getting thrown out. Both refuse the call, prefering to return home to
their father. Both are forced onto the path of adventure. They are
missing one of Campbell's classic elements, namely the magical mentor,
but perhaps they don't need one because they have each other. They
defeat the witch (well, Gretel does) and return home, where they save
the day and are welcomed.
Boys will
grow out of Disney shit after the age of 6 because it's emotional and
simplistic. Girls are still into it at the ago of 12 or even older.
You think of girls stereotypically. Most are not into Disney at age 12.
The prime Disney age is 3-6, with some girls hanging on until 8 or so,
but a 12-year-old who still likes Disney is more like a early Disney
Adult. It's not standard at that age.
This is part of normal child development. Toddlers are still figuring
out their roles in the world, and it's common for boys to go as
masculine as possible and girls to go as feminine as possible. In girls
this is often followed by a phase of *rejecting* everything classed as >feminine, the classic "not like the other girls" attitude.
This may well be a reaction to society insisting that girl's interests
are "shit." Boys also drop the exaggerated posturing, but they mellow it >instead of rejecting it. Nobody ever told them the whole idea was bad.
Next you'll be telling me that there's no difference between Superman
and Wonder Woman
Don't you understand that Wonder Woman is heroic?
and you'll therefore play with the action figurers in
exactly the same way.
I don't play with action figures.
Remember that Lego study into how boys and girls play with toys? Do you
understand the differences?
You're trying to substitute condescension for argument.
Of course I understand the study. We've discussed it before, and I
pointed out aspects you hadn't previously considered. I also pointed out >that there's a lot of other research into early play, and that even
parts of that one study are being ignored by most casual commenters.
No. What was heroic was Theseus intervening and rescuing her in the
previous play. Antigone then ends up killing herself and gets almost
everyone else killing themselves too. Those are not heroic acts. They're >> >selfish, defeatist, and destructive acts.
I have a feeling that your low opinion of women would lead you to regard
any motive as selfish.
Given the incest involved.
Dave, what incest?
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
Dave, what incest?
Why is Antigone a tragedy?
In article <MPG.44a0312edb8c3d198a0a7@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <1114qse$9aa$23@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
I wonder what Melissa vs Dan looks like?
I'm pretty sure Daniel could take me.
You were not celebrating in the streets last night?
True. The Greeks wrote a lot of tragedies.
Given incest ...
On 19/06/2026 20:00, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/06/2026 11:24, Blueshirt wrote:
The only people actively mentioning the 'Timeless Child' all
the time here is you and Dave. If ye both shut the fuck up
about it nobody on RADW would mention it. At all.
If the Timeless Child monster was totally erased from canon then
we would gladly shut the fuck up about it.
Erase it from your head canon and move on.
Can't be done. Doctor Who ended in 2017
and until the Timeless Child and until this travesty is erased along
with all the degenerate woke fan fiction the Doctor Who will never
ever return. That is my head canon.
Verily, in article <1115vq2$2k5h$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
Dave, what incest?
Why is Antigone a tragedy?
Everybody dies, basically.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
Verily, in article <1115voi$2k5h$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <MPG.44a0312edb8c3d198a0a7@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <1114qse$9aa$23@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
I wonder what Melissa vs Dan looks like?
I'm pretty sure Daniel could take me.
You were not celebrating in the streets last night?
I just want it over so we can get back to the rewatching.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
Verily, in article <1115vp3$2k5h$3@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
True. The Greeks wrote a lot of tragedies.
Given incest ...
What is with you and the incest? Yes, Oedipus accidently married
Jocasta, but he didn't know she was his birth mother. His children, >including Antigone, committed no incest.
In the original folklore, before Sophocles turned it into a tragedy,
Oedipus never even learned that the prophecy had been fulfilled. He
killed his birth father, married his birth mother, and reigned happily
as his mother's husband. Neither the folklore character nor Sophocles' >character has any intention to commit incest. He doesn't know.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
On 20/06/2026 6:22 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/06/2026 20:00, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/06/2026 11:24, Blueshirt wrote:
<Snip>
The only people actively mentioning the 'Timeless Child' all
the time here is you and Dave. If ye both shut the fuck up
about it nobody on RADW would mention it. At all.
If the Timeless Child monster was totally erased from canon then
we would gladly shut the fuck up about it.
Erase it from your head canon and move on.
Can't be done. Doctor Who ended in 2017
So, if 'Doctor Who' ended in 2017, what's this other stuff you want erased??
It doesn't exist, cause you've told US ... OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
and until the Timeless Child and until this travesty is erased alongSo you have your head-canon safely locked away!!
with all the degenerate woke fan fiction the Doctor Who will never
ever return. That is my head canon.
----
Daniel70
On 19/06/2026 11:51, Daniel70 wrote:
On 19/06/2026 3:00 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 18/06/2026 13:36, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
The BBC did it to themselves for allowing the timeless Child to
occur.
Now DW is out for tender.
What are we the fans looking for?
More sci-fi, less fantasy.
More depth, less baggage.
1) REtcon the horrible and abominable Timless Child Arc
Don't care. Just ignore it and move forward.
The Timeless Child monster cannot be ignored. Doctor Who is dead
until it is erased along with everything that came with it. The
Doctor is not a mass murdering genocidal maniac from another
dimension created mad woman from an abused and brainwashed race and
gender swapping abducted child.
2) Go back to formual of success seen in the 1960s and 1970s.
That might help... as Doctor Who was enjoyable to watch back then.
What else can you ask for?
Stories that are stories first, and not just vehicles for a
political message or social commentary.
The Timeless Child monster out. Race, gender, and identity politics
out.
Yeah!! Get rid of all this Male-centric ideology!!
Why? The audience for Doctor Who is overwhelmingly male. If you want
them to come back then everything has to be male-centric, and there is nothing wrong with it.
Pandering to minorities out.
Who needs Heterosexuals??
All of humanity. How else is it going to survive?
Pandering to feminist bigotry out.
Breed them out of existence!! Hmmm! That might be a problem!!
That is all of feminist ideology encapsulated, breed men out of
existence. You can see it embodied in the Nazi feminists
of the planet
Lyrane in E E Smith's, Second Stage Lensmen, and Children of the Lens.
Homosexuality out and totally erased from canon.
Can't say I've seen any of it in 'Doctor Who'! Oh!! Wait! Bill was,
supposedly, Homosexual, wasn't SHE??
Did you fucking watch any of the last two series or the 60th anniversary specials, or Whittaker and Yaz? Just how ignorant are you?
Child grooming and molestation out.
Can't say I've seen either in 'Doctor Who'.
You obviously missed Planet of the Incels, aka. The Robot Revolution and
the sequel to Midnight.
One sided points of view out.
.... unless they're MY POV's!!
Series arcs out.
Maybe.
Soap-opera out.
Yeap! Not that I'd suggest it's been a big problem.
It's been a huge problem which makes it impossible to tell stories effectively.
Science fiction based storytelling back in.
... but, really, was 'Doctor Who' ever thus??
Catering for an overwhelmingly male demographic and white British
family audience back in.
WHY?? Seems to me that's limiting your potential audience by over 50%.
The audience of Doctor Who is 77% male and 98.5% heterosexual.
You've seen what happened what happened when the child grooming pervert Russell T Davies turned the Doctor gay and effeminate,
and wrote the
series for 6 to 12 year-old girls. There was not fucking audience that existed for it.
If you want to attract and audience then you make it for the one that
exists for the genre.
If you try to include other demographics then you
drive the bulk of the main audience away
just to attract 100 times fewer
people than those you've driven away.
Self contained stories based on the hero's journey, discovery of
knowledge, classic ideals, logic, reason, escapism, and adventure
back in.
Yeap. So?? Can a HERO ONLY be MALE??
Yes. Hero's can only be written as male literary characters. There are
no female heroes.
Heroines are a completely different literary character
set.
Freedom of speech,
Sorry, is this actually AGGY that I'm responding too??
thought, and expression practised in full with balanced discussion of
all points of view within each story back in.
Sorry, is this actually AGGY that I'm responding too??
The Doctor must always be portrayed as someone who has always been a
white British heterosexual male protagonist,
WHY?? Until The Doctor came along we didn't know that some Beings were
able to re-generate, so why put such limitations upon ANY character??
Bollocks. Bodily regeneration was first devised by E E Smith in Grey
Lensman back in the late 1930s.
whose first incarnation was William Hartnell,... until recently!
NEVER! There are no incarnations before Hartnell.
On 19/06/2026 20:00, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
If the Timeless Child monster was totally erased from
canon then we would gladly shut the fuck up about it.
Erase it from your head canon and move on.
Can't be done. Doctor Who ended in 2017
Verily, in article <1113qqe$3f248$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Yes. Hero's can only be written as male literary characters. There are
no female heroes. Heroines are a completely different literary character
set.
LOL, there are plenty of female heroes. Some have floated the term
"hera," on the grounds that "heroine" often just means "the hero's love interest."
On 19/06/2026 20:06, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <1113qqe$3f248$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Yes. Hero's can only be written as male literary characters.
There are no female heroes. Heroines are a completely different
literary character set.
LOL, there are plenty of female heroes.
Yeah, "SuperGirl" is on at the cinema, Mrs Blueshirt wants to go
and see it.
The majority of people don't because they don't like the lead actress
who isn't very attractive
and who revealed herself as an ignorant woke left-wing bigot.
They also don't like Supergirl being portrayed as a man.
The film is heading towards being a yet another DC flop.
How about writing Supergirl for the primary audience, ie. men?
Verily, in article <1115voi$2k5h$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
did doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
You were not celebrating in the streets last night?
I just want it over so we can get back to the rewatching.
Back to watching the match. 2 - 0 to USA. Daniel will not be happy but
he probably doesn't even know that they're playing.
Verily, in article <1115vp3$2k5h$3@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
True. The Greeks wrote a lot of tragedies.
Given incest ...
What is with you and the incest?
On 20/06/2026 6:22 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/06/2026 20:00, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
If the Timeless Child monster was totally erased
from canon then we would gladly shut the fuck up
about it.
Erase it from your head canon and move on.
Can't be done. Doctor Who ended in 2017
So, if 'Doctor Who' ended in 2017, what's this other stuff
you want erased??
On 20/06/2026 3:07 am, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <1113qqe$3f248$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Yes. Hero's can only be written as male literary characters. There are
no female heroes. Heroines are a completely different literary character >> set.
LOL, there are plenty of female heroes. Some have floated the term
"hera," on the grounds that "heroine" often just means "the hero's love interest."
.... or the stuff some people but in their arms!! ;-P
Verily, in article <1114qse$9aa$23@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
I wonder what Melissa vs Dan looks like?
I'm pretty sure Daniel could take me.
On 19/06/2026 20:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Did you fucking watch any of the last two series or the
60th anniversary specials, or Whittaker and Yaz? Just how
ignorant are you?
Daniel is not ignorant. He's waiting for those episodes to
come onto ABC.
The only ABC they will ever come onto is the one in the US which Disney owns.
Child grooming and molestation out.
Can't say I've seen either in 'Doctor Who'.
You obviously missed Planet of the Incels, aka. The Robot
Revolution and the sequel to Midnight.
Daniel did not see any of the Disney+ era episodes.
Which is either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on
your POV.
I watched them for him so he didn't have to. Didn't he read the reviews?
On 20/06/2026 6:15 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Back to watching the match. 2 - 0 to USA. Daniel will
not be happy but he probably doesn't even know that
they're playing.
Oh, yes, he does, though he didn't get up at Sparrow-fart
to watch the game ... Not Happy .... but, then again, Soccer
is not really MY game.
Summer ... Cricket .... or, to lessor extent, NFL on TV (Go
Dallas!!) Winter ... Australian Rules .... which you might
know as AFL!!
.... but Australia doing well overseas at anything is good
for my Spirit!!
On 20/06/2026 6:18 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/06/2026 20:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Did you fucking watch any of the last two series or
the 60th anniversary specials, or Whittaker and Yaz?
Just how ignorant are you?
Daniel is not ignorant. He's waiting for those episodes
to come onto ABC.
The only ABC they will ever come onto is the one in the US
which Disney owns.
Oh!! Come on, now. A guy can live in HOPE, can't he??
But should I??
Daniel70 wrote:
On 20/06/2026 6:15 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Back to watching the match. 2 - 0 to USA. Daniel will
not be happy but he probably doesn't even know that
they're playing.
Oh, yes, he does, though he didn't get up at Sparrow-fart
to watch the game ... Not Happy .... but, then again, Soccer
is not really MY game.
It's never too late to start.
Summer ... Cricket .... or, to lessor extent, NFL on TV (Go
Dallas!!)
Winter ... Australian Rules .... which you might
know as AFL!!
Soccer/Football is an all-year round sport these days.
Proper order!
.... but Australia doing well overseas at anything is good
for my Spirit!!
They didn't do well, the USA beat them 2-0.
On 20/06/2026 6:22 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/06/2026 20:00, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/06/2026 11:24, Blueshirt wrote:
<Snip>
The only people actively mentioning the 'Timeless Child' all the
time here is you and Dave. If ye both shut the fuck up about it
nobody on RADW would mention it. At all.
If the Timeless Child monster was totally erased from canon then
we would gladly shut the fuck up about it.
Erase it from your head canon and move on.
Can't be done. Doctor Who ended in 2017
So, if 'Doctor Who' ended in 2017, what's this other stuff you want
erased??
It doesn't exist, cause you've told US ... OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.--
and until the Timeless Child and until this travesty is erased alongSo you have your head-canon safely locked away!!
with all the degenerate woke fan fiction the Doctor Who will never
ever return. That is my head canon.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/06/2026 20:00, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
If the Timeless Child monster was totally erased from
canon then we would gladly shut the fuck up about it.
Erase it from your head canon and move on.
Can't be done. Doctor Who ended in 2017
2017?
See... you've already erased it!
:-)
On 21/06/2026 12:17 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 20/06/2026 6:15 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Back to watching the match. 2 - 0 to USA. Daniel will
not be happy but he probably doesn't even know that
they're playing.
Oh, yes, he does, though he didn't get up at Sparrow-fart
to watch the game ... Not Happy .... but, then again, Soccer
is not really MY game.
It's never too late to start.
Summer ... Cricket .... or, to lessor extent, NFL on TV (Go
Dallas!!)
Winter ... Australian Rules .... which you might
know as AFL!!
Soccer/Football is an all-year round sport these days.
Yeah!! Many years ago, 1990's maybe, when Soccer Australia want to go
big, they launched themselves in Winter .... up against Aus Rules, Rugby League and Rugby Union .... but they soon made the move to late Summer- Autumn
Proper order!but now only need a Draw to progress!!
.... but Australia doing well overseas at anything is good
for my Spirit!!
They didn't do well, the USA beat them 2-0.
I don't seem to have a copy of AGA's message, so I'll respond to Dave's response.
Verily, in article <1114r6f$9aa$35@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <1114m1v$3mh7l$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 19/06/2026 22:19, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <11147ma$3iscr$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
If you want a few traditional examples, have you ever noticed that >>>>>> Gretel saves both herself and Hansel? In mythology, consider that Psyche >>>>>Gretel is written as a female child character. She isn't a hero, she's a >>>>> heroine. Hansel wants to fight the wild. Gretel wants him to drop
breadcrumbs.
In every version of this story I've ever heard, the breadcrumbs are
Hansel's idea. In the end it's Gretel who makes a successful plan and
sees it through, saving Hansel and herself.
Whatever. Hansel is still written as a boy and Gretel is written as a
girl.
Yes, one's a boy and one's a girl.
If they're both 6 years old there'll be little difference between
them. If they're older then there will be more differences.
Hansel is often portrayed as a little older, but they're both still
small. It's the subgenre known as "babes in the woods," after all.
They are really co-protagonists. Both receive a call to adventure,
getting thrown out. Both refuse the call, prefering to return home to
their father. Both are forced onto the path of adventure. They are
missing one of Campbell's classic elements, namely the magical mentor,
but perhaps they don't need one because they have each other. They
defeat the witch (well, Gretel does) and return home, where they save
the day and are welcomed.
Boys will
grow out of Disney shit after the age of 6 because it's emotional and
simplistic. Girls are still into it at the ago of 12 or even older.
You think of girls stereotypically. Most are not into Disney at age 12.
The prime Disney age is 3-6, with some girls hanging on until 8 or so,
but a 12-year-old who still likes Disney is more like a early Disney
Adult. It's not standard at that age.
This is part of normal child development. Toddlers are still figuring
out their roles in the world, and it's common for boys to go as
masculine as possible and girls to go as feminine as possible. In girls
this is often followed by a phase of *rejecting* everything classed as feminine, the classic "not like the other girls" attitude.
This may well be a reaction to society insisting that girl's interests
are "shit." Boys also drop the exaggerated posturing, but they mellow it instead of rejecting it. Nobody ever told them the whole idea was bad.
Next you'll be telling me that there's no difference between Superman
and Wonder Woman
Don't you understand that Wonder Woman is heroic?
and you'll therefore play with the action figurers in
exactly the same way.
I don't play with action figures.
Remember that Lego study into how boys and girls play with toys? Do you
understand the differences?
You're trying to substitute condescension for argument.
Of course I understand the study. We've discussed it before, and I
pointed out aspects you hadn't previously considered. I also pointed out
that there's a lot of other research into early play, and that even
parts of that one study are being ignored by most casual commenters.
No. What was heroic was Theseus intervening and rescuing her in the
previous play. Antigone then ends up killing herself and gets almost
everyone else killing themselves too. Those are not heroic acts. They're >>> selfish, defeatist, and destructive acts.
I have a feeling that your low opinion of women would lead you to regard
any motive as selfish.
Given the incest involved.
Dave, what incest?
On 20/06/2026 11:57, The True Melissa wrote:
It's a story about child abduction and child abuse like the Pied Piper
of Hamlin and Cinderella and that's how it's written in a metaphorical
and allegorical manner. There is the bad stepmother stereotype in all of these stories and in Hansel and Gretel the child abductor and molester
is represented as the evil Witch and the evil Pied Piper is the child abductor and molester in that story. Even today children are still
abducted, locked up in cellars, and abused. This is what Hansel and
Gretel is based on, not some arbitrary construct.
You think of girls stereotypically. Most are not into Disney at age 12.
That's the way you're supposed to write them.
Boys are totally out of Disney at 6, Girls will still watch that kind of slop at 12.
The prime Disney age is 3-6, with some girls hanging on until 8 or so,
but a 12-year-old who still likes Disney is more like a early Disney
Adult. It's not standard at that age.
The demographic for Disney is 6 to 12 year-old girls.
That's how they
totally destroyed Star Wars by making it for girls instead of from boys
who are more intellectually mature even at the age of 6 than a 12
year-old girl that can only understand sentiment and emotion but can't comprehend the hero's journey which even a 6 year old boy can understand.
This is part of normal child development. Toddlers are still figuring
out their roles in the world, and it's common for boys to go as
Toddlers aren't figuring out any roles. They're figuring out the world
and how it works, or at least boys are, which is why boys outnumber
girls in STEM by about 20 to 1.
masculine as possible and girls to go as feminine as possible. In girls this is often followed by a phase of *rejecting* everything classed as feminine, the classic "not like the other girls" attitude.
That would be the female way of thinking that everyone has to be like
them because the whole world revolves around them due to their inability
to understand characters who are different from themselves as proven by
Lego
and their inability to aspire to any kind of ideal which is
different.
Cinderella is not a hero. There is not one thing she
does which is heroic. Everything is given to her by her fairy godmother.
admire or see as role models. Girls don't understand characteristics
that are different to their own. After the ago of 12 they undergo no
change whatsoever.
Of course I understand the study. We've discussed it before, and I
pointed out aspects you hadn't previously considered. I also pointed out
I already considered those aspects and as I originally pointer out, they were all irreverent to the discussion.
that there's a lot of other research into early play, and that even
parts of that one study are being ignored by most casual commenters.
Because they are not relevant.
Other studies show that women's brains are hardwired from birth and by 6
do not develop any further,
Dave, what incest?
Between Oedipus and his mother Iocasta.
Northampton Saints are Prem Champions again so I'm
happy
along with Matt Smith who is back in season 3 of House
of the Dragon tomorrow night.
On 20/06/2026 2:30 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/06/2026 11:51, Daniel70 wrote:
On 19/06/2026 3:00 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 18/06/2026 13:36, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
The BBC did it to themselves for allowing the timeless Child to
occur.
Now DW is out for tender.
What are we the fans looking for?
More sci-fi, less fantasy.
More depth, less baggage.
1) REtcon the horrible and abominable Timless Child Arc
Don't care. Just ignore it and move forward.
The Timeless Child monster cannot be ignored. Doctor Who is dead
until it is erased along with everything that came with it. The
Doctor is not a mass murdering genocidal maniac from another
dimension created mad woman from an abused and brainwashed race and
gender swapping abducted child.
2) Go back to formual of success seen in the 1960s and 1970s.
That might help... as Doctor Who was enjoyable to watch back then.
What else can you ask for?
Stories that are stories first, and not just vehicles for a
political message or social commentary.
The Timeless Child monster out. Race, gender, and identity politics
out.
Yeah!! Get rid of all this Male-centric ideology!!
Why? The audience for Doctor Who is overwhelmingly male. If you want
them to come back then everything has to be male-centric, and there is
nothing wrong with it.
So types a male-centric MALE!!
Pandering to minorities out.
Who needs Heterosexuals??
All of humanity. How else is it going to survive?
Pandering to feminist bigotry out.
Breed them out of existence!! Hmmm! That might be a problem!!
That is all of feminist ideology encapsulated, breed men out of
existence. You can see it embodied in the Nazi feminists
"nazi feminists"?? Can't say I've read that before.
of the planet
Lyrane in E E Smith's, Second Stage Lensmen, and Children of the Lens.
Not discussing them as, Aggy, THIS IS A 'DOCTOR WHO' NEWSGROUP!!
Homosexuality out and totally erased from canon.
Can't say I've seen any of it in 'Doctor Who'! Oh!! Wait! Bill was,
supposedly, Homosexual, wasn't SHE??
Did you fucking watch any of the last two series or the 60th anniversary
specials, or Whittaker and Yaz? Just how ignorant are you?
Not the last two series or the 60th anniversary specials, Aggy, (as you >should be aware.) but the Whittaker stuff, sure, just watched "The Woman
who fell to Earth" today. So not "Whittaker and Yaz" yet.
Not very!!
Child grooming and molestation out.
Can't say I've seen either in 'Doctor Who'.
You obviously missed Planet of the Incels, aka. The Robot Revolution and
the sequel to Midnight.
Umm!! O.K., sure, if you say so.
One sided points of view out.
.... unless they're MY POV's!!
Series arcs out.
Maybe.
Soap-opera out.
Yeap! Not that I'd suggest it's been a big problem.
It's been a huge problem which makes it impossible to tell stories
effectively.
Maybe YOUR definition of 'Soap-Opera' and mine differ substantially.
Science fiction based storytelling back in.
... but, really, was 'Doctor Who' ever thus??
Catering for an overwhelmingly male demographic and white British
family audience back in.
WHY?? Seems to me that's limiting your potential audience by over 50%.
The audience of Doctor Who is 77% male and 98.5% heterosexual.
Lies, Damned Lies and Statics!!
You've seen what happened what happened when the child grooming pervert
Russell T Davies turned the Doctor gay and effeminate,
No, I've only seen where Russell T Davies brought 'Doctor Who' back to
our screens.
and wrote the
series for 6 to 12 year-old girls. There was not fucking audience that
existed for it.
.... but I had YOU watching it so I didn't have to!!
If you want to attract and audience then you make it for the one that
exists for the genre.
So, maybe, Disney+ Who was made for an audience that DIDN'T include
OLDIES like you and me, Aggy.
If you try to include other demographics then you
drive the bulk of the main audience away
Yeap! Maybe 'they' were trying to dump the Free-to-Air Audience and
attract a new, younger, audience.
just to attract 100 times fewer
people than those you've driven away.
"100 times fewer"?? REALLY??
Self contained stories based on the hero's journey, discovery of
knowledge, classic ideals, logic, reason, escapism, and adventure
back in.
Yeap. So?? Can a HERO ONLY be MALE??
Yes. Hero's can only be written as male literary characters. There are
no female heroes.
Catwoman, Joan of Arc, Maggie Thatcher (;-P)
https://hero.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Female lists lots ... but I'm
guessing they're all Cartoon-type Characters
Heroines are a completely different literary character
set.
Ah!! So you admit there CAN be Female Heros!! That's a start.
Freedom of speech,
Sorry, is this actually AGGY that I'm responding too??
thought, and expression practised in full with balanced discussion of
all points of view within each story back in.
Sorry, is this actually AGGY that I'm responding too??
The Doctor must always be portrayed as someone who has always been a
white British heterosexual male protagonist,
WHY?? Until The Doctor came along we didn't know that some Beings were
able to re-generate, so why put such limitations upon ANY character??
Bollocks. Bodily regeneration was first devised by E E Smith in Grey
Lensman back in the late 1930s.
'DOCTOR WHO' newsgroup, Aggy, and I don't know 'E. E. Smith' or 'Grey >Lensman', whom ever they may be!!
Sure there was, Aggy, I mean YOU watched it so I didn't have to .... butwhose first incarnation was William Hartnell,... until recently!
NEVER! There are no incarnations before Hartnell.
I did, anyway.
----
Daniel70
The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/06/2026 20:00, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
If the Timeless Child monster was totally erased from
canon then we would gladly shut the fuck up about it.
Erase it from your head canon and move on.
Can't be done. Doctor Who ended in 2017
2017?
See... you've already erased it!
:-)
On 20/06/2026 3:07 am, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <1113qqe$3f248$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Yes. Hero's can only be written as male literary characters. There are
no female heroes. Heroines are a completely different literary character >>> set.
LOL, there are plenty of female heroes. Some have floated the term
"hera," on the grounds that "heroine" often just means "the hero's love
interest."
.... or the stuff some people but in their arms!! ;-P
----
Daniel70
On 20/06/2026 5:42 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/06/2026 20:06, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <1113qqe$3f248$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Yes. Hero's can only be written as male literary characters.
There are no female heroes. Heroines are a completely different
literary character set.
LOL, there are plenty of female heroes.
Yeah, "SuperGirl" is on at the cinema, Mrs Blueshirt wants to go
and see it.
The majority of people don't because they don't like the lead actress
who isn't very attractive
... for the mainly (perverted) MALE audience.
and who revealed herself as an ignorant woke left-wing bigot.
WHAT?? Not a Lesbian?? How did 'they' ever miss THAT??
They also don't like Supergirl being portrayed as a man.
I think the CLUE is in the name .... 'SuperGIRL'!!
The film is heading towards being a yet another DC flop.
How about writing Supergirl for the primary audience, ie. men?
Yeap .... and call it 'Superman' ... or 'Superboy'!!
----
Daniel70
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <1115voi$2k5h$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
did doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
You were not celebrating in the streets last night?
I just want it over so we can get back to the rewatching.
Now, now, ... no need for that sort of talk.
On 20/06/2026 6:15 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Back to watching the match. 2 - 0 to USA. Daniel will not be happy but
he probably doesn't even know that they're playing.
Oh, yes, he does, though he didn't get up at Sparrow-fart to watch the
game ... Not Happy .... but, then again, Soccer is not really MY game.
Summer ... Cricket .... or, to lessor extent, NFL on TV (Go Dallas!!)
Winter ... Australian Rules .... which you might know as AFL!!
.... but Australia doing well overseas at anything is good for my Spirit!!
--
Daniel70
Verily, in article <11165aj$3so2$2@dont-email.me>, did daniel47 >@nomail.afraid.org deliver unto us this message:
On 20/06/2026 3:07 am, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <1113qqe$3f248$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Yes. Hero's can only be written as male literary characters. There are
no female heroes. Heroines are a completely different literary character >> >> set.
LOL, there are plenty of female heroes. Some have floated the term
"hera," on the grounds that "heroine" often just means "the hero's love
interest."
.... or the stuff some people but in their arms!! ;-P
That's "heroin," with no -e on the end.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <1114qse$9aa$23@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
I wonder what Melissa vs Dan looks like?
I'm pretty sure Daniel could take me.
Depends on what game you were playing... I reckon you'd win
a ball juggling contest!
On 20/06/2026 6:18 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/06/2026 20:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Did you fucking watch any of the last two series or the
60th anniversary specials, or Whittaker and Yaz? Just how
ignorant are you?
Daniel is not ignorant. He's waiting for those episodes to
come onto ABC.
The only ABC they will ever come onto is the one in the US which Disney
owns.
Oh!! Come on, now. A guy can live in HOPE, can't he??
But should I??
So considerate of you, Aggy. Thank you. ;-PChild grooming and molestation out.
Can't say I've seen either in 'Doctor Who'.
You obviously missed Planet of the Incels, aka. The Robot
Revolution and the sequel to Midnight.
Daniel did not see any of the Disney+ era episodes.
Which is either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on
your POV.
I watched them for him so he didn't have to. Didn't he read the reviews?
----
Daniel70
Daniel70 wrote:
On 20/06/2026 6:15 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Back to watching the match. 2 - 0 to USA. Daniel will
not be happy but he probably doesn't even know that
they're playing.
Oh, yes, he does, though he didn't get up at Sparrow-fart
to watch the game ... Not Happy .... but, then again, Soccer
is not really MY game.
It's never too late to start.
Summer ... Cricket .... or, to lessor extent, NFL on TV (Go
Dallas!!) Winter ... Australian Rules .... which you might
know as AFL!!
Soccer/Football is an all-year round sport these days.
Proper order!
.... but Australia doing well overseas at anything is good
for my Spirit!!
They didn't do well, the USA beat them 2-0.
On 21/06/2026 12:17 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 20/06/2026 6:15 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Back to watching the match. 2 - 0 to USA. Daniel will
not be happy but he probably doesn't even know that
they're playing.
Oh, yes, he does, though he didn't get up at Sparrow-fart
to watch the game ... Not Happy .... but, then again, Soccer
is not really MY game.
It's never too late to start.
Summer ... Cricket .... or, to lessor extent, NFL on TV (Go
Dallas!!)
Winter ... Australian Rules .... which you might
know as AFL!!
Soccer/Football is an all-year round sport these days.
Yeah!! Many years ago, 1990's maybe, when Soccer Australia want to go
big, they launched themselves in Winter .... up against Aus Rules, Rugby >League and Rugby Union .... but they soon made the move to late >Summer-Autumn
Proper order!but now only need a Draw to progress!!
.... but Australia doing well overseas at anything is good
for my Spirit!!
They didn't do well, the USA beat them 2-0.
----
Daniel70
On 20/06/2026 14:10, Daniel70 wrote:
On 20/06/2026 6:22 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/06/2026 20:00, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/06/2026 11:24, Blueshirt wrote:
<Snip>
The only people actively mentioning the 'Timeless Child' all the
time here is you and Dave. If ye both shut the fuck up about it
nobody on RADW would mention it. At all.
If the Timeless Child monster was totally erased from canon then
we would gladly shut the fuck up about it.
Erase it from your head canon and move on.
Can't be done. Doctor Who ended in 2017
So, if 'Doctor Who' ended in 2017, what's this other stuff you want
erased??
The Adventures of the Timeless Child Monster.
It doesn't exist, cause you've told US ... OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
and until the Timeless Child and until this travesty is erased alongSo you have your head-canon safely locked away!!
with all the degenerate woke fan fiction the Doctor Who will never
ever return. That is my head canon.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 20/06/2026 14:40, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/06/2026 20:00, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
If the Timeless Child monster was totally erased from
canon then we would gladly shut the fuck up about it.
Erase it from your head canon and move on.
Can't be done. Doctor Who ended in 2017
2017?
See... you've already erased it!
:-)
Therefore there is no Doctor Who after it. Nothing will be considered by
me to be Doctor Who until the Timeless Child monster goes.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 20/06/2026 15:32, Daniel70 wrote:
On 21/06/2026 12:17 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 20/06/2026 6:15 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Back to watching the match. 2 - 0 to USA. Daniel will
not be happy but he probably doesn't even know that
they're playing.
Oh, yes, he does, though he didn't get up at Sparrow-fart
to watch the game ... Not Happy .... but, then again, Soccer
is not really MY game.
It's never too late to start.
Summer ... Cricket .... or, to lessor extent, NFL on TV (Go
Dallas!!)
Winter ... Australian Rules .... which you might
know as AFL!!
Soccer/Football is an all-year round sport these days.
Yeah!! Many years ago, 1990's maybe, when Soccer Australia want to go
big, they launched themselves in Winter .... up against Aus Rules, Rugby
League and Rugby Union .... but they soon made the move to late Summer-
Autumn
Proper order!but now only need a Draw to progress!!
.... but Australia doing well overseas at anything is good
for my Spirit!!
They didn't do well, the USA beat them 2-0.
Northampton Saints are Prem Champions again so I'm happy along with Matt >Smith who is back in season 3 of House of the Dragon tomorrow night.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 20/06/2026 11:57, The True Melissa wrote:
I don't seem to have a copy of AGA's message, so I'll respond to Dave's
response.
Verily, in article <1114r6f$9aa$35@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <1114m1v$3mh7l$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 19/06/2026 22:19, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <11147ma$3iscr$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
If you want a few traditional examples, have you ever noticed that >>>>>>> Gretel saves both herself and Hansel? In mythology, consider that Psyche
Gretel is written as a female child character. She isn't a hero, she's a >>>>>> heroine. Hansel wants to fight the wild. Gretel wants him to drop
breadcrumbs.
In every version of this story I've ever heard, the breadcrumbs are
Hansel's idea. In the end it's Gretel who makes a successful plan and >>>>> sees it through, saving Hansel and herself.
Whatever. Hansel is still written as a boy and Gretel is written as a
girl.
Yes, one's a boy and one's a girl.
If they're both 6 years old there'll be little difference between
them. If they're older then there will be more differences.
Hansel is often portrayed as a little older, but they're both still
small. It's the subgenre known as "babes in the woods," after all.
Therefore they're written as children.
They are really co-protagonists. Both receive a call to adventure,
getting thrown out. Both refuse the call, prefering to return home to
their father. Both are forced onto the path of adventure. They are
missing one of Campbell's classic elements, namely the magical mentor,
It's a story about child abduction and child abuse like the Pied Piper
of Hamlin and Cinderella and that's how it's written in a metaphorical
and allegorical manner. There is the bad stepmother stereotype in all of >these stories and in Hansel and Gretel the child abductor and molester
is represented as the evil Witch and the evil Pied Piper is the child >abductor and molester in that story. Even today children are still
abducted, locked up in cellars, and abused. This is what Hansel and
Gretel is based on, not some arbitrary construct.
but perhaps they don't need one because they have each other. They
defeat the witch (well, Gretel does) and return home, where they save
the day and are welcomed.
Both the child abusing stepmother and the even worse child abducting
abusing witch, the name Tektaun comes to mind, end up dead. Chibnall was >clearly abused as a child and it all shows up in his sick and disgusting >writing.
Boys will
grow out of Disney shit after the age of 6 because it's emotional and
simplistic. Girls are still into it at the ago of 12 or even older.
You think of girls stereotypically. Most are not into Disney at age 12.
That's the way you're supposed to write them.
Boys are totally out of Disney at 6, Girls will still watch that kind of >slop at 12.
The prime Disney age is 3-6, with some girls hanging on until 8 or so,
but a 12-year-old who still likes Disney is more like a early Disney
Adult. It's not standard at that age.
The demographic for Disney is 6 to 12 year-old girls. That's how they >totally destroyed Star Wars by making it for girls instead of from boys
who are more intellectually mature even at the age of 6 than a 12
year-old girl that can only understand sentiment and emotion but can't >comprehend the hero's journey which even a 6 year old boy can understand.
This is part of normal child development. Toddlers are still figuring
out their roles in the world, and it's common for boys to go as
Toddlers aren't figuring out any roles. They're figuring out the world
and how it works, or at least boys are, which is why boys outnumber
girls in STEM by about 20 to 1.
masculine as possible and girls to go as feminine as possible. In girls
this is often followed by a phase of *rejecting* everything classed as
feminine, the classic "not like the other girls" attitude.
That would be the female way of thinking that everyone has to be like
them because the whole world revolves around them due to their inability
to understand characters who are different from themselves as proven by
Lego and their inability to aspire to any kind of ideal which is
different. That's why there are no female heroes. To be a hero you have
to undergo change in who you are such as becoming and acting and
behaving like a man instead of a boy. Hansel and Gretel are not heroes.
They are victims. Cinderella is not a hero. There is not one thing she
does which is heroic. Everything is given to her by her fairy godmother.
This may well be a reaction to society insisting that girl's interests
are "shit." Boys also drop the exaggerated posturing, but they mellow it
instead of rejecting it. Nobody ever told them the whole idea was bad.
Nope. Boys aspire to being men and to be a man you have to stop behaving
as you are now and adopt different characteristics from those that you >admire or see as role models. Girls don't understand characteristics
that are different to their own. After the ago of 12 they undergo no
change whatsoever. Boys keep undergoing change will into adulthood and
even as old men. That is what the Lego study proves. A girl doesn't >understand that Superman, Batman, and Woman are not only different from
the girl herself but different from each other. A girl thinks they
should all act and behave just like her alone.
Next you'll be telling me that there's no difference between Superman
and Wonder Woman
Don't you understand that Wonder Woman is heroic?
Wonder Woman is a heroine. She's written as a completely different
character to Batman and Superman. Batman uses technology and decides the >rules by bending the law and kills when he wants. Superman uses his
strength and decides the rules within the law and doesn't kill. Wonder
Woman uses weapons and follows the rules she is given by the Amazons and >ignores other people's law when it suits her because it's not her own.
and you'll therefore play with the action figurers in
exactly the same way.
I don't play with action figures.
Irrelevant. It's not about playing with them. It's about understanding
who and what they represent.
Remember that Lego study into how boys and girls play with toys? Do you >>>> understand the differences?
You're trying to substitute condescension for argument.
Of course I understand the study. We've discussed it before, and I
pointed out aspects you hadn't previously considered. I also pointed out
I already considered those aspects and as I originally pointer out, they >were all irreverent to the discussion.
that there's a lot of other research into early play, and that even
parts of that one study are being ignored by most casual commenters.
Because they are not relevant.
Other studies show that women's brains are hardwired from birth and by 6
do not develop any further, whereas men's are not and keep developing
and changing up to the age of 30. Girls are born with most of they need
to know so don't need to learn much else. Boys are not and therefore
have to learn everything, but this has the advantage of making them more >able to adapt and adopt than girls.
No. What was heroic was Theseus intervening and rescuing her in the
previous play. Antigone then ends up killing herself and gets almost
everyone else killing themselves too. Those are not heroic acts. They're >>>> selfish, defeatist, and destructive acts.
I have a feeling that your low opinion of women would lead you to regard
any motive as selfish.
I appreciate women for what they are based on observation. Antigone is >written as a female character and she behaves like a genuinely
stereotypical woman. It's when un-genuine fake woke serotypes are used
in literature like in the last 5 series written by Davies and Chibnall
and the last 2.5 seasons of Capaldi written by Moffat which results in
the writing becoming degenerate crap.
Given the incest involved.
Dave, what incest?
Between Oedipus and his mother Iocasta.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
Verily, in article <1116q29$ac4i$1@dont-email.me>, did >agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 20/06/2026 11:57, The True Melissa wrote:
[re Hansel and Gretel]
It's a story about child abduction and child abuse like the Pied Piper
of Hamlin and Cinderella and that's how it's written in a metaphorical
and allegorical manner. There is the bad stepmother stereotype in all of
these stories and in Hansel and Gretel the child abductor and molester
is represented as the evil Witch and the evil Pied Piper is the child
abductor and molester in that story. Even today children are still
abducted, locked up in cellars, and abused. This is what Hansel and
Gretel is based on, not some arbitrary construct.
You are obsessed with Campbell's monomyth theory when plotting Doctor
Who, and now it's "some arbitrary construct"?
[re age of likely princess obsession]
You think of girls stereotypically. Most are not into Disney at age 12.
That's the way you're supposed to write them.
12-year-olds are entering the young adult category. Books written for
12-15 don't reach adult complexity but certainly aren't at a Disney
level of simplicity.
Here's a list of books real 12/13-year-old girls actually enjoy:
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/46948.Best_Books_For_12_13 >_Year_Old_Girls
There's not a princess in sight until #21, and that one is Ella
Enchanted -- a slightly twisted take about a princess blessed with the
gift of obedience. Well above that are entries like The Hunger Games and >Harry Potter and The Lightning Thief.
Boys are totally out of Disney at 6, Girls will still watch that kind of
slop at 12.
The prime Disney age is 3-6, with some girls hanging on until 8 or so,
but a 12-year-old who still likes Disney is more like a early Disney
Adult. It's not standard at that age.
The demographic for Disney is 6 to 12 year-old girls.
2-6, according to most sources. Dr. Sarah Coyne did a huge longitudinal >study on Disney Princess culture (citation below). The peak of princess >engagement is definitely early childhood, not up through the tween
years. The age-out is between 7 and 9. By 10-12, most girls are in the >"cringe" phase.
Disney actually separates their marketing specifically to avoid this.
Disney Princess is for the 2?6 crowd. By age 9?12, Disney switches them
to Disney Channel brands like High School Musical, not the princesses
line.
That's how they
totally destroyed Star Wars by making it for girls instead of from boys
who are more intellectually mature even at the age of 6 than a 12
year-old girl that can only understand sentiment and emotion but can't
comprehend the hero's journey which even a 6 year old boy can understand.
You keep coming out with these bland and ludicrous assertions that
female people are incapable of comprehending this or that simple thing.
You don't seem to have any evidence.
This ties into your idea that men can truly grasp DW, but the only
possible reason a woman would watch is that she must "fancy" the Doctor. >That's just not true, and you've observed female fans of the show
discussing its symbolism, themes, arcs, and all the rest. How do you not >realize your assumptions are wrong?
This is part of normal child development. Toddlers are still figuring
out their roles in the world, and it's common for boys to go as
Toddlers aren't figuring out any roles. They're figuring out the world
and how it works, or at least boys are, which is why boys outnumber
girls in STEM by about 20 to 1.
It's only three to one, according to the National Science Foundation.
Little boys absolutely do tackle masculinity and what it means for them >(Martin & Ruble). Like the girls, they embrace it initially. Dr. Carol >Martin (cited elsewhere) also studied the "no sissy stuff" rule and
found that boys at age 4-5 are hypervigilant about never seeming girly.
They often get very into superheroes or soldiers, as some girls do into >princesses.
In a few years, they grow out of the macho phase just as their sisters
grow out of the girly-girl phase.
masculine as possible and girls to go as feminine as possible. In girls
this is often followed by a phase of *rejecting* everything classed as
feminine, the classic "not like the other girls" attitude.
That would be the female way of thinking that everyone has to be like
them because the whole world revolves around them due to their inability
to understand characters who are different from themselves as proven by
Lego
I just want to take a moment to admire "as proven by Lego." I don't
expect to encounter that phrase a second time.
and their inability to aspire to any kind of ideal which is
different.
Actually, girls have a significant *advantage* in theory-of-mind tests.
Kids in general get it between 3 and 5, but girls consistently get it >earlier and more solidly (Walker)(Wellman et al) (Wellman is a
metanalysis, BTW).
I know you really like that Lego Friends study, but there is other child >development research.
You mention the Lego study as proof of girls being simpler, but the >researchers who conducted it concluded the opposite. The boys were
engaged in "scripted mimicry" (repeating a movie plot they'd seen),
while the girls were performing "recontextualization" (mapping a
character onto a social/economic system).
There's absolutely nothing wrong with scripted play. It's
developmentally appropriate for boys that age. It's not creative,
though.
Cinderella is not a hero. There is not one thing she
does which is heroic. Everything is given to her by her fairy godmother.
Now why are you randomly picking on Cinderella? She's not especially
heroic, but she's not a passive recipient either. Her goal isn't to get >married; it's to have a big night out by going to the ball. An important >part of her story is that she tries to get herself there -- sews a new >dress, meets her stepmother's demands -- and is foiled by circumstances
she can't control. Only then does her mother's spirit or the fairy
godmother appear to help her. It's not just given to her.
What does the Cinderella story have to do with a discussion of heroism?
admire or see as role models. Girls don't understand characteristics
that are different to their own. After the ago of 12 they undergo no
change whatsoever.
You keep changing the age. Sometimes it's three, sometimes thirteen, now >it's twelve, and once girls were incapable of learning after birth.
Maybe you should pick one.
There have been enough longitudinal studies of the brain for us to be >certain that this is false. I found you one on brain development in >childhood and adolescence (Giedd et al). You'll note that both boys and >girls were studies, and that the brains of both sexes developed.
There are a ton of others like this. I'm sure Wikipedia links to a
bunch.
[re the Lego Friends study]
Of course I understand the study. We've discussed it before, and II already considered those aspects and as I originally pointer out, they
pointed out aspects you hadn't previously considered. I also pointed out >>
were all irreverent to the discussion.
that there's a lot of other research into early play, and that even
parts of that one study are being ignored by most casual commenters.
Because they are not relevant.
I've now highlighted the relevance for you.
Other studies show that women's brains are hardwired from birth and by 6
do not develop any further,
And now it's six. It was twelve just a moment ago. Seriously, pick >something.
Dave, what incest?
Between Oedipus and his mother Iocasta.
Jocasta doesn't appear in Antigone. Dave has already clarified that he
was thinking of the first play.
REFERENCES
Giedd, J. N., et al. (1999). "Brain development during childhood and >adolescence: a longitudinal MRI study." Nature Neuroscience.
Martin, C. L., & Fabes, R. A. (2001). "The Stability and Consequences of >Young Children's Same-Sex Peer Interactions." Developmental Psychology.
Martin, C. L., & Ruble, D. N. (2004). "Children's Search for Gender
Cues: Cognitive Perspectives on Gender Development." Current Directions
in Psychological Science.
Walker, S. (2005). "Gender differences in 3- and 4-year-olds' theory of
mind ability." School Psychology International.
Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). "Meta-analysis of >Theory-of-Mind Development: The Role of False-Belief Understanding."
Child Development.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
Daniel70 wrote:
On 20/06/2026 6:22 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/06/2026 20:00, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
If the Timeless Child monster was totally erased
from canon then we would gladly shut the fuck up
about it.
Erase it from your head canon and move on.
Can't be done. Doctor Who ended in 2017
So, if 'Doctor Who' ended in 2017, what's this other stuff
you want erased??
Exactly. His head canon has already dealt with it!
Daniel70 wrote:
On 20/06/2026 6:18 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/06/2026 20:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Did you fucking watch any of the last two series or
the 60th anniversary specials, or Whittaker and Yaz?
Just how ignorant are you?
Daniel is not ignorant. He's waiting for those episodes
to come onto ABC.
The only ABC they will ever come onto is the one in the US
which Disney owns.
Oh!! Come on, now. A guy can live in HOPE, can't he??
The two Ncuti Gatwa season's, probably not ever... being
co-funded by Disney. But you never know, when the show returns
the BBC might want to go back to the old way of doing things?
But should I??
They are worth watching... we are all different, you might
love them!
The True Doctor wrote:
Northampton Saints are Prem Champions again so I'm
happy
along with Matt Smith who is back in season 3 of House
of the Dragon tomorrow night.
I'm looking forward to the new season of "House of the
Dragon"... it's seems like ages since the last season
was on.
Matt Smith is great in it.
Verily, in article <1116q29$ac4i$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 20/06/2026 11:57, The True Melissa wrote:
[re Hansel and Gretel]
It's a story about child abduction and child abuse like the Pied Piper
of Hamlin and Cinderella and that's how it's written in a metaphorical
and allegorical manner. There is the bad stepmother stereotype in all of
these stories and in Hansel and Gretel the child abductor and molester
is represented as the evil Witch and the evil Pied Piper is the child
abductor and molester in that story. Even today children are still
abducted, locked up in cellars, and abused. This is what Hansel and
Gretel is based on, not some arbitrary construct.
You are obsessed with Campbell's monomyth theory when plotting Doctor
Who, and now it's "some arbitrary construct"?
[re age of likely princess obsession]
You think of girls stereotypically. Most are not into Disney at age 12.
That's the way you're supposed to write them.
12-year-olds are entering the young adult category. Books written for
12-15 don't reach adult complexity but certainly aren't at a Disney
level of simplicity.
Here's a list of books real 12/13-year-old girls actually enjoy:
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/46948.Best_Books_For_12_13 _Year_Old_Girls
There's not a princess in sight until #21, and that one is Ella
Enchanted -- a slightly twisted take about a princess blessed with the
gift of obedience. Well above that are entries like The Hunger Games and Harry Potter and The Lightning Thief.
Boys are totally out of Disney at 6, Girls will still watch that kind of
slop at 12.
The prime Disney age is 3-6, with some girls hanging on until 8 or so,
but a 12-year-old who still likes Disney is more like a early Disney
Adult. It's not standard at that age.
The demographic for Disney is 6 to 12 year-old girls.
2-6, according to most sources. Dr. Sarah Coyne did a huge longitudinal
study on Disney Princess culture (citation below). The peak of princess engagement is definitely early childhood, not up through the tween
years. The age-out is between 7 and 9. By 10-12, most girls are in the "cringe" phase.
Disney actually separates their marketing specifically to avoid this.
Disney Princess is for the 2?6 crowd. By age 9?12, Disney switches them
to Disney Channel brands like High School Musical, not the princesses
line.
That's how they
totally destroyed Star Wars by making it for girls instead of from boys
who are more intellectually mature even at the age of 6 than a 12
year-old girl that can only understand sentiment and emotion but can't
comprehend the hero's journey which even a 6 year old boy can understand.
You keep coming out with these bland and ludicrous assertions that
female people are incapable of comprehending this or that simple thing.
You don't seem to have any evidence.
This ties into your idea that men can truly grasp DW, but the only
possible reason a woman would watch is that she must "fancy" the Doctor.
That's just not true, and you've observed female fans of the show
discussing its symbolism, themes, arcs, and all the rest. How do you not realize your assumptions are wrong?
This is part of normal child development. Toddlers are still figuring
out their roles in the world, and it's common for boys to go as
Toddlers aren't figuring out any roles. They're figuring out the world
and how it works, or at least boys are, which is why boys outnumber
girls in STEM by about 20 to 1.
It's only three to one, according to the National Science Foundation.
Little boys absolutely do tackle masculinity and what it means for them (Martin & Ruble). Like the girls, they embrace it initially. Dr. Carol
Martin (cited elsewhere) also studied the "no sissy stuff" rule and
found that boys at age 4-5 are hypervigilant about never seeming girly.
They often get very into superheroes or soldiers, as some girls do into princesses.
In a few years, they grow out of the macho phase just as their sisters
grow out of the girly-girl phase.
masculine as possible and girls to go as feminine as possible. In girls
this is often followed by a phase of *rejecting* everything classed as
feminine, the classic "not like the other girls" attitude.
That would be the female way of thinking that everyone has to be like
them because the whole world revolves around them due to their inability
to understand characters who are different from themselves as proven by
Lego
I just want to take a moment to admire "as proven by Lego." I don't
expect to encounter that phrase a second time.
and their inability to aspire to any kind of ideal which is
different.
Actually, girls have a significant *advantage* in theory-of-mind tests.
Kids in general get it between 3 and 5, but girls consistently get it
earlier and more solidly (Walker)(Wellman et al) (Wellman is a
metanalysis, BTW).
I know you really like that Lego Friends study, but there is other child development research.
You mention the Lego study as proof of girls being simpler, but the
researchers who conducted it concluded the opposite. The boys were
engaged in "scripted mimicry" (repeating a movie plot they'd seen),
while the girls were performing "recontextualization" (mapping a
character onto a social/economic system).
There's absolutely nothing wrong with scripted play. It's
developmentally appropriate for boys that age. It's not creative,
though.
Cinderella is not a hero. There is not one thing she
does which is heroic. Everything is given to her by her fairy godmother.
Now why are you randomly picking on Cinderella? She's not especially
heroic, but she's not a passive recipient either. Her goal isn't to get married; it's to have a big night out by going to the ball. An important
part of her story is that she tries to get herself there -- sews a new
dress, meets her stepmother's demands -- and is foiled by circumstances
she can't control. Only then does her mother's spirit or the fairy
godmother appear to help her. It's not just given to her.
What does the Cinderella story have to do with a discussion of heroism?
admire or see as role models. Girls don't understand characteristics
that are different to their own. After the ago of 12 they undergo no
change whatsoever.
You keep changing the age. Sometimes it's three, sometimes thirteen, now
it's twelve, and once girls were incapable of learning after birth.
Maybe you should pick one.
There have been enough longitudinal studies of the brain for us to be
certain that this is false. I found you one on brain development in
childhood and adolescence (Giedd et al). You'll note that both boys and
girls were studies, and that the brains of both sexes developed.
There are a ton of others like this. I'm sure Wikipedia links to a
bunch.
[re the Lego Friends study]
Of course I understand the study. We've discussed it before, and I
pointed out aspects you hadn't previously considered. I also pointed out
I already considered those aspects and as I originally pointer out, they
were all irreverent to the discussion.
that there's a lot of other research into early play, and that even
parts of that one study are being ignored by most casual commenters.
Because they are not relevant.
I've now highlighted the relevance for you.
Other studies show that women's brains are hardwired from birth and by 6
do not develop any further,
And now it's six. It was twelve just a moment ago. Seriously, pick
something.
Dave, what incest?
Between Oedipus and his mother Iocasta.
Jocasta doesn't appear in Antigone. Dave has already clarified that he
was thinking of the first play.
REFERENCES
Verily, in article <1115vp3$2k5h$3@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
True. The Greeks wrote a lot of tragedies.
Given incest ...
What is with you and the incest? Yes, Oedipus accidently married
Jocasta, but he didn't know she was his birth mother. His children,
including Antigone, committed no incest.
In the original folklore, before Sophocles turned it into a tragedy,
Oedipus never even learned that the prophecy had been fulfilled. He
killed his birth father, married his birth mother, and reigned happily
as his mother's husband. Neither the folklore character nor Sophocles' character has any intention to commit incest. He doesn't know.
In article <MPG.44a0575bc2083f3398a0ae@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <1115voi$2k5h$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <MPG.44a0312edb8c3d198a0a7@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <1114qse$9aa$23@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
I wonder what Melissa vs Dan looks like?
I'm pretty sure Daniel could take me.
You were not celebrating in the streets last night?
I just want it over so we can get back to the rewatching.
AGA, when?
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <1114qse$9aa$23@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
I wonder what Melissa vs Dan looks like?
I'm pretty sure Daniel could take me.
Depends on what game you were playing... I reckon you'd win
a ball juggling contest!
Verily, in article <11165aj$3so2$2@dont-email.me>, did daniel47 @nomail.afraid.org deliver unto us this message:
On 20/06/2026 3:07 am, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <1113qqe$3f248$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Yes. Hero's can only be written as male literary characters. There are >>>> no female heroes. Heroines are a completely different literary character >>>> set.
LOL, there are plenty of female heroes. Some have floated the term
"hera," on the grounds that "heroine" often just means "the hero's love
interest."
.... or the stuff some people but in their arms!! ;-P
That's "heroin," with no -e on the end.
On 20/06/2026 22:24, The True Melissa wrote:
Hansel and Gretel are not heroes. They are victims. Did I not mention
that? Seems I forgot to add it. Hansel and Gretel are the victims of
child abuse. Victimhood and child abuse does not belong in Doctor Who
and perverts like Chris Chibnall should never have been allowed to make
it all about themselves as abused children. That is why the Timeless
Child monster destroyed the entire franchise. Doctor Who is about
escapism not about trying to escape from the memory of child abuse and
the victim becoming the abuser.
Here's a list of books real 12/13-year-old girls actually enjoy:
They're all books about children. Boys don't like reading books about children, especially ones younger than they are. They don't want to grow
up to be like children. They want to grow up to be like men.
Boys at that age would be reading The Hobbit, actually I read it when I
was younger. The Lord of the Rings. Read that at 12/13 if I remember correctly. Hamlet. Read it when I was 11 I think, or 12. Logan's Run.
Maybe not a good idea, but at least the kids in it were older than I was
at the time, being 13/14 (Jenny) and 17/19 (Logan) or something. The
Barsoom Series by Edgar Rice Burroughs. The Lensman Series by E E Smith.
The Three Musketeers. King Solomon's Mines. The Black Arrow: A Tale of
the Two Roses. The Hitchhiker?s Guide to the Galaxy.
Harry Potter is only for boys younger than 12, maybe no more than 8 or
9. Narnia is only for boys younger than 9. Most of your girls books
would never appeal to boys and those that did would only be suitable for
6 to 12 year-olds. Roald Dahl would be for 6 or 7 year olds.
The demographic for Disney is 6 to 12 year-old girls.
2-6, according to most sources. Dr. Sarah Coyne did a huge longitudinal
Nope. That only applies to boys. For girls it extends to 12 year-olds.
Disney actually separates their marketing specifically to avoid this. Disney Princess is for the 2?6 crowd. By age 9?12, Disney switches them
to Disney Channel brands like High School Musical, not the princesses
line.
High School Musical a show that only appeals to 12 year old girls and homosexual men. My point proven. Boys would never watch it beyond the
age of 2.
This ties into your idea that men can truly grasp DW, but the only
120 years ago 98% of the audience for science fiction were men. Men and
only 2% of women would have been able to understand H G Wells or want to read him. Most women today still don't understand a word he wrote
despite more women choosing to read him. Later science fiction writers
added elements such as romance in order to attract more female readers
but the general audience still remains between 65% and 80% male, and
almost 80% of the authors are also male.
possible reason a woman would watch is that she must "fancy" the Doctor.
That is what I have been told by women themselves, women who would not otherwise be interested in a science fiction show.
That's just not true, and you've observed female fans of the show discussing its symbolism, themes, arcs, and all the rest. How do you not realize your assumptions are wrong?
You are probably from the 2% of women that are actually into science fiction. This tallies perfectly with my assumptions.
Little boys absolutely do tackle masculinity and what it means for them (Martin & Ruble). Like the girls, they embrace it initially. Dr. Carol Martin (cited elsewhere) also studied the "no sissy stuff" rule and
Wasn't she James T Kirk's love interest when he was at Star Fleet
Academy? Or was that Carol Marcus, or Carol Danvers?
found that boys at age 4-5 are hypervigilant about never seeming girly. They often get very into superheroes or soldiers, as some girls do into princesses.
That absolute rubbish and it's probably been made up. The only comics
boys between the ages of 4 and 5 are into are The Beano and The Dandy
and they have nothing to do with super heroes or soldiers.
People start reading Superhero comics at about the ago of 6 to 8.
I don't know what the hell you mean by macho phase.
I just want to take a moment to admire "as proven by Lego." I don't
expect to encounter that phrase a second time.
Proven by Lego and by you. I could always get you to write something involving characterisation and character development but that's not as
easy as asking maths questions.
Actually, girls have a significant *advantage* in theory-of-mind tests. Kids in general get it between 3 and 5, but girls consistently get it earlier and more solidly (Walker)(Wellman et al) (Wellman is a
metanalysis, BTW).
More nonsense. These tests have nothing to do with aspiration or understanding the differences between two different characters. The only thing they proved is what I already stated. Girls brains are hardwired
from birth
which gives them an advantage over boys when they are
younger.
Once boys get past the age of 6 they will have the advantage
because boys are able to learn more and change their interpretation of
the world to match their observations. This is why men outnumber women
in STEM by 20 to 1.
You mention the Lego study as proof of girls being simpler, but the
I mentioned it as proof that women don't understand character and characterisation. I know this to be true from MMORPGs I'm part of.
researchers who conducted it concluded the opposite. The boys were
No they didn't.
engaged in "scripted mimicry" (repeating a movie plot they'd seen),
while the girls were performing "recontextualization" (mapping a
character onto a social/economic system).
More bollocks. The boys played with the dolls the way the characters
they represented would behave. That's what scripted mimicry means.
Now why are you randomly picking on Cinderella? She's not especially heroic, but she's not a passive recipient either. Her goal isn't to get married; it's to have a big night out by going to the ball. An important
What does she think is going to happen at the ball? Who does she want to dance with? She's out to find a husband, and the best husband of all
would be the prince.
part of her story is that she tries to get herself there -- sews a new dress, meets her stepmother's demands -- and is foiled by circumstances
she can't control. Only then does her mother's spirit or the fairy godmother appear to help her. It's not just given to her.
It is just given to her. Does she conjure up the fairy godmother by
going through some ritual or completing a quest?
What does the Cinderella story have to do with a discussion of heroism?
I already explained it to you earlier. Cinderella is not a hero.
You keep changing the age. Sometimes it's three, sometimes thirteen, now it's twelve, and once girls were incapable of learning after birth.
Maybe you should pick one.
I've not changed any ages. I've specified what they can and can't
understand at different ages. That is called development. You know like character development which the Lego study shows that girls don't understand.
The majority of women are very bad writers, because they don't
understand characterisation or character development and can't project
their mind into a character who is different to their own personality.
This has been known for centuries and millennia. You just have to read
the literature they come up with which proves I'm right. 78% of science fiction writers are men. There's a very good reason for that.
On 20/06/2026 22:24, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <1116q29$ac4i$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 20/06/2026 11:57, The True Melissa wrote:
[re Hansel and Gretel]
It's a story about child abduction and child abuse like the Pied Piper
of Hamlin and Cinderella and that's how it's written in a metaphorical
and allegorical manner. There is the bad stepmother stereotype in all of >>> these stories and in Hansel and Gretel the child abductor and molester
is represented as the evil Witch and the evil Pied Piper is the child
abductor and molester in that story. Even today children are still
abducted, locked up in cellars, and abused. This is what Hansel and
Gretel is based on, not some arbitrary construct.
You are obsessed with Campbell's monomyth theory when plotting Doctor
Who, and now it's "some arbitrary construct"?
Hansel and Gretel are not heroes. They are victims. Did I not mention
that? Seems I forgot to add it. Hansel and Gretel are the victims of
child abuse. Victimhood and child abuse does not belong in Doctor Who
and perverts like Chris Chibnall should never have been allowed to make
it all about themselves as abused children. That is why the Timeless
Child monster destroyed the entire franchise. Doctor Who is about
escapism not about trying to escape from the memory of child abuse and
the victim becoming the abuser.
[re age of likely princess obsession]
You think of girls stereotypically. Most are not into Disney at age 12. >>>That's the way you're supposed to write them.
12-year-olds are entering the young adult category. Books written for
12-15 don't reach adult complexity but certainly aren't at a Disney
level of simplicity.
Here's a list of books real 12/13-year-old girls actually enjoy:
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/46948.Best_Books_For_12_13
_Year_Old_Girls
There's not a princess in sight until #21, and that one is Ella
Enchanted -- a slightly twisted take about a princess blessed with the
gift of obedience. Well above that are entries like The Hunger Games and
Harry Potter and The Lightning Thief.
They're all books about children. Boys don't like reading books about >children, especially ones younger than they are. They don't want to grow
up to be like children. They want to grow up to be like men.
Boys at that age would be reading The Hobbit, actually I read it when I
was younger. The Lord of the Rings. Read that at 12/13 if I remember >correctly. Hamlet. Read it when I was 11 I think, or 12. Logan's Run.
Maybe not a good idea, but at least the kids in it were older than I was
at the time, being 13/14 (Jenny) and 17/19 (Logan) or something. The
Barsoom Series by Edgar Rice Burroughs. The Lensman Series by E E Smith.
The Three Musketeers. King Solomon's Mines. The Black Arrow: A Tale of
the Two Roses. The HitchhikerrCOs Guide to the Galaxy.
Harry Potter is only for boys younger than 12, maybe no more than 8 or
9. Narnia is only for boys younger than 9. Most of your girls books
would never appeal to boys and those that did would only be suitable for
6 to 12 year-olds. Roald Dahl would be for 6 or 7 year olds.
Your reading list has just proven my point.
Boys are totally out of Disney at 6, Girls will still watch that kind of >>> slop at 12.
The prime Disney age is 3-6, with some girls hanging on until 8 or so, >>>> but a 12-year-old who still likes Disney is more like a early Disney
Adult. It's not standard at that age.
The demographic for Disney is 6 to 12 year-old girls.
2-6, according to most sources. Dr. Sarah Coyne did a huge longitudinal
Nope. That only applies to boys. For girls it extends to 12 year-olds.
study on Disney Princess culture (citation below). The peak of princess
engagement is definitely early childhood, not up through the tween
years. The age-out is between 7 and 9. By 10-12, most girls are in the
"cringe" phase.
Boys are out of it and in the cringe category by 6.
Disney actually separates their marketing specifically to avoid this.
Disney Princess is for the 2?6 crowd. By age 9?12, Disney switches them
to Disney Channel brands like High School Musical, not the princesses
line.
High School Musical a show that only appeals to 12 year old girls and >homosexual men. My point proven. Boys would never watch it beyond the
age of 2.
That's how theyYou keep coming out with these bland and ludicrous assertions that
totally destroyed Star Wars by making it for girls instead of from boys
who are more intellectually mature even at the age of 6 than a 12
year-old girl that can only understand sentiment and emotion but can't
comprehend the hero's journey which even a 6 year old boy can understand. >>
female people are incapable of comprehending this or that simple thing.
You don't seem to have any evidence.
I've already given you the evidence. Lego's play study and neological >evidence from babies and adults brains.
This ties into your idea that men can truly grasp DW, but the only
120 years ago 98% of the audience for science fiction were men. Men and
only 2% of women would have been able to understand H G Wells or want to >read him. Most women today still don't understand a word he wrote
despite more women choosing to read him. Later science fiction writers
added elements such as romance in order to attract more female readers
but the general audience still remains between 65% and 80% male, and
almost 80% of the authors are also male.
possible reason a woman would watch is that she must "fancy" the Doctor.
That is what I have been told by women themselves, women who would not >otherwise be interested in a science fiction show.
That's just not true, and you've observed female fans of the show
discussing its symbolism, themes, arcs, and all the rest. How do you not
realize your assumptions are wrong?
You are probably from the 2% of women that are actually into science >fiction. This tallies perfectly with my assumptions.
This is part of normal child development. Toddlers are still figuring
out their roles in the world, and it's common for boys to go as
Toddlers aren't figuring out any roles. They're figuring out the world
and how it works, or at least boys are, which is why boys outnumber
girls in STEM by about 20 to 1.
It's only three to one, according to the National Science Foundation.
It's 20 to 1 or greater if you actually go into a university lecture >theatre.
Little boys absolutely do tackle masculinity and what it means for them
(Martin & Ruble). Like the girls, they embrace it initially. Dr. Carol
Martin (cited elsewhere) also studied the "no sissy stuff" rule and
Wasn't she James T Kirk's love interest when he was at Star Fleet
Academy? Or was that Carol Marcus, or Carol Danvers?
found that boys at age 4-5 are hypervigilant about never seeming girly.
They often get very into superheroes or soldiers, as some girls do into
princesses.
That absolute rubbish and it's probably been made up. The only comics
boys between the ages of 4 and 5 are into are The Beano and The Dandy
and they have nothing to do with super heroes or soldiers.
People start reading Superhero comics at about the ago of 6 to 8.
In a few years, they grow out of the macho phase just as their sisters
grow out of the girly-girl phase.
More nonsense. Most boys stop reading comics at about 12. Girls will
keep reading manga slop bordering on child pornography until they're 16
or 18. I don't know what the hell you mean by macho phase. Do you mean >playing Cowboys and Indians in the school playground? Or declaring
they're not gay and that other boys should not act in a gay manner? The >Cowboys and Indians games end at about 8 or 9 and that's when the
declaring they're not gay begins followed by even rougher playground
games such as British Bulldog (I think there's an Australian version but
I don't know about the US). That's the macho phase and it doesn't end
until they stop being teenagers, find themselves a job, or find
themselves a girlfriend.
masculine as possible and girls to go as feminine as possible. In girls >>>> this is often followed by a phase of *rejecting* everything classed as >>>> feminine, the classic "not like the other girls" attitude.
That would be the female way of thinking that everyone has to be like
them because the whole world revolves around them due to their inability >>> to understand characters who are different from themselves as proven by
Lego
I just want to take a moment to admire "as proven by Lego." I don't
expect to encounter that phrase a second time.
Proven by Lego and by you. I could always get you to write something >involving characterisation and character development but that's not as
easy as asking maths questions.
and their inability to aspire to any kind of ideal which is
different.
Actually, girls have a significant *advantage* in theory-of-mind tests.
Kids in general get it between 3 and 5, but girls consistently get it
earlier and more solidly (Walker)(Wellman et al) (Wellman is a
metanalysis, BTW).
More nonsense. These tests have nothing to do with aspiration or >understanding the differences between two different characters. The only >thing they proved is what I already stated. Girls brains are hardwired
from birth which gives them an advantage over boys when they are
younger. Once boys get past the age of 6 they will have the advantage >because boys are able to learn more and change their interpretation of
the world to match their observations. This is why men outnumber women
in STEM by 20 to 1.
I know you really like that Lego Friends study, but there is other child
development research.
None of which contradicts the Lego study.
You mention the Lego study as proof of girls being simpler, but the
I mentioned it as proof that women don't understand character and >characterisation. I know this to be true from MMORPGs I'm part of.
researchers who conducted it concluded the opposite. The boys were
No they didn't.
engaged in "scripted mimicry" (repeating a movie plot they'd seen),
while the girls were performing "recontextualization" (mapping a
character onto a social/economic system).
More bollocks. The boys played with the dolls the way the characters
they represented would behave. That's what scripted mimicry means. The
girls played with the dolls as themselves. That's what
recontextualization actually means. The took the dolls, ignored or
didn't have the faintest clue who the characters were or how they were >characterised from the context of the movies or literature, and they >projected aspects of their own personalties onto them instead.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with scripted play. It's
developmentally appropriate for boys that age. It's not creative,
though.
Yes it is actually. You are taking an existing character and developing
that character by placing them in new situations and estimating their >reaction, their reaction to the situation, as opposed to yours. This
shows more understanding and creativity than that of a girl playing with
the same toys as herself.
Cinderella is not a hero. There is not one thing she
does which is heroic. Everything is given to her by her fairy godmother.
Now why are you randomly picking on Cinderella? She's not especially
heroic, but she's not a passive recipient either. Her goal isn't to get
married; it's to have a big night out by going to the ball. An important
What does she think is going to happen at the ball? Who does she want to >dance with? She's out to find a husband, and the best husband of all
would be the prince.
part of her story is that she tries to get herself there -- sews a new
dress, meets her stepmother's demands -- and is foiled by circumstances
she can't control. Only then does her mother's spirit or the fairy
godmother appear to help her. It's not just given to her.
It is just given to her. Does she conjure up the fairy godmother by
going through some ritual or completing a quest?
What does the Cinderella story have to do with a discussion of heroism?
I already explained it to you earlier. Cinderella is not a hero.
Everything is given to her on a platter. The prince is actually the hero
of this story because he is the one who decides to go on a quest to find >Cinderella after he discovers her lost slipper.
Then there's Snow White. The only heroes there are the Dwarfs and the >Prince.
admire or see as role models. Girls don't understand characteristics
that are different to their own. After the ago of 12 they undergo no
change whatsoever.
You keep changing the age. Sometimes it's three, sometimes thirteen, now
it's twelve, and once girls were incapable of learning after birth.
Maybe you should pick one.
I've not changed any ages. I've specified what they can and can't
understand at different ages. That is called development. You know like >character development which the Lego study shows that girls don't >understand.
There have been enough longitudinal studies of the brain for us to be
certain that this is false. I found you one on brain development in
No there havenrCOt.
childhood and adolescence (Giedd et al). You'll note that both boys and
girls were studies, and that the brains of both sexes developed.
You pointed to a study which is completely irrelevant to what I sated
and whose conclusion don't contradict anything I actually said.
There are a ton of others like this. I'm sure Wikipedia links to a
bunch.
None of which contradict anything that I have said.
The majority of women are very bad writers, because they don't
understand characterisation or character development and can't project
their mind into a character who is different to their own personality.
This has been known for centuries and millennia. You just have to read
the literature they come up with which proves I'm right. 78% of science >fiction writers are men. There's a very good reason for that.
[re the Lego Friends study]
Of course I understand the study. We've discussed it before, and II already considered those aspects and as I originally pointer out, they >>> were all irreverent to the discussion.
pointed out aspects you hadn't previously considered. I also pointed out >>>
that there's a lot of other research into early play, and that even
parts of that one study are being ignored by most casual commenters.
Because they are not relevant.
I've now highlighted the relevance for you.
Still not relevant since they don't contradict anything I have said.
Other studies show that women's brains are hardwired from birth and by 6 >>> do not develop any further,
And now it's six. It was twelve just a moment ago. Seriously, pick
something.
No. Twelve is when girls stop watching Disney. Different event,
different age it happens at.
Dave, what incest?
Between Oedipus and his mother Iocasta.
Jocasta doesn't appear in Antigone. Dave has already clarified that he
was thinking of the first play.
In case you have forgotten, Antigone is the daughter of Oedipus and
Iocasta. That's how the incest comes into it.
--
REFERENCES
Reading actual books or stories written by women. (Well attempting to
read them since most are unreadable since they don't appeal to men or
are badly written and based on sentiment and emotion.)
Comparing them to books or stories written by men.
Engaging in online roleplay with women.
Talking to women I know.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 20/06/2026 13:56, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <1115vp3$2k5h$3@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
True. The Greeks wrote a lot of tragedies.
Given incest ...
What is with you and the incest? Yes, Oedipus accidently married
Jocasta, but he didn't know she was his birth mother. His children,
including Antigone, committed no incest.
Antigone was the product of incest.
In the original folklore, before Sophocles turned it into a tragedy,
Oedipus never even learned that the prophecy had been fulfilled. He
killed his birth father, married his birth mother, and reigned happily
as his mother's husband. Neither the folklore character nor Sophocles'
character has any intention to commit incest. He doesn't know.
In the original version Oedipus never married his mother to begin with.
He solved the riddle of the Sphinx, became king of Thebes, and married
some other woman who became queen. I think her name is in Robert Graves' >Greek Myths but I'm too tired at this stupid time in the morning
watching the football to read it.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 20/06/2026 14:20, The Doctor wrote:
In article <MPG.44a0575bc2083f3398a0ae@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <1115voi$2k5h$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <MPG.44a0312edb8c3d198a0a7@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <1114qse$9aa$23@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
I wonder what Melissa vs Dan looks like?
I'm pretty sure Daniel could take me.
You were not celebrating in the streets last night?
I just want it over so we can get back to the rewatching.
AGA, when?
When the football ends. House of the Dragon starting in the middle of it >isn't helping and I still need to finish watching series 5 of ClarksonrCOs >Farm. The football is leaving me no time to watch anything.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 20/06/2026 15:13, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <1114qse$9aa$23@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
I wonder what Melissa vs Dan looks like?
I'm pretty sure Daniel could take me.
Depends on what game you were playing... I reckon you'd win
a ball juggling contest!
Unless she can do more than 3 balls I think I might be able to beat her.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 20/06/2026 15:05, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <11165aj$3so2$2@dont-email.me>, did daniel47
@nomail.afraid.org deliver unto us this message:
On 20/06/2026 3:07 am, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <1113qqe$3f248$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Yes. Hero's can only be written as male literary characters. There are >>>>> no female heroes. Heroines are a completely different literary character >>>>> set.
LOL, there are plenty of female heroes. Some have floated the term
"hera," on the grounds that "heroine" often just means "the hero's love >>>> interest."
.... or the stuff some people but in their arms!! ;-P
That's "heroin," with no -e on the end.
Or morphine.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
Verily, in article <1117pbr$hs15$1@dont-email.me>, did >agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 20/06/2026 22:24, The True Melissa wrote:
Hansel and Gretel are not heroes. They are victims. Did I not mention
that? Seems I forgot to add it. Hansel and Gretel are the victims of
child abuse. Victimhood and child abuse does not belong in Doctor Who
and perverts like Chris Chibnall should never have been allowed to make
it all about themselves as abused children. That is why the Timeless
Child monster destroyed the entire franchise. Doctor Who is about
escapism not about trying to escape from the memory of child abuse and
the victim becoming the abuser.
Most fairy tale heroes start out as victims. If they're not born
wretched, they're cast down to wretchedness.
[re AGA's belief that teen girls read preschooler books]
Here's a list of books real 12/13-year-old girls actually enjoy:
They're all books about children. Boys don't like reading books about
children, especially ones younger than they are. They don't want to grow
up to be like children. They want to grow up to be like men.
All children want to grow up, and all children like to read about people >older than themselves. That's not specific to boys. It's a basic part of >children's and YA librarianship.
I did most of a degree in YA librarianship, BTW. That was back in the
90s, and at the time it was a truism that girls would read books about
boys but boys would not read books starring girls, so unisex books had
to have a male protagonist. Some counterexamples had already been
published -- a lot of boys loved My Side of the Mountain -- but the >discovery hadn't percolated through the industry yet. Turns out that
boys want books with some adventure, but they're perfectly happy to read >about a girl's adventures if the story is good. They probably always
were.
Boys at that age would be reading The Hobbit, actually I read it when I
was younger. The Lord of the Rings. Read that at 12/13 if I remember
correctly. Hamlet. Read it when I was 11 I think, or 12. Logan's Run.
Maybe not a good idea, but at least the kids in it were older than I was
at the time, being 13/14 (Jenny) and 17/19 (Logan) or something. The
Barsoom Series by Edgar Rice Burroughs. The Lensman Series by E E Smith.
The Three Musketeers. King Solomon's Mines. The Black Arrow: A Tale of
the Two Roses. The Hitchhiker?s Guide to the Galaxy.
Harry Potter is only for boys younger than 12, maybe no more than 8 or
9. Narnia is only for boys younger than 9. Most of your girls books
would never appeal to boys and those that did would only be suitable for
6 to 12 year-olds. Roald Dahl would be for 6 or 7 year olds.
That is not correct. Here's a YA reading list for boys, also from
Goodreads.
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/7728.Best_YA_to_Appeal_to_Boys
You'll note that it's pretty similar. The top three books are the same
as they are for girls.
You seem to be assuming that all boys read whatever you did. I read the >Barsoom books in middle school, but I don't assume everyone did. I liked >Dickens as a child and read David Copperfield when I was 10, but I know >that's unusual.
The demographic for Disney is 6 to 12 year-old girls.
2-6, according to most sources. Dr. Sarah Coyne did a huge longitudinal
Nope. That only applies to boys. For girls it extends to 12 year-olds.
Still no source, I see. I'll just send you back to the reference I
already cited, which clearly shows the opposite.
Disney actually separates their marketing specifically to avoid this.
Disney Princess is for the 2?6 crowd. By age 9?12, Disney switches them
to Disney Channel brands like High School Musical, not the princesses
line.
High School Musical a show that only appeals to 12 year old girls and
homosexual men. My point proven. Boys would never watch it beyond the
age of 2.
Yes, it's intended to appeal to 12-year-old girls. The princess movies
and videos are for a younger audience, and boys have other products
marketed to them.
This ties into your idea that men can truly grasp DW, but the only
120 years ago 98% of the audience for science fiction were men. Men and
only 2% of women would have been able to understand H G Wells or want to
read him. Most women today still don't understand a word he wrote
despite more women choosing to read him. Later science fiction writers
added elements such as romance in order to attract more female readers
If that's what those embarrassing love scenes are doing in the Grey
Lensman books, it had the opposite effect. I stopped reading because I >couldn't stop cringing.
but the general audience still remains between 65% and 80% male, and
almost 80% of the authors are also male.
possible reason a woman would watch is that she must "fancy" the Doctor. >>That is what I have been told by women themselves, women who would not
otherwise be interested in a science fiction show.
Multiple women told you that all women watch all TV only to sigh over
the male leads?
AGA, that's hard to believe, but if it's true, they were
overgeneralizing from themselves.
You've also heard from multiple women who say that's not why they watch.
Why do you take that less seriously?
That's just not true, and you've observed female fans of the show
discussing its symbolism, themes, arcs, and all the rest. How do you not >> > realize your assumptions are wrong?
You are probably from the 2% of women that are actually into science
fiction. This tallies perfectly with my assumptions.
An awful lot of women are from that 2%, which is exactly what leads to
large numbers of older girls figuring they must be unusual. I mentioned
that before.
As we continue in the world, we realize that very few women really match
the stereotype.
Little boys absolutely do tackle masculinity and what it means for them
(Martin & Ruble). Like the girls, they embrace it initially. Dr. Carol
Martin (cited elsewhere) also studied the "no sissy stuff" rule and
Wasn't she James T Kirk's love interest when he was at Star Fleet
Academy? Or was that Carol Marcus, or Carol Danvers?
Carol Danvers was the first Ms. Marvel. Carol Marcus is a familiar name.
I don't remember Kirk's love interest's name, but it might have been
Carol Marcus.
Carol Martin, on the other hand, is one of the foremost researchers in
this field.
found that boys at age 4-5 are hypervigilant about never seeming girly.
They often get very into superheroes or soldiers, as some girls do into
princesses.
That absolute rubbish and it's probably been made up. The only comics
boys between the ages of 4 and 5 are into are The Beano and The Dandy
and they have nothing to do with super heroes or soldiers.
If you don't like the results of research, you just call it "made up"? >Nobody said anything about comics.
People start reading Superhero comics at about the ago of 6 to 8.
That is not the only way to encounter superheroes. TV shows usually come >earlier.
Comic books were traditionally pitched to ages 8-12, though they've
expanded from that range.
I don't know what the hell you mean by macho phase.
Read the study I cited. It is something that preschool boys do. They
engage in hypermasculine behavior and are hypervigilant against anything >perceived as girly. In a few more years, they settle down into what we
think of as normal boy behavior -- they still don't want much to do with >things perceived as for girls, but they're less paranoid about declaring >things potentially girly.
Third Rock from the Sun did an amusing take on this once. The leader,
Dick, discovers masculinity and reacts like a toddler. He even changes
his name to Manny, fearing that "Dick" is too girly.
I just want to take a moment to admire "as proven by Lego." I don't
expect to encounter that phrase a second time.
Proven by Lego and by you. I could always get you to write something
involving characterisation and character development but that's not as
easy as asking maths questions.
LOL. Where, exactly, have I allegedly demonstrated an inability to >comprehend anything outside my own life?
I would ignore a writing assignment for the same reason I ignored the
math test: you're not my evaluator. I'll do something if I think it
sounds fun, but you have no power to give me assignments.
Actually, girls have a significant *advantage* in theory-of-mind tests.
Kids in general get it between 3 and 5, but girls consistently get it
earlier and more solidly (Walker)(Wellman et al) (Wellman is a
metanalysis, BTW).
More nonsense. These tests have nothing to do with aspiration or
understanding the differences between two different characters. The only
thing they proved is what I already stated. Girls brains are hardwired
from birth
Are you ever going to come up with any support for this?
There is a whole pile of research showing that girls' and boys' brains
both develop over time. This claim is just silly.
which gives them an advantage over boys when they are
younger.
You just admitted it wasn't nonsense. If the difference has to be
excused, it must exist in the first place.
Once boys get past the age of 6 they will have the advantage
because boys are able to learn more and change their interpretation of
the world to match their observations. This is why men outnumber women
in STEM by 20 to 1.
You're just asserting counterfacts again. It's still 3-to-1 in real
life.
I cited the NSF. If you want to say the ratio is more skewed, you'll
need a source.
You mention the Lego study as proof of girls being simpler, but the
I mentioned it as proof that women don't understand character and
characterisation. I know this to be true from MMORPGs I'm part of.
researchers who conducted it concluded the opposite. The boys were
No they didn't.
You've never read it, have you?
You may want to assert that their conclusions were incorrect, but it's
silly to say that they didn't conclude what they concluded.
engaged in "scripted mimicry" (repeating a movie plot they'd seen),
while the girls were performing "recontextualization" (mapping a
character onto a social/economic system).
More bollocks. The boys played with the dolls the way the characters
they represented would behave. That's what scripted mimicry means.
I'm afraid not. It means the boys are following a script, acting out the >same story again and again. That's the "scripted" part.
My son did that when he was that age. At first I found it strange, since
I'd never encountered that as a girl. Eventually, of course, I realized
that he was a normal boy.
None of us have clear memories of that age, so we have to rely on >observation and study.
Now why are you randomly picking on Cinderella? She's not especiallyWhat does she think is going to happen at the ball? Who does she want to
heroic, but she's not a passive recipient either. Her goal isn't to get
married; it's to have a big night out by going to the ball. An important >>
dance with? She's out to find a husband, and the best husband of all
would be the prince.
LOL. Yes, the *only* possible reason to want a glamorous night away from
a life of drudgery is "she's out to find a husband."
part of her story is that she tries to get herself there -- sews a new
dress, meets her stepmother's demands -- and is foiled by circumstances
she can't control. Only then does her mother's spirit or the fairy
godmother appear to help her. It's not just given to her.
It is just given to her. Does she conjure up the fairy godmother by
going through some ritual or completing a quest?
Yes. She exhausts her own efforts. After she has exhausted her own
efforts, the helper appears.
A character who has success handed to her is not a Cinderella figure. A >Cinderella always tries her hardest, reaches the brink of despair, then
gets help from someone else.
There are a fair number of fairy tales where characters have success
handed to them, but most of the protagonists are male. There's a
subgenre where the protagonist must pass a number of lethal challenges
to claim the princess' hand and the throne, but either the princess or
the queen helps him, so he knows exactly what to do and succeeds easily. >Even then, though, it's usually clear that the protagonist was willing
to do and die even before the help was offered, so there is courage to >admire and reward.
What does the Cinderella story have to do with a discussion of heroism?
I already explained it to you earlier. Cinderella is not a hero.
This is the biggest problem with trying to have a conversation with you.
In your mind, you're "explaining." Since you think you're above me, when
I respond with counterpoints, you think I "didn't understand."
I never said Cinderella was a hero. *You* demanded to know if I would
say that, and instead I observed that she's not especially heroic. Now, >you're acting as if I said she was heroic so that you can justify
arguing that she isn't, but you're arguing with thin air. I never said
it.
You keep changing the age. Sometimes it's three, sometimes thirteen, now >> > it's twelve, and once girls were incapable of learning after birth.
Maybe you should pick one.
I've not changed any ages. I've specified what they can and can't
understand at different ages. That is called development. You know like
character development which the Lego study shows that girls don't
understand.
So girls are hardwired from birth, but also can learn up to age
thirteen, or maybe it's three now, and I saw six in there somewhere >yesterday. You're constantly changing the age at which women's
development is allegedly arrested. In fact, men and women develop at
about the same rate, with girls having a slight early advantage and a
few slight overall differences between the sexes.
The *really* hilarious part about all this is that I'm a very long way
from a feminist. Most people would say I'm fairly conservative. I'm >perfectly happy to accept that the two different sexes are different. I >still know that doesn't mean one sex is mentally crippled.
The majority of women are very bad writers, because they don't
understand characterisation or character development and can't project
their mind into a character who is different to their own personality.
This has been known for centuries and millennia. You just have to read
the literature they come up with which proves I'm right. 78% of science
fiction writers are men. There's a very good reason for that.
Meanwhile, all the research indicates that women are *better* at seeing >others' viewpoints.
It's interesting that the citations are the only thing you snipped.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
Recall the validity of points of view.
Verily, in article <1118itj$249s$7@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
Recall the validity of points of view.
Indeed. It helps to have some backing for the view, though.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
In article <111655e$3so2$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 20/06/2026 2:30 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/06/2026 11:51, Daniel70 wrote:
On 19/06/2026 3:00 am, The True Doctor wrote:
Sure there was, Aggy, I mean YOU watched it so I didn't have towhose first incarnation was William Hartnell,... until recently!
NEVER! There are no incarnations before Hartnell.
.... but I did, anyway.
Yes AGA, is Dannyboy that thumb like a sheep?
On 21/06/2026 9:27 am, The Doctor wrote:--
In article <111655e$3so2$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel70
<daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 20/06/2026 2:30 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/06/2026 11:51, Daniel70 wrote:
On 19/06/2026 3:00 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Sure there was, Aggy, I mean YOU watched it so I didn't have towhose first incarnation was William Hartnell,... until recently!
NEVER! There are no incarnations before Hartnell.
.... but I did, anyway.
Yes AGA, is Dannyboy that thumb like a sheep?
Sorry!! I didn't know sheep had thumbs, Asswipe(Word used by paedophiles
to indicate their joy of child sexual molestation coverup). Thanks for that. >--
Daniel70
Verily, in article <1117pbr$hs15$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 20/06/2026 22:24, The True Melissa wrote:
Hansel and Gretel are not heroes. They are victims. Did I not mention
that? Seems I forgot to add it. Hansel and Gretel are the victims of
child abuse. Victimhood and child abuse does not belong in Doctor Who
and perverts like Chris Chibnall should never have been allowed to make
it all about themselves as abused children. That is why the Timeless
Child monster destroyed the entire franchise. Doctor Who is about
escapism not about trying to escape from the memory of child abuse and
the victim becoming the abuser.
Most fairy tale heroes start out as victims. If they're not born
wretched, they're cast down to wretchedness.
Verily, in article <1117pbr$hs15$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:<snip>
On 20/06/2026 22:24, The True Melissa wrote:
[re AGA's belief that teen girls read preschooler books]
Here's a list of books real 12/13-year-old girls actually enjoy:
They're all books about children. Boys don't like reading books about
children, especially ones younger than they are. They don't want to grow
up to be like children. They want to grow up to be like men.
All children want to grow up, and all children like to read about people older than themselves. That's not specific to boys. It's a basic part of children's and YA librarianship.
On 2026-06-21 10:58:29 +0000, The True Melissa said:
Verily, in article <1117pbr$hs15$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 20/06/2026 22:24, The True Melissa wrote:
Hansel and Gretel are not heroes. They are victims. Did I not mention
that? Seems I forgot to add it. Hansel and Gretel are the victims of
child abuse. Victimhood and child abuse does not belong in Doctor Who
and perverts like Chris Chibnall should never have been allowed to make
it all about themselves as abused children. That is why the Timeless
Child monster destroyed the entire franchise. Doctor Who is about
escapism not about trying to escape from the memory of child abuse and
the victim becoming the abuser.
Most fairy tale heroes start out as victims. If they're not born
wretched, they're cast down to wretchedness.
Many fairy tale heroes were not originally heroes at all. The "fairy
tales" were more like adult horror stories with the "heroes" dying.
Over many decades / centuries the stories have been re-worded to become >kids' fairy tales with moralistic teachings. :-)
On 2026-06-21 10:58:29 +0000, The True Melissa said:
Verily, in article <1117pbr$hs15$1@dont-email.me>, did<snip>
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 20/06/2026 22:24, The True Melissa wrote:
[re AGA's belief that teen girls read preschooler books]
Here's a list of books real 12/13-year-old girls actually enjoy:
They're all books about children. Boys don't like reading books about
children, especially ones younger than they are. They don't want to grow >>> up to be like children. They want to grow up to be like men.
All children want to grow up, and all children like to read about people
older than themselves. That's not specific to boys. It's a basic part of
children's and YA librarianship.
If you believe the morons in charge, then people (not only kids) want
to read about people "just like them "in books and see people "just
like them" in TV shows and movies - supposedly it makes them feel
"normal" and that they "exist", or some such psychobable nonsense.
Hence part of the reason for all the Politically Correct / Equality >silliness is so that, for example, someone in a wheelchair can see
another person in a wheelchair in a movie, or a black person can see a
black person in a TV show (as if there haven't been black people
on-screen for decades already). :-\
Verily, in article <1117pbr$hs15$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 20/06/2026 22:24, The True Melissa wrote:
Hansel and Gretel are not heroes. They are victims. Did I not mention
that? Seems I forgot to add it. Hansel and Gretel are the victims of
child abuse. Victimhood and child abuse does not belong in Doctor Who
and perverts like Chris Chibnall should never have been allowed to make
it all about themselves as abused children. That is why the Timeless
Child monster destroyed the entire franchise. Doctor Who is about
escapism not about trying to escape from the memory of child abuse and
the victim becoming the abuser.
Most fairy tale heroes start out as victims. If they're not born
wretched, they're cast down to wretchedness.
[re AGA's belief that teen girls read preschooler books]
Here's a list of books real 12/13-year-old girls actually enjoy:
They're all books about children. Boys don't like reading books about
children, especially ones younger than they are. They don't want to grow
up to be like children. They want to grow up to be like men.
All children want to grow up, and all children like to read about people older than themselves. That's not specific to boys. It's a basic part of children's and YA librarianship.
I did most of a degree in YA librarianship, BTW. That was back in the
90s, and at the time it was a truism that girls would read books about
boys but boys would not read books starring girls, so unisex books had
to have a male protagonist. Some counterexamples had already been
published -- a lot of boys loved My Side of the Mountain -- but the
discovery hadn't percolated through the industry yet. Turns out that
boys want books with some adventure, but they're perfectly happy to read about a girl's adventures if the story is good. They probably always
were.
Boys at that age would be reading The Hobbit, actually I read it when I
was younger. The Lord of the Rings. Read that at 12/13 if I remember
correctly. Hamlet. Read it when I was 11 I think, or 12. Logan's Run.
Maybe not a good idea, but at least the kids in it were older than I was
at the time, being 13/14 (Jenny) and 17/19 (Logan) or something. The
Barsoom Series by Edgar Rice Burroughs. The Lensman Series by E E Smith.
The Three Musketeers. King Solomon's Mines. The Black Arrow: A Tale of
the Two Roses. The Hitchhiker?s Guide to the Galaxy.
Harry Potter is only for boys younger than 12, maybe no more than 8 or
9. Narnia is only for boys younger than 9. Most of your girls books
would never appeal to boys and those that did would only be suitable for
6 to 12 year-olds. Roald Dahl would be for 6 or 7 year olds.
That is not correct. Here's a YA reading list for boys, also from
Goodreads.
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/7728.Best_YA_to_Appeal_to_Boys
You'll note that it's pretty similar. The top three books are the same
as they are for girls.
You seem to be assuming that all boys read whatever you did. I read the Barsoom books in middle school, but I don't assume everyone did. I liked Dickens as a child and read David Copperfield when I was 10, but I know that's unusual.
The demographic for Disney is 6 to 12 year-old girls.
2-6, according to most sources. Dr. Sarah Coyne did a huge longitudinal
Nope. That only applies to boys. For girls it extends to 12 year-olds.
Still no source, I see. I'll just send you back to the reference I
already cited, which clearly shows the opposite.
Disney actually separates their marketing specifically to avoid this.
Disney Princess is for the 2?6 crowd. By age 9?12, Disney switches them
to Disney Channel brands like High School Musical, not the princesses
line.
High School Musical a show that only appeals to 12 year old girls and
homosexual men. My point proven. Boys would never watch it beyond the
age of 2.
Yes, it's intended to appeal to 12-year-old girls. The princess movies
and videos are for a younger audience, and boys have other products
marketed to them.
This ties into your idea that men can truly grasp DW, but the only
120 years ago 98% of the audience for science fiction were men. Men and
only 2% of women would have been able to understand H G Wells or want to
read him. Most women today still don't understand a word he wrote
despite more women choosing to read him. Later science fiction writers
added elements such as romance in order to attract more female readers
If that's what those embarrassing love scenes are doing in the Grey
Lensman books, it had the opposite effect. I stopped reading because I couldn't stop cringing.
but the general audience still remains between 65% and 80% male, and
almost 80% of the authors are also male.
possible reason a woman would watch is that she must "fancy" the Doctor.
That is what I have been told by women themselves, women who would not
otherwise be interested in a science fiction show.
Multiple women told you that all women watch all TV only to sigh over
the male leads?
AGA, that's hard to believe, but if it's true, they were
overgeneralizing from themselves.
You've also heard from multiple women who say that's not why they watch.
Why do you take that less seriously?
That's just not true, and you've observed female fans of the show
discussing its symbolism, themes, arcs, and all the rest. How do you not >>> realize your assumptions are wrong?
You are probably from the 2% of women that are actually into science
fiction. This tallies perfectly with my assumptions.
An awful lot of women are from that 2%, which is exactly what leads to
large numbers of older girls figuring they must be unusual. I mentioned
that before.
As we continue in the world, we realize that very few women really match
the stereotype.
Little boys absolutely do tackle masculinity and what it means for them
(Martin & Ruble). Like the girls, they embrace it initially. Dr. Carol
Martin (cited elsewhere) also studied the "no sissy stuff" rule and
Wasn't she James T Kirk's love interest when he was at Star Fleet
Academy? Or was that Carol Marcus, or Carol Danvers?
Carol Danvers was the first Ms. Marvel. Carol Marcus is a familiar name.
I don't remember Kirk's love interest's name, but it might have been
Carol Marcus.
Carol Martin, on the other hand, is one of the foremost researchers in
this field.
found that boys at age 4-5 are hypervigilant about never seeming girly.
They often get very into superheroes or soldiers, as some girls do into
princesses.
That absolute rubbish and it's probably been made up. The only comics
boys between the ages of 4 and 5 are into are The Beano and The Dandy
and they have nothing to do with super heroes or soldiers.
If you don't like the results of research, you just call it "made up"?
Nobody said anything about comics.
People start reading Superhero comics at about the ago of 6 to 8.
That is not the only way to encounter superheroes. TV shows usually come earlier.
Comic books were traditionally pitched to ages 8-12, though they've
expanded from that range.
I don't know what the hell you mean by macho phase.
Read the study I cited. It is something that preschool boys do. They
engage in hypermasculine behavior and are hypervigilant against anything perceived as girly. In a few more years, they settle down into what we
think of as normal boy behavior -- they still don't want much to do with things perceived as for girls, but they're less paranoid about declaring things potentially girly.
Third Rock from the Sun did an amusing take on this once. The leader,
Dick, discovers masculinity and reacts like a toddler. He even changes
his name to Manny, fearing that "Dick" is too girly.
I just want to take a moment to admire "as proven by Lego." I don't
expect to encounter that phrase a second time.
Proven by Lego and by you. I could always get you to write something
involving characterisation and character development but that's not as
easy as asking maths questions.
LOL. Where, exactly, have I allegedly demonstrated an inability to
comprehend anything outside my own life?
I would ignore a writing assignment for the same reason I ignored the
math test: you're not my evaluator. I'll do something if I think it
sounds fun, but you have no power to give me assignments.
Actually, girls have a significant *advantage* in theory-of-mind tests.
Kids in general get it between 3 and 5, but girls consistently get it
earlier and more solidly (Walker)(Wellman et al) (Wellman is a
metanalysis, BTW).
More nonsense. These tests have nothing to do with aspiration or
understanding the differences between two different characters. The only
thing they proved is what I already stated. Girls brains are hardwired
from birth
Are you ever going to come up with any support for this?
There is a whole pile of research showing that girls' and boys' brains
both develop over time. This claim is just silly.
which gives them an advantage over boys when they are
younger.
You just admitted it wasn't nonsense. If the difference has to be
excused, it must exist in the first place.
Once boys get past the age of 6 they will have the advantage
because boys are able to learn more and change their interpretation of
the world to match their observations. This is why men outnumber women
in STEM by 20 to 1.
You're just asserting counterfacts again. It's still 3-to-1 in real
life.
I cited the NSF. If you want to say the ratio is more skewed, you'll
need a source.
You mention the Lego study as proof of girls being simpler, but the
I mentioned it as proof that women don't understand character and
characterisation. I know this to be true from MMORPGs I'm part of.
researchers who conducted it concluded the opposite. The boys were
No they didn't.
You've never read it, have you?
You may want to assert that their conclusions were incorrect, but it's
silly to say that they didn't conclude what they concluded.
engaged in "scripted mimicry" (repeating a movie plot they'd seen),
while the girls were performing "recontextualization" (mapping a
character onto a social/economic system).
More bollocks. The boys played with the dolls the way the characters
they represented would behave. That's what scripted mimicry means.
I'm afraid not. It means the boys are following a script, acting out the
same story again and again. That's the "scripted" part.
My son did that when he was that age. At first I found it strange, since
I'd never encountered that as a girl. Eventually, of course, I realized
that he was a normal boy.
None of us have clear memories of that age, so we have to rely on
observation and study.
Now why are you randomly picking on Cinderella? She's not especially
heroic, but she's not a passive recipient either. Her goal isn't to get
married; it's to have a big night out by going to the ball. An important
What does she think is going to happen at the ball? Who does she want to
dance with? She's out to find a husband, and the best husband of all
would be the prince.
LOL. Yes, the *only* possible reason to want a glamorous night away from
a life of drudgery is "she's out to find a husband."
part of her story is that she tries to get herself there -- sews a new
dress, meets her stepmother's demands -- and is foiled by circumstances
she can't control. Only then does her mother's spirit or the fairy
godmother appear to help her. It's not just given to her.
It is just given to her. Does she conjure up the fairy godmother by
going through some ritual or completing a quest?
Yes. She exhausts her own efforts. After she has exhausted her own
efforts, the helper appears.
A character who has success handed to her is not a Cinderella figure. A Cinderella always tries her hardest, reaches the brink of despair, then
gets help from someone else.
There are a fair number of fairy tales where characters have success
handed to them, but most of the protagonists are male. There's a
subgenre where the protagonist must pass a number of lethal challenges
to claim the princess' hand and the throne, but either the princess or
the queen helps him, so he knows exactly what to do and succeeds easily.
Even then, though, it's usually clear that the protagonist was willing
to do and die even before the help was offered, so there is courage to
admire and reward.
What does the Cinderella story have to do with a discussion of heroism?
I already explained it to you earlier. Cinderella is not a hero.
This is the biggest problem with trying to have a conversation with you.
In your mind, you're "explaining." Since you think you're above me, when
I respond with counterpoints, you think I "didn't understand."
I never said Cinderella was a hero. *You* demanded to know if I would
say that, and instead I observed that she's not especially heroic. Now, you're acting as if I said she was heroic so that you can justify
arguing that she isn't, but you're arguing with thin air. I never said
it.
You keep changing the age. Sometimes it's three, sometimes thirteen, now >>> it's twelve, and once girls were incapable of learning after birth.
Maybe you should pick one.
I've not changed any ages. I've specified what they can and can't
understand at different ages. That is called development. You know like
character development which the Lego study shows that girls don't
understand.
So girls are hardwired from birth, but also can learn up to age
thirteen, or maybe it's three now, and I saw six in there somewhere yesterday. You're constantly changing the age at which women's
development is allegedly arrested. In fact, men and women develop at
about the same rate, with girls having a slight early advantage and a
few slight overall differences between the sexes.
The *really* hilarious part about all this is that I'm a very long way
from a feminist. Most people would say I'm fairly conservative. I'm
perfectly happy to accept that the two different sexes are different. I
still know that doesn't mean one sex is mentally crippled.
The majority of women are very bad writers, because they don't
understand characterisation or character development and can't project
their mind into a character who is different to their own personality.
This has been known for centuries and millennia. You just have to read
the literature they come up with which proves I'm right. 78% of science
fiction writers are men. There's a very good reason for that.
Meanwhile, all the research indicates that women are *better* at seeing others' viewpoints.
It's interesting that the citations are the only thing you snipped.
On 2026-06-21 10:58:29 +0000, The True Melissa said:
Verily, in article <1117pbr$hs15$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:Many fairy tale heroes were not originally heroes at all. The "fairy
On 20/06/2026 22:24, The True Melissa wrote:
tales" were more like adult horror stories with the "heroes" dying.
Over many decades / centuries the stories have been re-worded to become kids' fairy tales with moralistic teachings. :-)
If you believe the morons in charge, then people (not only kids) want
to read about people "just like them "in books and see people "just
like them" in TV shows and movies - supposedly it makes them feel
"normal" and that they "exist", or some such psychobable nonsense.
Hence part of the reason for all the Politically Correct / Equality silliness is so that, for example, someone in a wheelchair can see
another person in a wheelchair in a movie, or a black person can see a
black person in a TV show (as if there haven't been black people
on-screen for decades already). :-\
On 21/06/2026 11:58, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <1117pbr$hs15$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 20/06/2026 22:24, The True Melissa wrote:
Hansel and Gretel are not heroes. They are victims. Did I not mention
that? Seems I forgot to add it. Hansel and Gretel are the victims of
child abuse. Victimhood and child abuse does not belong in Doctor Who
and perverts like Chris Chibnall should never have been allowed to make
it all about themselves as abused children. That is why the Timeless
Child monster destroyed the entire franchise. Doctor Who is about
escapism not about trying to escape from the memory of child abuse and
the victim becoming the abuser.
Most fairy tale heroes start out as victims. If they're not born
wretched, they're cast down to wretchedness.
[re AGA's belief that teen girls read preschooler books]
Here's a list of books real 12/13-year-old girls actually enjoy:
They're all books about children. Boys don't like reading books about
children, especially ones younger than they are. They don't want to grow >> up to be like children. They want to grow up to be like men.
All children want to grow up, and all children like to read about people older than themselves. That's not specific to boys. It's a basic part of children's and YA librarianship.
I did most of a degree in YA librarianship, BTW. That was back in the
90s, and at the time it was a truism that girls would read books about
boys but boys would not read books starring girls, so unisex books had
And it is still a truism today and has always been a truism.
to have a male protagonist. Some counterexamples had already been
published -- a lot of boys loved My Side of the Mountain -- but the
So crap was published in the 90s too.
discovery hadn't percolated through the industry yet. Turns out that
boys want books with some adventure, but they're perfectly happy to read about a girl's adventures if the story is good. They probably always
were.
That's a false narrative. Boys will only read about women written from a male perspective and they still prefer to read about men so those books better contain strong male protagonists or they better be humorous like Pride and Prejudice.
Boys at that age would be reading The Hobbit, actually I read it when I
was younger. The Lord of the Rings. Read that at 12/13 if I remember
correctly. Hamlet. Read it when I was 11 I think, or 12. Logan's Run.
Maybe not a good idea, but at least the kids in it were older than I was >> at the time, being 13/14 (Jenny) and 17/19 (Logan) or something. The
Barsoom Series by Edgar Rice Burroughs. The Lensman Series by E E Smith. >> The Three Musketeers. King Solomon's Mines. The Black Arrow: A Tale of
the Two Roses. The Hitchhiker?s Guide to the Galaxy.
Harry Potter is only for boys younger than 12, maybe no more than 8 or
9. Narnia is only for boys younger than 9. Most of your girls books
would never appeal to boys and those that did would only be suitable for >> 6 to 12 year-olds. Roald Dahl would be for 6 or 7 year olds.
That is not correct. Here's a YA reading list for boys, also from Goodreads.
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/7728.Best_YA_to_Appeal_to_Boys
You'll note that it's pretty similar. The top three books are the same
as they are for girls.
I'll note that it's a list of books for 8 YEAR OLD boys, not young
adults. Young adults don't read about 10 year old children learning to
do magic or obtaining powers from the gods.
No it doesn't. It proves my point. The books that boys grow out of at8
years old girls will grow out of at 12. Stop calling these books Young Adult, they're not and never have been. The Odyssey is for actual young adults, though I read it when I was 11 or 12 or something and I can
still read it as an adult along with the Iliad.
Verily, in article <1119q69$14gkg$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
On 2026-06-21 10:58:29 +0000, The True Melissa said:
Verily, in article <1117pbr$hs15$1@dont-email.me>, didMany fairy tale heroes were not originally heroes at all. The "fairy
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 20/06/2026 22:24, The True Melissa wrote:
tales" were more like adult horror stories with the "heroes" dying.
Over many decades / centuries the stories have been re-worded to become
kids' fairy tales with moralistic teachings. :-)
"The Juniper Tree" is the most OTT tragic one I've come across.
https://www.worldoftales.com/fairy_tales/Brothers_Grimm/THE%20JUNIPER- >TREE.html#gsc.tab=0
They can come from other places, too. "East of the Sun, West of the
Moon" is basically the story of Cupid and Psyche, with the divine Greek >framework removed.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
Verily, in article <1119qg0$14jcm$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
If you believe the morons in charge, then people (not only kids) want
to read about people "just like them "in books and see people "just
like them" in TV shows and movies - supposedly it makes them feel
"normal" and that they "exist", or some such psychobable nonsense.
Hence part of the reason for all the Politically Correct / Equality
silliness is so that, for example, someone in a wheelchair can see
another person in a wheelchair in a movie, or a black person can see a
black person in a TV show (as if there haven't been black people
on-screen for decades already). :-\
One early line heard often was a desire to see "people who look like
me." Writers, trying to give them what they wanted, inserted darker >characters and were then told that they'd done it all wrong. The
characters weren't supposed to just *look* like them.
This was one of the contributing factors to Racefail '09, as it was
known, though it continued long enough that Racefail '10 also works as a >search term. Allegedly, black people were being systematically kept out
of publishing SF and fantasy. Some genuinely good things came out of
this discussion (search "I Never Dreamed of Dragons" to read a nice
essay on the topic).
Unfortunately, most discussion of representation are more about
pandering. In Cartman's words, "Put a chick in it. Make her gay and
lame."
I think the tide has turned, though. Stranger Things tried to save
itself by having the protagonist come out as gay, and a lot of people
just rolled their eyes and pointed out that that didn't make any sense.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
Verily, in article <111a3c1$16lmo$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 21/06/2026 11:58, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <1117pbr$hs15$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 20/06/2026 22:24, The True Melissa wrote:
Hansel and Gretel are not heroes. They are victims. Did I not mention
that? Seems I forgot to add it. Hansel and Gretel are the victims of
child abuse. Victimhood and child abuse does not belong in Doctor Who
and perverts like Chris Chibnall should never have been allowed to make >>>> it all about themselves as abused children. That is why the Timeless
Child monster destroyed the entire franchise. Doctor Who is about
escapism not about trying to escape from the memory of child abuse and >>>> the victim becoming the abuser.
Most fairy tale heroes start out as victims. If they're not born
wretched, they're cast down to wretchedness.
[re AGA's belief that teen girls read preschooler books]
Here's a list of books real 12/13-year-old girls actually enjoy:
They're all books about children. Boys don't like reading books about
children, especially ones younger than they are. They don't want to grow >>>> up to be like children. They want to grow up to be like men.
All children want to grow up, and all children like to read about people >>> older than themselves. That's not specific to boys. It's a basic part of >>> children's and YA librarianship.
I did most of a degree in YA librarianship, BTW. That was back in the
90s, and at the time it was a truism that girls would read books about
boys but boys would not read books starring girls, so unisex books had
And it is still a truism today and has always been a truism.
to have a male protagonist. Some counterexamples had already been
published -- a lot of boys loved My Side of the Mountain -- but the
So crap was published in the 90s too.
discovery hadn't percolated through the industry yet. Turns out that
boys want books with some adventure, but they're perfectly happy to read >>> about a girl's adventures if the story is good. They probably always
were.
That's a false narrative. Boys will only read about women written from a
male perspective and they still prefer to read about men so those books
better contain strong male protagonists or they better be humorous like
Pride and Prejudice.
Boys at that age would be reading The Hobbit, actually I read it when I >>>> was younger. The Lord of the Rings. Read that at 12/13 if I remember
correctly. Hamlet. Read it when I was 11 I think, or 12. Logan's Run.
Maybe not a good idea, but at least the kids in it were older than I was >>>> at the time, being 13/14 (Jenny) and 17/19 (Logan) or something. The
Barsoom Series by Edgar Rice Burroughs. The Lensman Series by E E Smith. >>>> The Three Musketeers. King Solomon's Mines. The Black Arrow: A Tale of >>>> the Two Roses. The Hitchhiker?s Guide to the Galaxy.
Harry Potter is only for boys younger than 12, maybe no more than 8 or >>>> 9. Narnia is only for boys younger than 9. Most of your girls books
would never appeal to boys and those that did would only be suitable for >>>> 6 to 12 year-olds. Roald Dahl would be for 6 or 7 year olds.
That is not correct. Here's a YA reading list for boys, also from
Goodreads.
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/7728.Best_YA_to_Appeal_to_Boys
You'll note that it's pretty similar. The top three books are the same
as they are for girls.
I'll note that it's a list of books for 8 YEAR OLD boys, not young
adults. Young adults don't read about 10 year old children learning to
do magic or obtaining powers from the gods.
You're simply ignoring the facts presented. It's clearly labeled as a
list of *YA* preferences.
No it doesn't. It proves my point. The books that boys grow out of at8
years old girls will grow out of at 12. Stop calling these books Young
Adult, they're not and never have been. The Odyssey is for actual young
adults, though I read it when I was 11 or 12 or something and I can
still read it as an adult along with the Iliad.
There you go with projecting yourself everywhere again.
Since you're ignoring facts and research, there's not much point toLOL... What you presented are not facts. There is no research. It's pure bullshit that has been completely made up and doesn't reflect actual
this. Let me know if you're ever willing.
In article <MPG.44a2d8fafbae866198a0c6@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <1119q69$14gkg$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
On 2026-06-21 10:58:29 +0000, The True Melissa said:
Verily, in article <1117pbr$hs15$1@dont-email.me>, didMany fairy tale heroes were not originally heroes at all. The "fairy
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 20/06/2026 22:24, The True Melissa wrote:
tales" were more like adult horror stories with the "heroes" dying.
Over many decades / centuries the stories have been re-worded to become
kids' fairy tales with moralistic teachings. :-)
"The Juniper Tree" is the most OTT tragic one I've come across.
https://www.worldoftales.com/fairy_tales/Brothers_Grimm/THE%20JUNIPER-
TREE.html#gsc.tab=0
They can come from other places, too. "East of the Sun, West of the
Moon" is basically the story of Cupid and Psyche, with the divine Greek
framework removed.
MUst read.
I was a boy, and I had cats. That makes me an expert on
both and out-qualifies any PhD.
The True Doctor wrote:
I was a boy, and I had cats. That makes me an expert onHaving cats make you an expert and out-qualifies any PhD
both and out-qualifies any PhD.
has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read
here!
I hope you only threw that in for laughs or else John
McEnroe might have something to say to you!
The True Doctor wrote:
I was a boy, and I had cats. That makes me an expert on
both and out-qualifies any PhD.
Having cats make you an expert and out-qualifies any PhD
has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read
here!
I hope you only threw that in for laughs or else John
McEnroe might have something to say to you!
Verily, in article <xn0prbox03scuh0000@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The True Doctor wrote:
Having cats make you an expert and out-qualifies any PhD
I was a boy, and I had cats. That makes me an expert on
both and out-qualifies any PhD.
has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read
here!
I hope you only threw that in for laughs or else John
McEnroe might have something to say to you!
I don't get the John McEnroe reference.
On 22/06/2026 16:00, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0prbox03scuh0000@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The True Doctor wrote:
Having cats make you an expert and out-qualifies any PhD
I was a boy, and I had cats. That makes me an expert on
both and out-qualifies any PhD.
has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read
here!
I hope you only threw that in for laughs or else John
McEnroe might have something to say to you!
I don't get the John McEnroe reference.
You can't be serious... You can not be serious. I dement to see the
referee. The ball was on the line...
Verily, in article <111c70u$1qaef$3@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 22/06/2026 16:00, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0prbox03scuh0000@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The True Doctor wrote:
Having cats make you an expert and out-qualifies any PhD
I was a boy, and I had cats. That makes me an expert on
both and out-qualifies any PhD.
has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read
here!
I hope you only threw that in for laughs or else John
McEnroe might have something to say to you!
I don't get the John McEnroe reference.
You can't be serious... You can not be serious. I dement to see the
referee. The ball was on the line...
What does that have to do with cat ownership allegedly conveying a
doctorate?
On 22/06/2026 9:39 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <MPG.44a2d8fafbae866198a0c6@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <1119q69$14gkg$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
On 2026-06-21 10:58:29 +0000, The True Melissa said:
Verily, in article <1117pbr$hs15$1@dont-email.me>, didMany fairy tale heroes were not originally heroes at all. The "fairy
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 20/06/2026 22:24, The True Melissa wrote:
tales" were more like adult horror stories with the "heroes" dying.
Over many decades / centuries the stories have been re-worded to become >>>> kids' fairy tales with moralistic teachings. :-)
"The Juniper Tree" is the most OTT tragic one I've come across.
https://www.worldoftales.com/fairy_tales/Brothers_Grimm/THE%20JUNIPER-
TREE.html#gsc.tab=0
They can come from other places, too. "East of the Sun, West of the
Moon" is basically the story of Cupid and Psyche, with the divine Greek
framework removed.
MUst read.
Sure you will!!
----
Daniel70
The True Doctor wrote:
I was a boy, and I had cats. That makes me an expert on
both and out-qualifies any PhD.
Having cats make you an expert and out-qualifies any PhD
has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read
here!
I hope you only threw that in for laughs or else John
McEnroe might have something to say to you!
Verily, in article <xn0prbox03scuh0000@post.eweka.nl>, did >blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The True Doctor wrote:
Having cats make you an expert and out-qualifies any PhD
I was a boy, and I had cats. That makes me an expert on
both and out-qualifies any PhD.
has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read
here!
I hope you only threw that in for laughs or else John
McEnroe might have something to say to you!
I don't get the John McEnroe reference.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
On 22/06/2026 15:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
I was a boy, and I had cats. That makes me an expert on
both and out-qualifies any PhD.
Having cats make you an expert and out-qualifies any PhD
has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read
here!
I hope you only threw that in for laughs or else John
McEnroe might have something to say to you!
9 years experience is equivalent to a PhD. I was a boy for longer and I
have had experience with cats for longer still. I outqualify everyone
from academia and I know bulls*
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 22/06/2026 16:00, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0prbox03scuh0000@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The True Doctor wrote:
Having cats make you an expert and out-qualifies any PhD
I was a boy, and I had cats. That makes me an expert on
both and out-qualifies any PhD.
has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read
here!
I hope you only threw that in for laughs or else John
McEnroe might have something to say to you!
I don't get the John McEnroe reference.
You can't be serious... You can not be serious. I dement to see the
referee. The ball was on the line...
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 22/06/2026 21:55, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <111c70u$1qaef$3@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 22/06/2026 16:00, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0prbox03scuh0000@post.eweka.nl>,
did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The True Doctor wrote:
I was a boy, and I had cats. That makes me an expert
on both and out-qualifies any PhD.
Having cats make you an expert and out-qualifies any
PhD has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever
read here!
I hope you only threw that in for laughs or else John
McEnroe might have something to say to you!
I don't get the John McEnroe reference.
You can't be serious... You can not be serious. I dement
to see the referee. The ball was on the line...
What does that have to do with cat ownership allegedly
conveying a doctorate?
You don't remember the 1979 Wimbledon championships? I will
let Blueshirt explain it to you.
On 22/06/2026 15:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
I was a boy, and I had cats. That makes me an expert on
both and out-qualifies any PhD.
Having cats make you an expert and out-qualifies any PhD
has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read
here!
I hope you only threw that in for laughs or else John
McEnroe might have something to say to you!
9 years experience is equivalent to a PhD. I was a boy for
longer and I have had experience with cats for longer still.
On 22/06/2026 16:00, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0prbox03scuh0000@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The True Doctor wrote:
Having cats make you an expert and out-qualifies any PhD
I was a boy, and I had cats. That makes me an expert on
both and out-qualifies any PhD.
has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read
here!
I hope you only threw that in for laughs or else John
McEnroe might have something to say to you!
I don't get the John McEnroe reference.
You can't be serious... You can not be serious. *I dement* to see the referee. The ball was on the line...
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/06/2026 21:55, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <111c70u$1qaef$3@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 22/06/2026 16:00, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0prbox03scuh0000@post.eweka.nl>,
did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The True Doctor wrote:
Having cats make you an expert and out-qualifies any
I was a boy, and I had cats. That makes me an expert
on both and out-qualifies any PhD.
PhD has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever
read here!
I hope you only threw that in for laughs or else John
McEnroe might have something to say to you!
I don't get the John McEnroe reference.
You can't be serious... You can not be serious. I dement
to see the referee. The ball was on the line...
What does that have to do with cat ownership allegedly
conveying a doctorate?
You don't remember the 1979 Wimbledon championships? I will
let Blueshirt explain it to you.
Nah, the slow people can just ponder the meaning of life
instead...
This is Usenet, it's all irrelevant at the end of the day
anyway... bubblegum for the bored.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/06/2026 15:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
I was a boy, and I had cats. That makes me an expert on
both and out-qualifies any PhD.
Having cats make you an expert and out-qualifies any PhD
has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read
here!
I hope you only threw that in for laughs or else John
McEnroe might have something to say to you!
9 years experience is equivalent to a PhD. I was a boy for
longer and I have had experience with cats for longer still.
Well I was a boy for a good few years too. So I'm now going
to throw my PhD equivalent life qualifications around and mock
the stupid here.
Oh hang on, some of them were boys for as long as I was! That
means they are also experienced... Damn! Now I've nobody to
demean. We are all equal.
Or are some more equal than others? !!!
;-)
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/06/2026 15:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
I was a boy, and I had cats. That makes me an expert on
both and out-qualifies any PhD.
Having cats make you an expert and out-qualifies any PhD
has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read
here!
I hope you only threw that in for laughs or else John
McEnroe might have something to say to you!
9 years experience is equivalent to a PhD. I was a boy for
longer and I have had experience with cats for longer still.
Well I was a boy for a good few years too. So I'm now going
to throw my PhD equivalent life qualifications around and mock
the stupid here.
Oh hang on, some of them were boys for as long as I was! That
means they are also experienced... Damn! Now I've nobody to
demean. We are all equal.
Or are some more equal than others? !!!
;-)
On 23/06/2026 6:47 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/06/2026 16:00, The True Melissa wrote:"I dement"??
Verily, in article <xn0prbox03scuh0000@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The True Doctor wrote:
Having cats make you an expert and out-qualifies any PhD
I was a boy, and I had cats. That makes me an expert on
both and out-qualifies any PhD.
has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read
here!
I hope you only threw that in for laughs or else John
McEnroe might have something to say to you!
I don't get the John McEnroe reference.
You can't be serious... You can not be serious. *I dement* to see the
referee. The ball was on the line...
----
Daniel70
On 23/06/2026 10:43, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/06/2026 15:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
I was a boy, and I had cats. That makes me an expert on
both and out-qualifies any PhD.
Having cats make you an expert and out-qualifies any PhD
has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read
here!
I hope you only threw that in for laughs or else John
McEnroe might have something to say to you!
9 years experience is equivalent to a PhD. I was a boy for
longer and I have had experience with cats for longer still.
Well I was a boy for a good few years too. So I'm now going
to throw my PhD equivalent life qualifications around and mock
the stupid here.
You were a boy long enough to have obtained two PhDs as was I. Melissa >doesn't even qualify for one.
Oh hang on, some of them were boys for as long as I was! That
means they are also experienced... Damn! Now I've nobody to
demean. We are all equal.
You can demean all the fake PhDs who think they know it all because they >claim to have studied being a boy or animal behaviour at university
which is all made up nonsense which anyone who was actually a boy or had
or has pets can easily refute. I don't know why they allow universities
to take people's money doing that. They're no better than the University
of McDonald's, the University of Micky Mouse, and Donald Trump University.
Or are some more equal than others? !!!
;-)
Obviously Daniel, who has problems with comprehension, isn't as
qualified, but he's still probably more qualified than all of those >non-boys. But it seems his memory might be failing.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
In article <111e2p1$29uev$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 23/06/2026 10:43, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/06/2026 15:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
I was a boy, and I had cats. That makes me an expert on
both and out-qualifies any PhD.
Having cats make you an expert and out-qualifies any PhD
has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read
here!
I hope you only threw that in for laughs or else John
McEnroe might have something to say to you!
9 years experience is equivalent to a PhD. I was a boy for
longer and I have had experience with cats for longer still.
Well I was a boy for a good few years too. So I'm now going
to throw my PhD equivalent life qualifications around and mock
the stupid here.
You were a boy long enough to have obtained two PhDs as was I. Melissa
doesn't even qualify for one.
Oh hang on, some of them were boys for as long as I was! That
means they are also experienced... Damn! Now I've nobody to
demean. We are all equal.
You can demean all the fake PhDs who think they know it all because they
claim to have studied being a boy or animal behaviour at university
which is all made up nonsense which anyone who was actually a boy or had
or has pets can easily refute. I don't know why they allow universities
to take people's money doing that. They're no better than the University
of McDonald's, the University of Micky Mouse, and Donald Trump University. >>
Or are some more equal than others? !!!
;-)
Obviously Daniel, who has problems with comprehension, isn't as
qualified, but he's still probably more qualified than all of those
non-boys. But it seems his memory might be failing.
And a few other things.
On 23/06/2026 14:51, The Doctor wrote:
In article <111e2p1$29uev$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 23/06/2026 10:43, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/06/2026 15:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
I was a boy, and I had cats. That makes me an expert on
both and out-qualifies any PhD.
Having cats make you an expert and out-qualifies any PhD
has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read
here!
I hope you only threw that in for laughs or else John
McEnroe might have something to say to you!
9 years experience is equivalent to a PhD. I was a boy for
longer and I have had experience with cats for longer still.
Well I was a boy for a good few years too. So I'm now going
to throw my PhD equivalent life qualifications around and mock
the stupid here.
You were a boy long enough to have obtained two PhDs as was I. Melissa
doesn't even qualify for one.
Oh hang on, some of them were boys for as long as I was! That
means they are also experienced... Damn! Now I've nobody to
demean. We are all equal.
You can demean all the fake PhDs who think they know it all because they >>> claim to have studied being a boy or animal behaviour at university
which is all made up nonsense which anyone who was actually a boy or had >>> or has pets can easily refute. I don't know why they allow universities
to take people's money doing that. They're no better than the University >>> of McDonald's, the University of Micky Mouse, and Donald Trump University. >>>
Or are some more equal than others? !!!
;-)
Obviously Daniel, who has problems with comprehension, isn't as
qualified, but he's still probably more qualified than all of those
non-boys. But it seems his memory might be failing.
And a few other things.
Let's not talk about his potency. It wouldn't be very fair.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
You can demean all the fake PhDs who think they know it all because they claim to have studied being a boy or animal behaviour at university
which is all made up nonsense which anyone who was actually a boy or had
or has pets can easily refute.
Verily, in article <111e2p1$29uev$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
You can demean all the fake PhDs who think they know it all because they
claim to have studied being a boy or animal behaviour at university
which is all made up nonsense which anyone who was actually a boy or had
or has pets can easily refute.
You know there were men on those research teams, right? Some were even
led by men.
Piaget, the father of studying child development, was a man.
On 23/06/2026 10:43, Blueshirt wrote:
Or are some more equal than others? !!!
Obviously Daniel, who has problems with comprehension, isn't
as qualified, but he's still probably more qualified than all
of those non-boys. But it seems his memory might be failing.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 23/06/2026 10:43, Blueshirt wrote:
Or are some more equal than others? !!!
Obviously Daniel, who has problems with comprehension, isn't
as qualified, but he's still probably more qualified than all
of those non-boys. But it seems his memory might be failing.
Two laughs in two days! Well done Aggy! <claps>
Now I've to go and eat before the footie starts at 6pm!
The BBC did it to themselves for allowing the timeless Child to occur.
Now DW is out for tendewr.
What are we the fans looking for?
1) REtcon the horrible and abominable Timless Child Arc
2) Go back to formual of success seen in the 1960s and 1970s.
What else can you ask for?
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted:
1) REtcon the horrible and abominable Timless Child Arc
2) Go back to formual of success seen in the 1960s and 1970s.
What else can you ask for?
Why bother ? you are not getting it.
No Dr Who producer will undo a woman doctor. Deal with it.
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted:
The BBC did it to themselves for allowing the timeless Child to occur.
Now DW is out for tendewr.
What are we the fans looking for?
I does not matter what the Dr Who fans look for or get -- they are never happy. Moan and bitch is the order of the day in Who fandom.
Verily, in article <1782369001-5999@newsgrouper.org>, did
user5999 @newsgrouper.org.invalid deliver unto us this message:
I does not matter what the Dr Who fans look for or get --
they are never happy. Moan and bitch is the order of the day
in Who fandom.
We were pretty happy, by and large, during the early days of
the revived show. Individual viewers disliked individual
episodes or plot developments, but the fandom was a pretty
positive place overall.
Now we're in a place similar to the Great Hiatus, where our
favorite show was made a joke, milked for its last few
dollars, and euthanized too late. Naturally, more negative
commentary is being seen again. What would you expect, really?
If anyone keeps making the show, that person would be smart to
go back to basics.
Will they though? Or will they want to bring their own ideas in?
You know what modern TV production companies are like. They
choose to make a show that has a traditional core and then they
want to change things around.
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted:
The BBC did it to themselves for allowing the timeless Child to occur.
Now DW is out for tendewr.
What are we the fans looking for?
I does not matter what the Dr Who fans look for or get -- they are never >happy. Moan and bitch is the order of the day in Who fandom.
1) REtcon the horrible and abominable Timless Child Arc
2) Go back to formual of success seen in the 1960s and 1970s.
What else can you ask for?
Why bother ? you are not getting it.
No Dr Who producer will undo a woman doctor. Deal with it.
----
Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven
Theory11 wrote:
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted:
1) REtcon the horrible and abominable Timless Child Arc
2) Go back to formual of success seen in the 1960s and 1970s.
What else can you ask for?
Why bother ? you are not getting it.
No Dr Who producer will undo a woman doctor. Deal with it.
That's the thing, in 2026 who at the BBC wants to be the one
to say publicly "we shouldn't have cast a female actress to
play The Doctor"? There'd be uproar in the trendy press!
So, in all likelihood it's never going to happen. Ignore it
and move on is the only way forward. Well... that's if the
show itself does get to move forward.
Verily, in article <1782369001-5999@newsgrouper.org>, did user5999 >@newsgrouper.org.invalid deliver unto us this message:
never happy. Moan and bitch is the order of the day in Who fandom.
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted:
The BBC did it to themselves for allowing the timeless Child to occur.
Now DW is out for tendewr.
What are we the fans looking for?
I does not matter what the Dr Who fans look for or get -- they are
We were pretty happy, by and large, during the early days of the revived >show. Individual viewers disliked individual episodes or plot
developments, but the fandom was a pretty positive place overall.
Now we're in a place similar to the Great Hiatus, where our favorite
show was made a joke, milked for its last few dollars, and euthanized
too late. Naturally, more negative commentary is being seen again. What >would you expect, really?
If anyone keeps making the show, that person would be smart to go back
to basics.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <1782369001-5999@newsgrouper.org>, did
user5999 @newsgrouper.org.invalid deliver unto us this message:
I does not matter what the Dr Who fans look for or get --
they are never happy. Moan and bitch is the order of the day
in Who fandom.
We were pretty happy, by and large, during the early days of
the revived show. Individual viewers disliked individual
episodes or plot developments, but the fandom was a pretty
positive place overall.
I think that's a fair comment.
Although there has always been a glass half-empty element in
fandom, right back to when I was younger and reading the
DWAS periodicals and fanzines. JNT was the popular 'target' back
then... a lot of fans seemed to hate him and his ideas!
Now we're in a place similar to the Great Hiatus, where our
favorite show was made a joke, milked for its last few
dollars, and euthanized too late. Naturally, more negative
commentary is being seen again. What would you expect, really?
If anyone keeps making the show, that person would be smart to
go back to basics.
Will they though? Or will they want to bring their own ideas in?
You know what modern TV production companies are like. They
choose to make a show that has a traditional core and then they
want to change things around.
Verily, in article <xn0prfzfh2ytcrf005@post.eweka.nl>, did >blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
Will they though? Or will they want to bring their own ideas in?
You know what modern TV production companies are like. They
choose to make a show that has a traditional core and then they
want to change things around.
There are new ideas and new ideas, though.
When DW was first brought back, the Time War was a new idea. I for one >thought it was a great way to set the show in the same continuity while
also marking a new and distinct era.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
In article <MPG.44a6d28bd94c006c98a0e3@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <1782369001-5999@newsgrouper.org>, did user5999
@newsgrouper.org.invalid deliver unto us this message:
never happy. Moan and bitch is the order of the day in Who fandom.
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted:
The BBC did it to themselves for allowing the timeless Child to occur. >>>>
Now DW is out for tendewr.
What are we the fans looking for?
I does not matter what the Dr Who fans look for or get -- they are
We were pretty happy, by and large, during the early days of the revived
show. Individual viewers disliked individual episodes or plot
developments, but the fandom was a pretty positive place overall.
Now we're in a place similar to the Great Hiatus, where our favorite
show was made a joke, milked for its last few dollars, and euthanized
too late. Naturally, more negative commentary is being seen again. What
would you expect, really?
Give the fans what they want.
In article <xn0prfyvv2y64hi002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
So, in all likelihood it's never going to happen. Ignore it
and move on is the only way forward. Well... that's if the
show itself does get to move forward.
Uproard either way or!
The abomination of the Tiemless Child has to be retconned.
On 25/06/2026 10:21 pm, The Doctor wrote:--
In article <MPG.44a6d28bd94c006c98a0e3@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <1782369001-5999@newsgrouper.org>, did user5999
@newsgrouper.org.invalid deliver unto us this message:
never happy. Moan and bitch is the order of the day in Who fandom.
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted:
The BBC did it to themselves for allowing the timeless Child to occur. >>>>>
Now DW is out for tendewr.
What are we the fans looking for?
I does not matter what the Dr Who fans look for or get -- they are
We were pretty happy, by and large, during the early days of the revived >>> show. Individual viewers disliked individual episodes or plot
developments, but the fandom was a pretty positive place overall.
Now we're in a place similar to the Great Hiatus, where our favorite
show was made a joke, milked for its last few dollars, and euthanized
too late. Naturally, more negative commentary is being seen again. What
would you expect, really?
Give the fans what they want.
... but which fans, Binky(Word used by paedophiles to indicate their joy
of child sexual molestation), WHICH FANS!!
--
Daniel70
Verily, in article <111j6ec$1lt5$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <xn0prfyvv2y64hi002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
So, in all likelihood it's never going to happen. Ignore it
and move on is the only way forward. Well... that's if the
show itself does get to move forward.
Uproard either way or!
The abomination of the Tiemless Child has to be retconned.
If a new showrunner ignored it without an explicit retcon, would you
watch?
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
On 25/06/2026 10:21 pm, The Doctor wrote:
Give the fans what they want.
... but which fans, Binky, WHICH FANS!!
Verily, in article <111j6ec$1lt5$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <xn0prfyvv2y64hi002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
So, in all likelihood it's never going to happen.
Ignore it and move on is the only way forward. Well...
that's if the show itself does get to move forward.
Uproard either way or!
The abomination of the Tiemless Child has to be retconned.
If a new showrunner ignored it without an explicit retcon,
would you watch?
In article
<MPG.44a6e47b1fc066bf98a0e4@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
There are new ideas and new ideas, though.
When DW was first brought back, the Time War was a new idea.
I for one thought it was a great way to set the show in the
same continuity while also marking a new and distinct era.
It did work esp when Moffat retconned it in Day of the Doctor.
In article <xn0prfzfh2ytcrf005@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Melissa wrote:
If anyone keeps making the show, that person would be
smart to go back to basics.
Will they though? Or will they want to bring their own
ideas in? You know what modern TV production companies
are like. They choose to make a show that has a traditional
core and then they want to change things around.
Minor tweeks not major blunders.
Give the fans what they want.
Daniel70 wrote:
On 25/06/2026 10:21 pm, The Doctor wrote:
Give the fans what they want.
... but which fans, Binky(Word used by paedophiles to indicate
their joy of child sexual molestation), WHICH FANS!!
Exactly! There is no one consistent opinion within Doctor
Who fandom... and never has been. Fandom has always been a
broad church.
I've seen people loving the idea of Billie Piper as the 16th
Doctor, and I've also seen people who loathe the idea. So who
do you try to please?
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <111j6ec$1lt5$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <xn0prfyvv2y64hi002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
So, in all likelihood it's never going to happen.
Ignore it and move on is the only way forward. Well...
that's if the show itself does get to move forward.
Uproard either way or!
The abomination of the Tiemless Child has to be retconned.
If a new showrunner ignored it without an explicit retcon,
would you watch?
He'd watch it, read the script online, write his synopsis... I
mean review, and then give it 0/10.
Whilst Agamemnon would watch it so that others didn't have to.
They wouldn't like it though... as they didn't get their
precious "retcon".
The Doctor wrote:
In article
<MPG.44a6e47b1fc066bf98a0e4@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
There are new ideas and new ideas, though.
When DW was first brought back, the Time War was a new idea.
I for one thought it was a great way to set the show in the
same continuity while also marking a new and distinct era.
It did work esp when Moffat retconned it in Day of the Doctor.
So it was a good idea, especially when it was retconned?
Er... okay.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0prfzfh2ytcrf005@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Melissa wrote:
If anyone keeps making the show, that person would be
smart to go back to basics.
Will they though? Or will they want to bring their own
ideas in? You know what modern TV production companies
are like. They choose to make a show that has a traditional
core and then they want to change things around.
Minor tweeks not major blunders.
Tweak what though? There is no show at the moment.
Planned Christmas special, cancelled.
New series, cancelled... until somebody decides they want
to make it.
There's no "Doctor Who" to tweak Dave!--
The Doctor wrote:
Give the fans what they want.
What fans though?
Agamemnon?
Penguin?
Daniel?
Melissa?
Horny?
YourName?
You?
Etc...
Everyone likes/wants different things.
You couldn't please RADW let alone all of Doctor Who
fandom!
The Doctor wrote:
Give the fans what they want.
What fans though?
Agamemnon?
Penguin?
Daniel?
Melissa?
Horny?
YourName?
You?
Etc...
Everyone likes/wants different things.
You couldn't please RADW let alone all of Doctor Who
fandom!
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0prfzfh2ytcrf005@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Melissa wrote:
If anyone keeps making the show, that person would be
smart to go back to basics.
Will they though? Or will they want to bring their own
ideas in? You know what modern TV production companies
are like. They choose to make a show that has a traditional
core and then they want to change things around.
Minor tweeks not major blunders.
Tweak what though? There is no show at the moment.
Planned Christmas special, cancelled.
New series, cancelled... until somebody decides they want
to make it.
There's no "Doctor Who" to tweak Dave!
On 25/06/2026 11:00 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Give the fans what they want.
What fans though?
You couldn't please RADW let alone all of Doctor
Who fandom!
ME of Course.
Now, what are we discussing??
On 25/06/2026 10:56 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Minor tweeks not major blunders.
Tweak what though? There is no show at the moment.
Planned Christmas special, cancelled.
New series, cancelled... until somebody decides they want
to make it.
There's no "Doctor Who" to tweak Dave!
.... and Dave might suggest that there hasn't been any 'Doctor
Who' since 2017.
In article <1117qm3$i2vk$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 20/06/2026 14:20, The Doctor wrote:
In article <MPG.44a0575bc2083f3398a0ae@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <1115voi$2k5h$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <MPG.44a0312edb8c3d198a0a7@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <1114qse$9aa$23@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
I wonder what Melissa vs Dan looks like?
I'm pretty sure Daniel could take me.
You were not celebrating in the streets last night?
I just want it over so we can get back to the rewatching.
AGA, when?
When the football ends. House of the Dragon starting in the middle of it
isn't helping and I still need to finish watching series 5 of ClarksonrCOs >> Farm. The football is leaving me no time to watch anything.
Get ready for ngland's second win on Tuesday.
Good luck if the Scots can beat Brazil.
Also Scotland playing English football? FOLS!!!
Verily, in article <111j6ec$1lt5$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <xn0prfyvv2y64hi002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
So, in all likelihood it's never going to happen. Ignore it
and move on is the only way forward. Well... that's if the
show itself does get to move forward.
Uproard either way or!
The abomination of the Tiemless Child has to be retconned.
If a new showrunner ignored it without an explicit retcon, would you
watch?
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted:
The BBC did it to themselves for allowing the timeless Child to occur.
Now DW is out for tendewr.
What are we the fans looking for?
I does not matter what the Dr Who fans look for or get -- they are never happy. Moan and bitch is the order of the day in Who fandom.
1) REtcon the horrible and abominable Timless Child Arc
2) Go back to formual of success seen in the 1960s and 1970s.
What else can you ask for?
Why bother ? you are not getting it.
No Dr Who producer will undo a woman doctor. Deal with it.
On 25/06/2026 10:56 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0prfzfh2ytcrf005@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Melissa wrote:
If anyone keeps making the show, that person would be
smart to go back to basics.
Will they though? Or will they want to bring their own ideas in? You >>>> know what modern TV production companies are like. They choose to make >>>> a show that has a traditional core and then they want to change things >>>> around.
Minor tweeks not major blunders.
Tweak what though? There is no show at the moment.
Planned Christmas special, cancelled.
New series, cancelled... until somebody decides they want to make it.
There's no "Doctor Who" to tweak Dave!
.... and Dave might suggest that there hasn't been any 'Doctor Who' since 2017.
Daniel70 wrote:
On 25/06/2026 11:00 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Give the fans what they want.
What fans though?
You couldn't please RADW let alone all of Doctor Who fandom!
ME of Course.
Now, what are we discussing??
"Skippy the Bush Kangaroo" Season Three, Episode 18...
On 25/06/2026 10:21 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <MPG.44a6d28bd94c006c98a0e3@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa-a <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <1782369001-5999@newsgrouper.org>, did user5999
@newsgrouper.org.invalid deliver unto us this message:
never happy. Moan and bitch is the order of the day in Who fandom.
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted:
The BBC did it to themselves for allowing the timeless Child to occur. >>>>>
Now DW is out for tendewr.
What are we the fans looking for?
I does not matter what the Dr Who fans look for or get -- they are
We were pretty happy, by and large, during the early days of the revived >>> show. Individual viewers disliked individual episodes or plot
developments, but the fandom was a pretty positive place overall.
Now we're in a place similar to the Great Hiatus, where our favorite
show was made a joke, milked for its last few dollars, and euthanized
too late. Naturally, more negative commentary is being seen again. What
would you expect, really?
Give the fans what they want.
... but which fans, Binky, WHICH FANS!!
Daniel70 wrote:
On 25/06/2026 10:21 pm, The Doctor wrote:
Give the fans what they want.
... but which fans, Binky, WHICH FANS!!
Exactly! There is no one consistent opinion within Doctor
Who fandom... and never has been. Fandom has always been a
broad church.
I've seen people loving the idea of Billie Piper as the 16th
Doctor, and I've also seen people who loathe the idea. So who
do you try to please?
The Doctor wrote:
Give the fans what they want.
What fans though?
Agamemnon?
Penguin?
Daniel?
Melissa?
Horny?
YourName?
You?
Etc...
Everyone likes/wants different things.
You couldn't please RADW let alone all of Doctor Who
fandom!
On 25/06/2026 11:00 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:ME of Course.
Give the fans what they want.
What fans though?
Agamemnon?
Penguin?
Daniel?
Melissa?
Horny?
YourName?
You?
Etc...
Everyone likes/wants different things.
You couldn't please RADW let alone all of Doctor Who
fandom!
Now, what are we discussing??
----
Daniel70
Daniel70 wrote:
On 25/06/2026 11:00 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:ME of Course.
Give the fans what they want.
What fans though?
You couldn't please RADW let alone all of Doctor
Who fandom!
Now, what are we discussing??
"Skippy the Bush Kangaroo" Season Three, Episode 18...
Daniel70 wrote:
On 25/06/2026 10:56 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:.... and Dave might suggest that there hasn't been any 'Doctor
Minor tweeks not major blunders.
Tweak what though? There is no show at the moment.
Planned Christmas special, cancelled.
New series, cancelled... until somebody decides they want
to make it.
There's no "Doctor Who" to tweak Dave!
Who' since 2017.
No, that's Uncle Agamemnon's catchphrase. Dave's is... well, we
all know what Dave wants to do as he says it here often enough!
Either way, until there's an actual production plan with some
ideas, story outlines or draft scripts, there's nothing to tweak.
On 25/06/2026 10:56 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:.... and Dave might suggest that there hasn't been any 'Doctor Who'
In article <xn0prfzfh2ytcrf005@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Melissa wrote:
If anyone keeps making the show, that person would be
smart to go back to basics.
Will they though? Or will they want to bring their own
ideas in? You know what modern TV production companies
are like. They choose to make a show that has a traditional
core and then they want to change things around.
Minor tweeks not major blunders.
Tweak what though? There is no show at the moment.
Planned Christmas special, cancelled.
New series, cancelled... until somebody decides they want
to make it.
There's no "Doctor Who" to tweak Dave!
since 2017.
----
Daniel70
On 21/06/2026 12:44, The Doctor wrote:
In article <1117qm3$i2vk$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 20/06/2026 14:20, The Doctor wrote:
In article <MPG.44a0575bc2083f3398a0ae@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <1115voi$2k5h$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <MPG.44a0312edb8c3d198a0a7@news.eternal-september.org>, >>>>>> The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <1114qse$9aa$23@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
I wonder what Melissa vs Dan looks like?
I'm pretty sure Daniel could take me.
You were not celebrating in the streets last night?
I just want it over so we can get back to the rewatching.
AGA, when?
When the football ends. House of the Dragon starting in the middle of it >>> isn't helping and I still need to finish watching series 5 of ClarksonrCOs >>> Farm. The football is leaving me no time to watch anything.
Get ready for ngland's second win on Tuesday.
LOLLLLLLLL...
--Good luck if the Scots can beat Brazil.
LOOOOLLLLLLLLLL.....
Also Scotland playing English football? FOLS!!!--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 25/06/2026 13:28, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <111j6ec$1lt5$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <xn0prfyvv2y64hi002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
So, in all likelihood it's never going to happen. Ignore it
and move on is the only way forward. Well... that's if the
show itself does get to move forward.
Uproard either way or!
The abomination of the Tiemless Child has to be retconned.
If a new showrunner ignored it without an explicit retcon, would you
watch?
No. The Timeless Child monster must go otherwise the franchise is
completely dead.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 25/06/2026 07:30, Theory11 wrote:
never happy. Moan and bitch is the order of the day in Who fandom.
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted:
The BBC did it to themselves for allowing the timeless Child to occur.
Now DW is out for tendewr.
What are we the fans looking for?
I does not matter what the Dr Who fans look for or get -- they are
1) REtcon the horrible and abominable Timless Child Arc
2) Go back to formual of success seen in the 1960s and 1970s.
What else can you ask for?
Why bother ? you are not getting it.
No Dr Who producer will undo a woman doctor. Deal with it.
If the BBC want the audience of Doctor Who to return and be able to
obtain finance for it and sell it abroad for the maximum amount of
revenu then not only must the female Doctor be retconned so must the gay >Doctor. No decent parent will allow their children watch a show which a >disgusting sex obsessed pervert is using to sexually groom then and no
child will dare admit to watching or discuss a show where the main >protagonist was turned gay at school.
Everything that happened after The Doctor Falls must be regarded as
being a hideous dream and the show must continue from where Capaldi >regenerates into another man after being killed by the Cybermen.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 2026-06-25 14:23:47 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 25/06/2026 10:56 pm, Blueshirt wrote:since 2017.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0prfzfh2ytcrf005@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Melissa wrote:
If anyone keeps making the show, that person would be
smart to go back to basics.
Will they though? Or will they want to bring their own ideas in? You >>>>> know what modern TV production companies are like. They choose to make >>>>> a show that has a traditional core and then they want to change things >>>>> around.
Minor tweeks not major blunders.
Tweak what though? There is no show at the moment.
Planned Christmas special, cancelled.
New series, cancelled... until somebody decides they want to make it.
There's no "Doctor Who" to tweak Dave!
.... and Dave might suggest that there hasn't been any 'Doctor Who'
There hasn't been any *real* "Doctor Who" since at least Doctor Poirot
took over in 1987 ... maybe even since Doctor Farnon took over in 1982!
:-p
On 25/06/2026 13:26, Daniel70 wrote:
On 25/06/2026 10:21 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <MPG.44a6d28bd94c006c98a0e3@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa-a <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <1782369001-5999@newsgrouper.org>, did user5999
@newsgrouper.org.invalid deliver unto us this message:
never happy. Moan and bitch is the order of the day in Who fandom.
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted:
The BBC did it to themselves for allowing the timeless Child to occur. >>>>>>
Now DW is out for tendewr.
What are we the fans looking for?
I does not matter what the Dr Who fans look for or get -- they are
We were pretty happy, by and large, during the early days of the revived >>>> show. Individual viewers disliked individual episodes or plot
developments, but the fandom was a pretty positive place overall.
Now we're in a place similar to the Great Hiatus, where our favorite
show was made a joke, milked for its last few dollars, and euthanized
too late. Naturally, more negative commentary is being seen again. What >>>> would you expect, really?
Give the fans what they want.
... but which fans, Binky(Word used by paedophiles to indicate their
joy of child sexual molestation), WHICH FANS!!
The fans who form the majority of the audience of BBC licence fee pays
that actually watches the show, ie. fans who are white, British, male,
and heterosexual, and there is nothing wrong with that. That's who
Doctor Who was always made for before a bunch of sexist, racist, and
bigoted child grooming perverts took it over and made it about their own >sick degenerate selves and told the fans that actually watched the show
to go and f*k grass which meant no one wanted to watch it anymore.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 25/06/2026 14:00, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Give the fans what they want.
What fans though?
Agamemnon?
Penguin?
Daniel?
Melissa?
Horny?
YourName?
You?
Etc...
Everyone likes/wants different things.
All of the above were fans before the Doctor was turned into a women who
was a genocidal mass curding monster from another dimension and then
into an effeminate sexually harassing homosexual man. Therefore fans
never wanted that. This disgusting woke degeneracy drove away 6/7 of the >audience and the handful if degenerate hate filled bigots that it
attracted were never enough to compensate for even a tiny miniscule >insignificant fraction of those that left or were deliberately driven
away by being told to go out and fuck grass of their didn't like what
had been done to their favourite show.
You couldn't please RADW let alone all of Doctor Who
fandom!
RADW was pleased when the Doctor was a white, British, heterosexual,
male character whose first incarnation was William Hartnell and there
were no incarnations before him.
The woke degeneracy has to all be erased and never refereed to ever
again when doing so. Dallas provides the ONLY solution for reviving the >franchise. If the BBC wants to make the money then it has to apologise
for what it did to Doctor Who and restore its original character.
It also has to ensure than any future production company works for the >interests of the show and the audience and not for the interests of
child grooming perverts and mentally sick left wing ideologues by
sharing a significant proportion of the profits of the show in return
for investment.
If a production company were to provide 50% or 80% of the production
budget, or whatever percentage is equivalent to the international
rights, then it must be entitled to 100% of international sales of the >series. Not like Bad Wolf which was paid peanuts to make Doctor Who and >contributed nothing, while Disney+ was swindled out of $200,000,000, >therefore neither of them hand any interest in ensuring the show was
made for the maximum number of possible viewers that the show could
appeal too.
The production company must pay to make the show and it must be rewarded >with the right to sell the show outside of the UK for its own profit.
The production company must also be given full creative control on
condition that the Doctor is always portrayed as a white, British, >heterosexual man, who is a Time Lord whose first incarnation looked like >William Hartnell and that no incarnation existed before that. This must
be made explicitly clear from the very first new episode with no
reference at all being made to the Chibnall and Davies rubbish.
The show can never be associated with the Doctor being homosexual since
no one but homosexuals who only make up 1.5% of the population would
want to watch it. This is basic economics. That entire stigma must be >completely erased. Therefore the Timeless Child monster would be erased
from canon along with all of the Davies and Chibnall crap giving the >production company the freedom to do whatever it wanted for maximum profit.
The BBC's contribution would be what the UK rights are worth >proportionately. If the international rights are estimated to be worth >-u80,000,000 then the BBC must contribute -u20,000,000 for the UK rights >towards the production budget and the international profits split.
Typically 10% of the whole production budget is what authors of IPs get
so the BBC would get 10% of the international profits and the production >company 90%. If the BBC contributes nothing to the production budget,
then it gets none of the international profits at all. It would just get
the right to show Doctor Who in the UK.
In its current form the international rights of the show are worth
nothing because Davies and Chibnall made the show unsellable and wiped
out the entire audience base. This has to be undone immediately and the
BBC must apologise for what was done to the show to appease a bunch of
woke bigots who utterly despised it and wanted to ruin it because it was >never made for them.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 2026-06-25 14:45:09 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 25/06/2026 11:00 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Give the fans what they want.
What fans though?
You couldn't please RADW let alone all of Doctor Who fandom!
ME of Course.
Now, what are we discussing??
"Skippy the Bush Kangaroo" Season Three, Episode 18...
"Sonny's fallen down the well ... yet again! Go get help Skippy!" ;-)
"Skippy", the rather awful Australian knock-off of "Lassie" and
"Flipper". There were only 13 episodes in season 3, so discussing
episode 18 would be a little difficult. :-)
On 25/06/2026 13:38, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 25/06/2026 10:21 pm, The Doctor wrote:
Give the fans what they want.
... but which fans, Binky, WHICH FANS!!
Exactly! There is no one consistent opinion within Doctor
Who fandom... and never has been. Fandom has always been a
broad church.
I've seen people loving the idea of Billie Piper as the 16th
Doctor, and I've also seen people who loathe the idea. So who
do you try to please?
The majority of fans believe Doctor Who ended in 2017. Most already
stopped watching by then. The remaining audience dropped to 1/7 of its >original numbers.
That's what you get by peddling disgusting Nazi inspired sexist, racist,
and bigoted left-wing wokery including eugenics and the sexual grooming
of children to the audience.
Doctor Who originally stood against degenerate Marxist ideologies such
as Nazism (Daleks) and Communism (Cybermen) that George Orwell and other >science fiction writers warned us about. Now it espouses them.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
Where is the tender?
There hasn't been any real "Doctor Who" since at least
Doctor Poirot took over in 1987 ...
On 25/06/2026 13:38, Blueshirt wrote:
I've seen people loving the idea of Billie Piper as the 16th
Doctor, and I've also seen people who loathe the idea. So who
do you try to please?
The majority of fans believe Doctor Who ended in 2017. Most
already stopped watching by then. The remaining audience
dropped to 1/7 of its original numbers.
That's what you get by peddling disgusting Nazi inspired
sexist, racist, and bigoted left-wing wokery including
eugenics and the sexual grooming of children to the audience.
Doctor Who originally stood against degenerate Marxist
ideologies such as Nazism (Daleks) and Communism (Cybermen)
that George Orwell and other science fiction writers warned us
about. Now it espouses them.
Daniel70 wrote:
On 25/06/2026 10:56 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:.... and Dave might suggest that there hasn't been any 'Doctor
Minor tweeks not major blunders.
Tweak what though? There is no show at the moment.
Planned Christmas special, cancelled.
New series, cancelled... until somebody decides they want
to make it.
There's no "Doctor Who" to tweak Dave!
Who' since 2017.
No, that's Uncle Agamemnon's catchphrase. Dave's is... well, we
all know what Dave wants to do as he says it here often enough!
Either way, until there's an actual production plan with some
ideas, story outlines or draft scripts, there's nothing to tweak.
The Doctor wrote:
Where is the tender?
Please tell me you're not going to be asking this every
day for the next year?
Cope Dave, cope.
On 2026-06-25 14:23:47 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 25/06/2026 10:56 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0prfzfh2ytcrf005@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Melissa wrote:
If anyone keeps making the show, that person would be
smart to go back to basics.
Will they though? Or will they want to bring their own ideas in?
You know what modern TV production companies are like. They choose
to make a show that has a traditional core and then they want to
change things around.
Minor tweeks not major blunders.
Tweak what though? There is no show at the moment.
Planned Christmas special, cancelled.
New series, cancelled... until somebody decides they want to make it.
There's no "Doctor Who" to tweak Dave!
.... and Dave might suggest that there hasn't been any 'Doctor Who'
since 2017.
There hasn't been any *real* "Doctor Who" since at least Doctor Poirot
took over in 1987 ... maybe even since Doctor Farnon took over in 1982! :-p
Daniel70 wrote:
On 25/06/2026 10:21 pm, The Doctor wrote:
Give the fans what they want.
... but which fans, Binky, WHICH FANS!!
Exactly! There is no one consistent opinion within Doctor
Who fandom... and never has been. Fandom has always been a
broad church.
I've seen people loving the idea of Billie Piper as the 16th
Doctor, and I've also seen people who loathe the idea. So who
do you try to please?
RTD, Idlehands and Co can go screw themselves.
On 2026-06-25 14:45:09 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 25/06/2026 11:00 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Give the fans what they want.
What fans though?
You couldn't please RADW let alone all of Doctor Who fandom!
ME of Course.
Now, what are we discussing??
"Skippy the Bush Kangaroo" Season Three, Episode 18...
"Sonny's fallen down the well ... yet again! Go get help Skippy!"-a-a ;-)
"Skippy", the rather awful Australian knock-off of "Lassie" and
"Flipper". There were only 13 episodes in season 3, so discussing
episode 18 would be a little difficult.-a :-)
In article <111jd7i$3qqbq$2@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 25/06/2026 11:00 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
You couldn't please RADW let alone all of Doctor WhoME of Course.
fandom!
Now, what are we discussing??
You are an antiDoctorWho Timeless Child fan.
On 25/06/2026 14:00, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Give the fans what they want.
"curding"?? Is THAT something you might do with your 'curds and whey',Everyone likes/wants different things.
All of the above were fans before the Doctor was turned into a women who
was a genocidal mass *curding* monster from another dimension and then
into an effeminate sexually harassing homosexual man.
On 25/06/2026 07:30, Theory11 wrote:
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted:
The BBC did it to themselves for allowing the timeless Child to occur.
Now DW is out for tendewr.
What are we the fans looking for?
I does not matter what the Dr Who fans look for or get -- they are
never happy. Moan and bitch is the order of the day in Who fandom.
1) REtcon the horrible and abominable Timless Child Arc
2) Go back to formual of success seen in the 1960s and 1970s.
What else can you ask for?
Why bother ? you are not getting it.
No Dr Who producer will undo a woman doctor. Deal with it.
If the BBC want the audience of Doctor Who to return and be able to
obtain finance for it and sell it abroad for the maximum amount of
revenu then not only must the female Doctor be retconned so must the gay Doctor.
Why might anybody put funds into a project that can't attract an
audience that makes it worthwhile funding a project that can't attract
an audience to attract the money ........."??
On 26/06/2026 12:43 pm, The Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
RTD, Idlehands and Co can go screw themselves.
Golly Gosh, Asswipe, THAT might even be offensive!!
On 2026-06-26 5:02 a.m., Daniel70 wrote:
On 26/06/2026 12:43 pm, The Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
RTD, Idlehands and Co can go screw themselves.
Golly Gosh, Asswipe, THAT might even be offensive!!
I do wish binky would evict me from his teeny weeny mind, I am not even
part of this discussion and yet the dumb shit drags me in.
I guess he must really miss me since he has been banned from edm.general
by Eternal-September.
No, he is not missed in the slightest.
The Doctor wrote:
Where is the tender?
Please tell me you're not going to be asking this every
day for the next year?
Cope Dave, cope.
Your Name wrote:
There hasn't been any real "Doctor Who" since at least
Doctor Poirot took over in 1987 ...
1987? That wasn't 'real' Doctor Who! That was the pantomime
version of the show. With a series destroying spoon-playing
comedian in the lead role who was so bad the show had to be
put out of its misery.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 25/06/2026 13:38, Blueshirt wrote:
I've seen people loving the idea of Billie Piper as the 16th
Doctor, and I've also seen people who loathe the idea. So who
do you try to please?
The majority of fans believe Doctor Who ended in 2017. Most
already stopped watching by then. The remaining audience
dropped to 1/7 of its original numbers.
That's what you get by peddling disgusting Nazi inspired
sexist, racist, and bigoted left-wing wokery including
eugenics and the sexual grooming of children to the audience.
Doctor Who originally stood against degenerate Marxist
ideologies such as Nazism (Daleks) and Communism (Cybermen)
that George Orwell and other science fiction writers warned us
about. Now it espouses them.
I have a sneaky feeling that Doctor Who isn't for you anymore...
and never will be. Maybe you should try Emmerdale or Casualty
for your televisual entertainment...
On 26/06/2026 12:55 am, Blueshirt wrote:--
Daniel70 wrote:
On 25/06/2026 10:56 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:.... and Dave might suggest that there hasn't been any 'Doctor
Minor tweeks not major blunders.
Tweak what though? There is no show at the moment.
Planned Christmas special, cancelled.
New series, cancelled... until somebody decides they want
to make it.
There's no "Doctor Who" to tweak Dave!
Who' since 2017.
No, that's Uncle Agamemnon's catchphrase. Dave's is... well, we
all know what Dave wants to do as he says it here often enough!
... and we all know how far up Aggy B@# the asswipe(Word used by paedophiles >to indicate their joy of child sexual molestation) is!!
So WHAT are WE all still doing HERE?? ;-P
Either way, until there's an actual production plan with some
ideas, story outlines or draft scripts, there's nothing to tweak.
--
Daniel70
On 26/06/2026 6:41 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:Well, at least he isn't telling us how GOOD he thinks JodieDoc was!! ;-P
Where is the tender?
Please tell me you're not going to be asking this every
day for the next year?
Cope Dave, cope.
----
Daniel70
On 26/06/2026 8:00 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2026-06-25 14:23:47 +0000, Daniel70 said:Sorry?? WHAT?? Are YOU now going back to the Guy who was a VET Doctor
On 25/06/2026 10:56 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0prfzfh2ytcrf005@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Melissa wrote:
If anyone keeps making the show, that person would be
smart to go back to basics.
Will they though? Or will they want to bring their own ideas in? >>>>>> You know what modern TV production companies are like. They choose >>>>>> to make a show that has a traditional core and then they want to
change things around.
Minor tweeks not major blunders.
Tweak what though? There is no show at the moment.
Planned Christmas special, cancelled.
New series, cancelled... until somebody decides they want to make it.
There's no "Doctor Who" to tweak Dave!
.... and Dave might suggest that there hasn't been any 'Doctor Who'
since 2017.
There hasn't been any *real* "Doctor Who" since at least Doctor Poirot
took over in 1987 ... maybe even since Doctor Farnon took over in 1982! :-p >>
before he became the REAL Doctor (5)?? ;-P
----
Daniel70
On 25/06/2026 10:38 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 25/06/2026 10:21 pm, The Doctor wrote:
Give the fans what they want.
... but which fans, Binky(Word used by paedophiles to indicate their joy >>> of child sexual molestation), WHICH FANS!!
Exactly! There is no one consistent opinion within Doctor
Who fandom... and never has been. Fandom has always been a
broad church.
No, DoctorDavid was there (Broadchurch) before he got upgraded.
No, WAIT!! Did David do 'Broadchurch' AFTER he did 'Doctor Who'??
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2249364/?ref_=fn_t_1
I thought 'Broadchurch' was before!!
And 'Broadchurch' was created by none other than Chris Chibnall!! AND >Co-starred Jodie Whittaker (The Doctor 13)!! AND Olivia Colman who was
in 'The Five(ish) Doctors Reboot' in 2013 and 'Doctor Who:New Series >Adventures' (Podcast 2010) and as the Mother character in a 'Doctor Who' >episode in 2010
--I've seen people loving the idea of Billie Piper as the 16thStick me somewhere towards the 'Loathe' column! Any 'Doctor Who' should
Doctor, and I've also seen people who loathe the idea. So who
do you try to please?
be better than No 'Doctor Who' .... but 'The Doctor' (whichever one
we're up to) SHOULDN't be an Companion recast ..... but there must be a >suitable actor/actress out there somewhere.
Hey, why not give an Irish actor a go?? Or a Belgium Actor?? ;-P
--
Daniel70
On 26/06/2026 12:43 pm, The Doctor wrote:--
<Snip>
RTD, Idlehands and Co can go screw themselves.
Golly Gosh, Asswipe(Word used by paedophiles to indicate their joy of child >sexual molestation coverup), THAT might even be offensive!!
--
Daniel70
On 26/06/2026 8:06 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2026-06-25 14:45:09 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 25/06/2026 11:00 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Give the fans what they want.
What fans though?
You couldn't please RADW let alone all of Doctor Who fandom!
ME of Course.
Now, what are we discussing??
"Skippy the Bush Kangaroo" Season Three, Episode 18...
"Sonny's fallen down the well ... yet again! Go get help Skippy!"-a-a ;-)
WHAT?? AGAIN??
"Skippy", the rather awful Australian knock-off of "Lassie" andWell, who's the EXPERT on 'Skippy:The Bush Kangaroo' then?? ;-P
"Flipper". There were only 13 episodes in season 3, so discussing
episode 18 would be a little difficult.-a :-)
----
Daniel70
On 26/06/2026 12:40 pm, The Doctor wrote:--
In article <111jd7i$3qqbq$2@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 25/06/2026 11:00 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
<Snip>
You couldn't please RADW let alone all of Doctor WhoME of Course.
fandom!
Now, what are we discussing??
You are an antiDoctorWho Timeless Child fan.
Who?? ME?? Who is watching every episode of 'Doctor Who' he can get his >hands on!! And, therefore, is a FAN of the 'Doctor Who:The Timeless
Child' arc.
I would have thought You, Asswipe(Word used by paedophiles to indicate their >joy of child sexual molestation coverup), were the 'antiDoctorWho Timeless >Child fan'
--
Daniel70
On 26/06/2026 9:16 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 25/06/2026 14:00, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Give the fans what they want.
<Snip>
"curding"?? Is THAT something you might do with your 'curds and whey', >Aggy??Everyone likes/wants different things.
All of the above were fans before the Doctor was turned into a women who
was a genocidal mass *curding* monster from another dimension and then
into an effeminate sexually harassing homosexual man.
----
Daniel70
On 26/06/2026 7:36 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 25/06/2026 07:30, Theory11 wrote:
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted:
The BBC did it to themselves for allowing the timeless Child to occur. >>>>
Now DW is out for tendewr.
What are we the fans looking for?
I does not matter what the Dr Who fans look for or get -- they are
never happy. Moan and bitch is the order of the day in Who fandom.
1) REtcon the horrible and abominable Timless Child Arc
2) Go back to formual of success seen in the 1960s and 1970s.
What else can you ask for?
Why bother ? you are not getting it.
No Dr Who producer will undo a woman doctor. Deal with it.
If the BBC want the audience of Doctor Who to return and be able to
obtain finance for it and sell it abroad for the maximum amount of
revenu then not only must the female Doctor be retconned so must the gay
Doctor.
Whilst I might/maybe/perhaps agree with you, Aggy, about the Gay Doctor
(not having seen HIM to any great extent), I saw nothing wrong with
JodieDoc that a decent Director/Scriptwriter couldn't have fixed.
And I think your 'audience returning' verses 'obtaining finance'
proposition might be a bit of a 'Chicken before the Egg' situation."
Why might anybody put funds into a project that can't attract an
audience that makes it worthwhile funding a project that can't attract
an audience to attract the money ........."??
----
Daniel70
Verily, in article <111lnh6$g40m$1@dont-email.me>, did daniel47 >@nomail.afraid.org deliver unto us this message:
Why might anybody put funds into a project that can't attract an
audience that makes it worthwhile funding a project that can't attract
an audience to attract the money ........."??
Love of the show. That's pretty much the only reason. It would be a bad >gamble financially, at least until people have stopped laughing at the
Gatwa years.
Once at least ten years have passed, it might be commercially viable
again as nostalgia bait.
--
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
On 26/06/2026 10:48 pm, est Frind of Jeffery Epstein and, FreeAMson and PAedophile Idlehands wrote:--
On 2026-06-26 5:02 a.m., Daniel70 wrote:WHAT?? Binky(Word used by paedophiles to indicate their joy of child sexual >molestation) was posting to9 UseNet via E-S?? I thought a clever tech
On 26/06/2026 12:43 pm, The Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
RTD, Idlehands and Co can go screw themselves.
Golly Gosh, Asswipe, THAT might even be offensive!!
I do wish binky(Word used by paedophiles to indicate their joy of child
sexual molestation) would evict me from his teeny weeny mind, I am not even >> part of this discussion and yet the dumb s*t drags me in.
I guess he must really miss me since he has been banned from edm.general
by Eternal-September.
No, he is not missed in the slightest.
like him would have been posting to UseNet via his own News server. ;-P
--
Daniel70
Your Name wrote:
There hasn't been any real "Doctor Who" since at least
Doctor Poirot took over in 1987 ...
1987? That wasn't 'real' Doctor Who! That was the pantomime
version of the show. With a series destroying spoon-playing
comedian in the lead role who was so bad the show had to be
put out of its misery.
On 26/06/2026 7:36 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 25/06/2026 07:30, Theory11 wrote:
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted:
The BBC did it to themselves for allowing the timeless Child to occur. >>>>
Now DW is out for tendewr.
What are we the fans looking for?
I does not matter what the Dr Who fans look for or get -- they are
never happy. Moan and bitch is the order of the day in Who fandom.
1) REtcon the horrible and abominable Timless Child Arc
2) Go back to formual of success seen in the 1960s and 1970s.
What else can you ask for?
Why bother ? you are not getting it.
No Dr Who producer will undo a woman doctor. Deal with it.
If the BBC want the audience of Doctor Who to return and be able to
obtain finance for it and sell it abroad for the maximum amount of
revenu then not only must the female Doctor be retconned so must the
gay Doctor.
Whilst I might/maybe/perhaps agree with you, Aggy, about the Gay Doctor
(not having seen HIM to any great extent), I saw nothing wrong with
JodieDoc that a decent Director/Scriptwriter couldn't have fixed.
And I think your 'audience returning' verses 'obtaining finance'
proposition might be a bit of a 'Chicken before the Egg' situation."
Why might anybody put funds into a project that can't attract an
audience that makes it worthwhile funding a project that can't attract
an audience to attract the money ........."??
In article <xn0prha9d87a0hm001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Where is the tender?
Please tell me you're not going to be asking this every
day for the next year?
Cope Dave, cope.
I am. If you make a claim, BACK IT!
On 6/26/2026 03:48, Blueshirt wrote:
Your Name wrote:
There hasn't been any real "Doctor Who" since at least
Doctor Poirot took over in 1987 ...
1987? That wasn't 'real' Doctor Who! That was the pantomime
version of the show. With a series destroying spoon-playing
comedian in the lead role who was so bad the show had to be
put out of its misery.
And as bad as that was, I'd take that as opposed to what we've been >subjected to lately.
----
Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
--Carl Sagan
On 26/06/2026 12:24, Daniel70 wrote:
On 26/06/2026 7:36 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 25/06/2026 07:30, Theory11 wrote:
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted:
The BBC did it to themselves for allowing the timeless Child to occur. >>>>>
Now DW is out for tendewr.
What are we the fans looking for?
I does not matter what the Dr Who fans look for or get -- they are
never happy. Moan and bitch is the order of the day in Who fandom.
1) REtcon the horrible and abominable Timless Child Arc
2) Go back to formual of success seen in the 1960s and 1970s.
What else can you ask for?
Why bother ? you are not getting it.
No Dr Who producer will undo a woman doctor. Deal with it.
If the BBC want the audience of Doctor Who to return and be able to
obtain finance for it and sell it abroad for the maximum amount of
revenu then not only must the female Doctor be retconned so must the
gay Doctor.
Whilst I might/maybe/perhaps agree with you, Aggy, about the Gay Doctor
(not having seen HIM to any great extent), I saw nothing wrong with
JodieDoc that a decent Director/Scriptwriter couldn't have fixed.
Wrong. Since the Doctor is a male character it is totally impossible for
him to played by a woman. That is basic creative writing 101. You can't >write a woman as man and you can't write a man as woman. No one will
believe a woman in the role because she won't be playing the character
of the Doctor but that of a transvestite or a woman and the Doctor is
not a female character. Wokery always results in bad writing. ALWAYS!
If you want to make a show with a female main protagonists don't hijack
one with a male protagonist and gender swap them and then tell the
audience to go and f*k grass if they don't like it. You go and f*k
grass and create something new of your own.
--
And I think your 'audience returning' verses 'obtaining finance'
proposition might be a bit of a 'Chicken before the Egg' situation."
Why might anybody put funds into a project that can't attract an
audience that makes it worthwhile funding a project that can't attract
an audience to attract the money ........."??
McCoy: Then the show's dead Jim. It's dead Jim... Dead!
Kirk: Are you completely sure Bones? Look at it again.
McCoy: It's showing no life signs. None whatsoever.
Scotty: Yee canna break the laws of good writing Cap'en. The doctor is >right. It's dead.
McCoy: The medical tricorder indicates that it died of a massive
literary infarction which could have easily been prevented.
Kirk: But why Bones, why?
Spock: It's demise displayed a completely predictable logical
progression Captain. Instead of good story telling the only thing that >mattered to the writers was political massaging. The main protagonist
who was intrinsically a white, British, heterosexual, male character was >turned into a woman who identified as a lesbian, despite the natural >audience being composed mainly of white, British, heterosexual, men.
Then this gender swapped protagonist was eventually race and gender
swapped into a black effeminate homosexual Rwandan man and the show was
made all about him being black and gay and used to sexually groom
children peddling gender and identity politics to the tiny remaining >audience wasn't remotely interested in. They were all told that they
were incels, and, please excuse the colourful language Captain, to go
and fuck grass.
Scotty: Those degenerates have no decency.
Spock: They also wrote it primarily for 6 year old girls, writing which >didn't appeal to effeminate Rwandan homosexual men wearing skits and >pretending to be women that the main protagonist was made to represent,
and effeminate Rwandan homosexual men wearing skirts and pretending to
be women didn't appeal to the 6 year old girls they wrote it for either.
Kirk: I see Spock. These audiences, already tiny in numbers, were also >mutually exclusive, so nobody watched it at all.
Spock: Yes Captain.
Scotty: Apart from a handful of people that watched it so that others >didnrCOt have to.
Spock: Correct Mr Scott.
Kirk: It therefore stood no chance after the changes that were made to it.
Scotty: Disgusting.
Spock: Fascinating.
Kirk: To be woke is to be uninformed. I sincerely hope we do not suffer
the same fate.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 26/06/2026 11:06 pm, The Doctor wrote:--
In article <xn0prha9d87a0hm001@post.eweka.nl>,What 'claim' does Blueshirt have to BACK UP, asswipe(Word used by paedophiles >to indicate their joy of child sexual molestation vocerup)??
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Where is the tender?
Please tell me you're not going to be asking this every
day for the next year?
Cope Dave, cope.
I am. If you make a claim, BACK IT!
And WHY should he when YOU, Asswipe(Word used by paedophiles to indicate >their joy of child sexual molestation), NEVER back up YOUR claims, >asswipe(Word used by paedophiles to indicate their joy of child sexual >molestation)??
--
Daniel70
The True Doctor wrote:
On 25/06/2026 13:38, Blueshirt wrote:
I've seen people loving the idea of Billie Piper as the 16th
Doctor, and I've also seen people who loathe the idea. So who
do you try to please?
The majority of fans believe Doctor Who ended in 2017. Most
already stopped watching by then. The remaining audience
dropped to 1/7 of its original numbers.
That's what you get by peddling disgusting Nazi inspired
sexist, racist, and bigoted left-wing wokery including
eugenics and the sexual grooming of children to the audience.
Doctor Who originally stood against degenerate Marxist
ideologies such as Nazism (Daleks) and Communism (Cybermen)
that George Orwell and other science fiction writers warned us
about. Now it espouses them.
I have a sneaky feeling that Doctor Who isn't for you anymore...
and never will be. Maybe you should try Emmerdale or Casualty
for your televisual entertainment...
On 26/06/2026 09:54, Blueshirt wrote:
I have a sneaky feeling that Doctor Who isn't for
you anymore...
The pile of shit conceived by Davies and Chibnall is
not Doctor Who.
There's been no new Doctor Who on TV since 2017.
Maybe you should try Emmerdale or Casualty for your
televisual entertainment...
Soap opera shit? No thank you. Emmerdale stopped being
watchable when it stopped being a farm with animals on
it.
In article <rwv%R.16822$8n6f.16586@fx17.ams4>,
Hornplayer9599 <Hornplayer9599@aol.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 03:48, Blueshirt wrote:
Your Name wrote:
There hasn't been any real "Doctor Who" since at least
Doctor Poirot took over in 1987 ...
1987? That wasn't 'real' Doctor Who! That was the pantomime
version of the show. With a series destroying spoon-playing
comedian in the lead role who was so bad the show had to be
put out of its misery.
And as bad as that was, I'd take that as opposed to what
we've been subjected to lately.
1) DW should have nver been canceled in the 1980s/1990s.
2) THe Timeless Child should have never seen the light of
day!
On 6/26/2026 03:48, Blueshirt wrote:
Your Name wrote:
There hasn't been any real "Doctor Who" since at least
Doctor Poirot took over in 1987 ...
1987? That wasn't 'real' Doctor Who! That was the pantomime
version of the show. With a series destroying spoon-playing
comedian in the lead role who was so bad the show had to be
put out of its misery.
And as bad as that was, I'd take that as opposed to what we've
been subjected to lately.
In article <xn0prha9d87a0hm001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Where is the tender?
Please tell me you're not going to be asking this
every day for the next year?
Cope Dave, cope.
I am. If you make a claim, BACK IT!
Hornplayer9599 wrote:
On 6/26/2026 03:48, Blueshirt wrote:
Your Name wrote:
There hasn't been any real "Doctor Who" since at least
Doctor Poirot took over in 1987 ...
1987? That wasn't 'real' Doctor Who! That was the pantomime
version of the show. With a series destroying spoon-playing
comedian in the lead role who was so bad the show had to be
put out of its misery.
And as bad as that was, I'd take that as opposed to what we've
been subjected to lately.
In fairness, at least back then there was tiny bit of promise.
But still, once the public lost interest in it the only way was
down.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 26/06/2026 09:54, Blueshirt wrote:
I have a sneaky feeling that Doctor Who isn't for
you anymore...
The pile of shit conceived by Davies and Chibnall is
not Doctor Who.
There's been no new Doctor Who on TV since 2017.
It's Doctor Who Jim... just not as we know it.
Maybe you should try Emmerdale or Casualty for your
televisual entertainment...
Soap opera shit? No thank you. Emmerdale stopped being
watchable when it stopped being a farm with animals on
it.
Bring back Joe Sugden!
In article <111m0tp$j1mg$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 26/06/2026 12:24, Daniel70 wrote:
On 26/06/2026 7:36 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 25/06/2026 07:30, Theory11 wrote:
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted:
If you want to make a show with a female main protagonists don't hijack
one with a male protagonist and gender swap them and then tell the
audience to go and f*k grass if they don't like it. You go and f*k
grass and create something new of your own.
RTD and his spiritual leader Idlehands aka The Devil
can burn in Hell for eterniry.
And I think your 'audience returning' verses 'obtaining finance'
proposition might be a bit of a 'Chicken before the Egg' situation."
Why might anybody put funds into a project that can't attract an
audience that makes it worthwhile funding a project that can't attract
an audience to attract the money ........."??
McCoy: Then the show's dead Jim. It's dead Jim... Dead!
Kirk: Are you completely sure Bones? Look at it again.
McCoy: It's showing no life signs. None whatsoever.
Scotty: Yee canna break the laws of good writing Cap'en. The doctor is
right. It's dead.
McCoy: The medical tricorder indicates that it died of a massive
literary infarction which could have easily been prevented.
Kirk: But why Bones, why?
Spock: It's demise displayed a completely predictable logical
progression Captain. Instead of good story telling the only thing that
mattered to the writers was political massaging. The main protagonist
who was intrinsically a white, British, heterosexual, male character was
turned into a woman who identified as a lesbian, despite the natural
audience being composed mainly of white, British, heterosexual, men.
Then this gender swapped protagonist was eventually race and gender
swapped into a black effeminate homosexual Rwandan man and the show was
made all about him being black and gay and used to sexually groom
children peddling gender and identity politics to the tiny remaining
audience wasn't remotely interested in. They were all told that they
were incels, and, please excuse the colourful language Captain, to go
and fuck grass.
Scotty: Those degenerates have no decency.
Spock: They also wrote it primarily for 6 year old girls, writing which
didn't appeal to effeminate Rwandan homosexual men wearing skits and
pretending to be women that the main protagonist was made to represent,
and effeminate Rwandan homosexual men wearing skirts and pretending to
be women didn't appeal to the 6 year old girls they wrote it for either.
Kirk: I see Spock. These audiences, already tiny in numbers, were also
mutually exclusive, so nobody watched it at all.
Spock: Yes Captain.
Scotty: Apart from a handful of people that watched it so that others
didnrCOt have to.
Spock: Correct Mr Scott.
Kirk: It therefore stood no chance after the changes that were made to it. >>
Scotty: Disgusting.
Spock: Fascinating.
Kirk: To be woke is to be uninformed. I sincerely hope we do not suffer
the same fate.
On 26/06/2026 10:48 pm, Idlehands wrote:
On 2026-06-26 5:02 a.m., Daniel70 wrote:WHAT?? Binky was posting to9 UseNet via E-S?? I thought a clever tech
On 26/06/2026 12:43 pm, The Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
RTD, Idlehands and Co can go screw themselves.
Golly Gosh, Asswipe, THAT might even be offensive!!
I do wish binky would evict me from his teeny weeny mind, I am not
even part of this discussion and yet the dumb shit drags me in.
I guess he must really miss me since he has been banned from
edm.general by Eternal-September.
No, he is not missed in the slightest.
like him would have been posting to UseNet via his own News server. ;-P
Your Name wrote:
There hasn't been any real "Doctor Who" since at least Doctor Poirot
took over in 1987 ...
1987? That wasn't 'real' Doctor Who! That was the pantomime version of
the show. With a series destroying spoon-playing comedian in the lead
role who was so bad the show had to be put out of its misery.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <rwv%R.16822$8n6f.16586@fx17.ams4>,
Hornplayer9599 <Hornplayer9599@aol.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 03:48, Blueshirt wrote:
Your Name wrote:
There hasn't been any real "Doctor Who" since at least Doctor Poirot >>>>> took over in 1987 ...
1987? That wasn't 'real' Doctor Who! That was the pantomime version of >>>> the show. With a series destroying spoon-playing comedian in the lead >>>> role who was so bad the show had to be put out of its misery.
And as bad as that was, I'd take that as opposed to what we've been
subjected to lately.
1) DW should have nver been canceled in the 1980s/1990s.
It absolutely should have!
The mistake the BBC made was not ending it when Colin Baker was the Doctor.
2) THe Timeless Child should have never seen the light of day!
Yes, it was a bad idea... but it happened. Move on.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 25/06/2026 13:38, Blueshirt wrote:
I've seen people loving the idea of Billie Piper as the 16th Doctor,
and I've also seen people who loathe the idea. So who do you try to
please?
The majority of fans believe Doctor Who ended in 2017. Most already
stopped watching by then. The remaining audience dropped to 1/7 of its
original numbers.
That's what you get by peddling disgusting Nazi inspired sexist,
racist, and bigoted left-wing wokery including eugenics and the sexual
grooming of children to the audience.
Doctor Who originally stood against degenerate Marxist ideologies such
as Nazism (Daleks) and Communism (Cybermen) that George Orwell and
other science fiction writers warned us about. Now it espouses them.
I have a sneaky feeling that Doctor Who isn't for you anymore
... and never will be. Maybe you should try Emmerdale or Casualty for
your televisual entertainment...
The True Doctor wrote:
On 26/06/2026 09:54, Blueshirt wrote:
I have a sneaky feeling that Doctor Who isn't for you anymore...
The pile of shit conceived by Davies and Chibnall is not Doctor Who.
There's been no new Doctor Who on TV since 2017.
It's Doctor Who Jim... just not as we know it.
Maybe you should try Emmerdale or Casualty for your televisual
entertainment...
Soap opera shit? No thank you. Emmerdale stopped being watchable when
it stopped being a farm with animals on it.
Bring back Joe Sugden!
On 26/06/2026 8:00 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2026-06-25 14:23:47 +0000, Daniel70 said:Sorry?? WHAT?? Are YOU now going back to the Guy who was a VET Doctor
On 25/06/2026 10:56 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0prfzfh2ytcrf005@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Melissa wrote:
If anyone keeps making the show, that person would be
smart to go back to basics.
Will they though? Or will they want to bring their own ideas in? You >>>>>> know what modern TV production companies are like. They choose to make >>>>>> a show that has a traditional core and then they want to change things >>>>>> around.
Minor tweeks not major blunders.
Tweak what though? There is no show at the moment.
Planned Christmas special, cancelled.
New series, cancelled... until somebody decides they want to make it.
There's no "Doctor Who" to tweak Dave!
.... and Dave might suggest that there hasn't been any 'Doctor Who' since 2017.
There hasn't been any *real* "Doctor Who" since at least Doctor Poirot
took over in 1987 ... maybe even since Doctor Farnon took over in 1982!
:-p
before he became the REAL Doctor (5)?? ;-P
On 25/06/2026 10:38 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 25/06/2026 10:21 pm, The Doctor wrote:
Give the fans what they want.
... but which fans, Binky, WHICH FANS!!
Exactly! There is no one consistent opinion within Doctor
Who fandom... and never has been. Fandom has always been a
broad church.
No, DoctorDavid was there (Broadchurch) before he got upgraded.
No, WAIT!! Did David do 'Broadchurch' AFTER he did 'Doctor Who'??
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2249364/?ref_=fn_t_1
I thought 'Broadchurch' was before!!
And 'Broadchurch' was created by none other than Chris Chibnall!! AND Co-starred Jodie Whittaker (The Doctor 13)!! AND Olivia Colman who was
in 'The Five(ish) Doctors Reboot' in 2013 and 'Doctor Who:New Series Adventures' (Podcast 2010) and as the Mother character in a 'Doctor
Who' episode in 2010
I've seen people loving the idea of Billie Piper as the 16thStick me somewhere towards the 'Loathe' column! Any 'Doctor Who' should
Doctor, and I've also seen people who loathe the idea. So who
do you try to please?
be better than No 'Doctor Who'
.... but 'The Doctor' (whichever one we're up to) SHOULDN't be an
Companion recast .....
but there must be a suitable actor/actress out there somewhere.
Hey, why not give an Irish actor a go?? Or a Belgium Actor?? ;-P
On 26/06/2026 8:06 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2026-06-25 14:45:09 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 25/06/2026 11:00 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Give the fans what they want.
What fans though?
You couldn't please RADW let alone all of Doctor Who fandom!
ME of Course.
Now, what are we discussing??
"Skippy the Bush Kangaroo" Season Three, Episode 18...
"Sonny's fallen down the well ... yet again! Go get help Skippy!"aa ;-)
WHAT?? AGAIN??
"Skippy", the rather awful Australian knock-off of "Lassie" and
"Flipper". There were only 13 episodes in season 3, so discussing
episode 18 would be a little difficult.a :-)
Well, who's the EXPERT on 'Skippy:The Bush Kangaroo' then?? ;-P
The mistake the BBC made was not keeping *Tom* Baker and Jon Pertwee on
much longer, and then ending the show after they left.
On 26/06/2026 09:54, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 25/06/2026 13:38, Blueshirt wrote:
I've seen people loving the idea of Billie Piper as the 16th
Doctor, and I've also seen people who loathe the idea. So who
do you try to please?
The majority of fans believe Doctor Who ended in 2017. Most
already stopped watching by then. The remaining audience
dropped to 1/7 of its original numbers.
That's what you get by peddling disgusting Nazi inspired
sexist, racist, and bigoted left-wing wokery including
eugenics and the sexual grooming of children to the audience.
Doctor Who originally stood against degenerate Marxist
ideologies such as Nazism (Daleks) and Communism (Cybermen)
that George Orwell and other science fiction writers warned us
about. Now it espouses them.
I have a sneaky feeling that Doctor Who isn't for you anymore...
The pile of s*t conceived by Davies and Chibnall is not Doctor Who.
There's been no new Doctor Who on TV since 2017.
and never will be. Maybe you should try Emmerdale or Casualty
for your televisual entertainment...
Soap opera s*t? No thank you. Emmerdale stopped being watchable when it >stopped being a farm with animals on it.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
The True Doctor wrote:
On 26/06/2026 09:54, Blueshirt wrote:
I have a sneaky feeling that Doctor Who isn't for
you anymore...
The pile of shit conceived by Davies and Chibnall is
not Doctor Who.
There's been no new Doctor Who on TV since 2017.
It's Doctor Who Jim... just not as we know it.
Maybe you should try Emmerdale or Casualty for your
televisual entertainment...
Soap opera shit? No thank you. Emmerdale stopped being
watchable when it stopped being a farm with animals on
it.
Bring back Joe Sugden!
The Doctor wrote:
In article <rwv%R.16822$8n6f.16586@fx17.ams4>,
Hornplayer9599 <Hornplayer9599@aol.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 03:48, Blueshirt wrote:
Your Name wrote:
There hasn't been any real "Doctor Who" since at least
Doctor Poirot took over in 1987 ...
1987? That wasn't 'real' Doctor Who! That was the pantomime
version of the show. With a series destroying spoon-playing
comedian in the lead role who was so bad the show had to be
put out of its misery.
And as bad as that was, I'd take that as opposed to what
we've been subjected to lately.
1) DW should have nver been canceled in the 1980s/1990s.
It absolutely should have!
The mistake the BBC made was not ending it when Colin Baker
was the Doctor.
2) THe Timeless Child should have never seen the light of
day!
Yes, it was a bad idea... but it happened. Move on.
Hornplayer9599 wrote:
On 6/26/2026 03:48, Blueshirt wrote:
Your Name wrote:
There hasn't been any real "Doctor Who" since at least
Doctor Poirot took over in 1987 ...
1987? That wasn't 'real' Doctor Who! That was the pantomime
version of the show. With a series destroying spoon-playing
comedian in the lead role who was so bad the show had to be
put out of its misery.
And as bad as that was, I'd take that as opposed to what we've
been subjected to lately.
In fairness, at least back then there was tiny bit of promise.
But still, once the public lost interest in it the only way was
down.
On 6/26/2026 13:20, Blueshirt wrote:
Hornplayer9599 wrote:
On 6/26/2026 03:48, Blueshirt wrote:
Your Name wrote:
There hasn't been any real "Doctor Who" since at least
Doctor Poirot took over in 1987 ...
1987? That wasn't 'real' Doctor Who! That was the pantomime
version of the show. With a series destroying spoon-playing
comedian in the lead role who was so bad the show had to be
put out of its misery.
And as bad as that was, I'd take that as opposed to what we've
been subjected to lately.
In fairness, at least back then there was tiny bit of promise.
But still, once the public lost interest in it the only way was
down.
And I don't disagree. With that said, while watching the last few
seasons, there were times I seriously considered giving the McCoy Era a >reprieve.
----
Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
--Carl Sagan
On 26/06/2026 19:18, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 26/06/2026 09:54, Blueshirt wrote:
I have a sneaky feeling that Doctor Who isn't for
you anymore...
The pile of shit conceived by Davies and Chibnall is
not Doctor Who.
There's been no new Doctor Who on TV since 2017.
It's Doctor Who Jim... just not as we know it.
It registers no sings of life.
--Maybe you should try Emmerdale or Casualty for your
televisual entertainment...
Soap opera shit? No thank you. Emmerdale stopped being
watchable when it stopped being a farm with animals on
it.
Bring back Joe Sugden!
No idea who that is.
Did he play Molly Sugdan's pussy in Are You Being Served?
Who did Frazer Hinze play?
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 26/06/2026 15:23, The Doctor wrote:
In article <111m0tp$j1mg$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 26/06/2026 12:24, Daniel70 wrote:
On 26/06/2026 7:36 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 25/06/2026 07:30, Theory11 wrote:
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted:
If you want to make a show with a female main protagonists don't hijack
one with a male protagonist and gender swap them and then tell the
audience to go and f*k grass if they don't like it. You go and f*k
grass and create something new of your own.
RTD and his spiritual leader Idlehands aka The Devil
You mean Chibnall.
can burn in Hell for eterniry.
And I think your 'audience returning' verses 'obtaining finance'
proposition might be a bit of a 'Chicken before the Egg' situation."
Why might anybody put funds into a project that can't attract an
audience that makes it worthwhile funding a project that can't attract >>>> an audience to attract the money ........."??
McCoy: Then the show's dead Jim. It's dead Jim... Dead!
Kirk: Are you completely sure Bones? Look at it again.
McCoy: It's showing no life signs. None whatsoever.
Scotty: Yee canna break the laws of good writing Cap'en. The doctor is
right. It's dead.
McCoy: The medical tricorder indicates that it died of a massive
literary infarction which could have easily been prevented.
Kirk: But why Bones, why?
Spock: It's demise displayed a completely predictable logical
Its...
progression Captain. Instead of good story telling the only thing that
mattered to the writers was political massaging. The main protagonist
who was intrinsically a white, British, heterosexual, male character was >>> turned into a woman who identified as a lesbian, despite the natural
audience being composed mainly of white, British, heterosexual, men.
Then this gender swapped protagonist was eventually race and gender
swapped into a black effeminate homosexual Rwandan man and the show was
made all about him being black and gay and used to sexually groom
children peddling gender and identity politics to the tiny remaining
audience wasn't remotely interested in. They were all told that they
...was not...
Spock does not speak using contractions.
were incels, and, please excuse the colourful language Captain, to go
and f*k grass.
Scotty: Those degenerates have no decency.
Spock: They also wrote it primarily for 6 year old girls, writing which
didn't appeal to effeminate Rwandan homosexual men wearing skits and
...did not...
At least, unlike the degenerate soap-opera hacks from hell Davies and >Chibnall, or the piece of s*t hack Alex Kurtzman who mentored them, I
do rewrites.
pretending to be women that the main protagonist was made to represent,
and effeminate Rwandan homosexual men wearing skirts and pretending to
be women didn't appeal to the 6 year old girls they wrote it for either. >>>
...did not...
Kirk: I see Spock. These audiences, already tiny in numbers, were also
mutually exclusive, so nobody watched it at all.
Spock: Yes Captain.
Scotty: Apart from a handful of people that watched it so that others
didnrCOt have to.
...didn'a have teh...
Got to remember he's Scottish.
Spock: Correct Mr Scott.
Kirk: It therefore stood no chance after the changes that were made to it. >>>
Scotty: Disgusting.
Spock: Fascinating.
Kirk: To be woke is to be uninformed. I sincerely hope we do not suffer
the same fate.
Here's the second draft.
McCoy: Then the show's dead Jim. It's dead Jim... Dead!
Kirk: Are you completely sure Bones? Look at it again.
McCoy: It's showing no life signs. None whatsoever.
Scotty: Yee canna break the laws of good writing Cap'en. The doctor is >right. It's dead.
McCoy: The medical tricorder indicates that it died of a massive
literary infarction which could have easily been prevented.
Kirk: But why Bones, why?
Spock: Its demise displayed a completely predictable logical progression >Captain. Instead of good story telling the only thing that mattered to
the writers was political massaging. The main protagonist who was >intrinsically a white, British, heterosexual, male character was turned
into a woman who identified as a lesbian, despite the natural audience
being composed mainly of white, British, heterosexual, men. Then this
gender swapped protagonist was eventually race and gender swapped into a >black effeminate homosexual Rwandan man and the show was made all about
him being black and gay and used to sexually groom children peddling
gender and identity politics to the tiny remaining audience was not
remotely interested in. They were all told that they were incels, and, >please excuse the colourful language Captain, to go and fuck grass.
Scotty: Those degenerates have no decency.
Spock: They also wrote it primarily for 6 year old girls, writing which
did not appeal to effeminate Rwandan homosexual men wearing skits and >pretending to be women that the main protagonist was made to represent,
and effeminate Rwandan homosexual men wearing skirts and pretending to
be women did not appeal to the 6 year old girls they wrote it for either.
Kirk: I see Spock. These audiences, already tiny in numbers, were also >mutually exclusive, so nobody watched it at all.
Spock: Yes Captain.
Scotty: Apart from a handful of people that watched it so that others
didn'a have teh.
Spock: Correct Mr Scott.
Kirk: It therefore stood no chance after the changes that were made to it.
Scotty: Disgusting.
Spock: Fascinating.
Kirk: To be woke is to be uninformed. I sincerely hope we do not suffer
the same fate.
I wonder if we could get AI to make this? Anyone what to try? There's
lots of shorts going around with Uhura, Troi, 7 of 9, and Jadzea Dax
talking together on the bridge of the Enterprise dressed in tight costumes.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 2026-06-26 08:48:25 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Your Name wrote:
There hasn't been any real "Doctor Who" since at least Doctor Poirot
took over in 1987 ...
1987? That wasn't 'real' Doctor Who! That was the pantomime version of
the show. With a series destroying spoon-playing comedian in the lead
role who was so bad the show had to be put out of its misery.
That's whay I said it ended when he *took over* ... not when he finished. :-)
On 2026-06-26 18:18:27 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <rwv%R.16822$8n6f.16586@fx17.ams4>,
Hornplayer9599 <Hornplayer9599@aol.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 03:48, Blueshirt wrote:
Your Name wrote:
There hasn't been any real "Doctor Who" since at least Doctor Poirot >>>>>> took over in 1987 ...
1987? That wasn't 'real' Doctor Who! That was the pantomime version of >>>>> the show. With a series destroying spoon-playing comedian in the lead >>>>> role who was so bad the show had to be put out of its misery.
And as bad as that was, I'd take that as opposed to what we've been
subjected to lately.
1) DW should have nver been canceled in the 1980s/1990s.
It absolutely should have!
The mistake the BBC made was not ending it when Colin Baker was the Doctor.
The mistake the BBC made was not keeping *Tom* Baker and Jon Pertwee on
much longer, and then ending the show after they left.
2) THe Timeless Child should have never seen the light of day!
Yes, it was a bad idea... but it happened. Move on.
On 2026-06-26 08:54:41 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 25/06/2026 13:38, Blueshirt wrote:
I've seen people loving the idea of Billie Piper as the 16th Doctor,
and I've also seen people who loathe the idea. So who do you try to
please?
The majority of fans believe Doctor Who ended in 2017. Most already
stopped watching by then. The remaining audience dropped to 1/7 of its
original numbers.
That's what you get by peddling disgusting Nazi inspired sexist,
racist, and bigoted left-wing wokery including eugenics and the sexual
grooming of children to the audience.
Doctor Who originally stood against degenerate Marxist ideologies such
as Nazism (Daleks) and Communism (Cybermen) that George Orwell and
other science fiction writers warned us about. Now it espouses them.
I have a sneaky feeling that Doctor Who isn't for you anymore
It hasn't been for any fan in a long times. :-(
... and never will be. Maybe you should try Emmerdale or Casualty for
your televisual entertainment...
Casualty is worst of the two Holby Hospital shows, but for some stupid >reason they cancelled the better one. :-(
On 2026-06-26 18:18:26 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 26/06/2026 09:54, Blueshirt wrote:
I have a sneaky feeling that Doctor Who isn't for you anymore...
The pile of shit conceived by Davies and Chibnall is not Doctor Who.
There's been no new Doctor Who on TV since 2017.
It's Doctor Who Jim... just not as we know it.
Maybe you should try Emmerdale or Casualty for your televisual
entertainment...
Soap opera s*t? No thank you. Emmerdale stopped being watchable when
it stopped being a farm with animals on it.
Bring back Joe Sugden!
Who was of course played by the actor Frazer Hines ... which brings us
back to Doctor Who where he played Jamie (the longest term companion).
He is still acting, so could be brought back to Emmerdale and is still
in some of the Doctor Who podcast dramas. :-)
On 2026-06-26 10:37:30 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 26/06/2026 8:00 am, Your Name wrote:since 2017.
On 2026-06-25 14:23:47 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 25/06/2026 10:56 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0prfzfh2ytcrf005@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Melissa wrote:
If anyone keeps making the show, that person would be
smart to go back to basics.
Will they though? Or will they want to bring their own ideas in? You >>>>>>> know what modern TV production companies are like. They choose to make >>>>>>> a show that has a traditional core and then they want to change things >>>>>>> around.
Minor tweeks not major blunders.
Tweak what though? There is no show at the moment.
Planned Christmas special, cancelled.
New series, cancelled... until somebody decides they want to make it. >>>>>
There's no "Doctor Who" to tweak Dave!
.... and Dave might suggest that there hasn't been any 'Doctor Who'
Sorry?? WHAT?? Are YOU now going back to the Guy who was a VET Doctor
There hasn't been any *real* "Doctor Who" since at least Doctor Poirot
took over in 1987 ... maybe even since Doctor Farnon took over in 1982! >>> :-p
before he became the REAL Doctor (5)?? ;-P
Yes, I'm saying they should have stopped the show before he took over.
He was the beginning of the show's downfall, although anyone taking
over after the great Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker played the role was
likely to be pathetic in comparison. :-)
On 2026-06-26 10:59:25 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 25/06/2026 10:38 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 25/06/2026 10:21 pm, The Doctor wrote:
Give the fans what they want.
... but which fans, Binky, WHICH FANS!!
Exactly! There is no one consistent opinion within Doctor
Who fandom... and never has been. Fandom has always been a
broad church.
No, DoctorDavid was there (Broadchurch) before he got upgraded.
No, WAIT!! Did David do 'Broadchurch' AFTER he did 'Doctor Who'??
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2249364/?ref_=fn_t_1
I thought 'Broadchurch' was before!!
Technically "Broadchurch" was *during* Tennant's time as the Doctor ... >since he keeps coming back again. :-)
And 'Broadchurch' was created by none other than Chris Chibnall!! AND
Co-starred Jodie Whittaker (The Doctor 13)!! AND Olivia Colman who was
in 'The Five(ish) Doctors Reboot' in 2013 and 'Doctor Who:New Series
Adventures' (Podcast 2010) and as the Mother character in a 'Doctor
Who' episode in 2010
I've seen people loving the idea of Billie Piper as the 16thStick me somewhere towards the 'Loathe' column! Any 'Doctor Who' should
Doctor, and I've also seen people who loathe the idea. So who
do you try to please?
be better than No 'Doctor Who'
Nope. There are bazillions of actors (and "actors") out there who would
be horrifically bad in the role.
.... but 'The Doctor' (whichever one we're up to) SHOULDN't be an
Companion recast .....
Bradley Walsh ... he's in everything else. ;-)
There were letters to the editor in the TV Guide here complaining that >Bradley Walsh is on TV too much. He is really liked in New Zealand -
they even renamed the reboot of "Darling Bud's of May" as "Bradley
Walsh's Darling Buds of May" when it was playing here.
but there must be a suitable actor/actress out there somewhere.
Hey, why not give an Irish actor a go?? Or a Belgium Actor?? ;-P
It has to be "equality" ... so maybe a Martian actor, or a CGI orange
blob of goo. :-p
On 2026-06-26 11:05:39 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 26/06/2026 8:06 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2026-06-25 14:45:09 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 25/06/2026 11:00 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Give the fans what they want.
What fans though?
You couldn't please RADW let alone all of Doctor Who fandom!
ME of Course.
Now, what are we discussing??
"Skippy the Bush Kangaroo" Season Three, Episode 18...
"Sonny's fallen down the well ... yet again! Go get help Skippy!"aa ;-)
WHAT?? AGAIN??
"Skippy", the rather awful Australian knock-off of "Lassie" and
"Flipper". There were only 13 episodes in season 3, so discussing
episode 18 would be a little difficult.a :-)
Well, who's the EXPERT on 'Skippy:The Bush Kangaroo' then?? ;-P
That would be Mr Google and IMDB*, when I checked. :-p
I do know that the show was never called "Skippy, the Bush Kangaroo"
(at least not in Australia and New Zealand), although that line was in
the theme tune. The show itself was just called "Skippy" as show in the >opening sequence:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM6MWlI8qLw>
* IMDB of course isn't 100% reliable, but I didn't have time to look elsewhere.
On 6/26/2026 19:01, Your Name wrote:
The mistake the BBC made was not keeping *Tom* Baker and Jon Pertwee on
much longer, and then ending the show after they left.
Well...as I understand things, after Roger Delgado's death, Pertwee
really didn't have it in him to continue any longer than he did; not
sure the BBC would have been able to convince him to stay.
----
Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
--Carl Sagan
On 6/26/2026 19:01, Your Name wrote:
The mistake the BBC made was not keeping *Tom* Baker and Jon Pertwee on
much longer, and then ending the show after they left.
Well...as I understand things, after Roger Delgado's death, Pertwee
really didn't have it in him to continue any longer than he did; not
sure the BBC would have been able to convince him to stay.
On 2026-06-27 01:42:03 +0000, Hornplayer9599 said:
On 6/26/2026 19:01, Your Name wrote:
The mistake the BBC made was not keeping *Tom* Baker and Jon Pertwee on >>> much longer, and then ending the show after they left.
Well...as I understand things, after Roger Delgado's death, Pertwee
really didn't have it in him to continue any longer than he did; not
sure the BBC would have been able to convince him to stay.
Perhaps that was one of the reasons.
According to some sources:
"When Jon Pertwee's request for a increased fee for a sixth season
of Doctor Who was rejected by Shaun Sutton, he decided to leave
the show."
If true, it simply came down to greed, as it too often does.
He himself of course claimed the usual nonsense about "didn't want to
be typecast" and "want to pursue other roles", as almost every actor >quitting a role does.
Jon Pertwee was also reportedly suffering from back pain problems, so >probably needed a break too.
He of course did later return to the role for some audio dramas.
In article <111nj2m$115vt$1@dont-email.me>,
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2026-06-27 01:42:03 +0000, Hornplayer9599 said:
Well...as I understand things, after Roger Delgado's death, Pertwee
really didn't have it in him to continue any longer than he did; not
sure the BBC would have been able to convince him to stay.
Perhaps that was one of the reasons.
According to some sources:
"When Jon Pertwee's request for a increased fee for a sixth season
of Doctor Who was rejected by Shaun Sutton, he decided to leave
the show."
If true, it simply came down to greed, as it too often does.
He himself of course claimed the usual nonsense about "didn't want to
be typecast" and "want to pursue other roles", as almost every actor >quitting a role does.
Jon Pertwee was also reportedly suffering from back pain problems, so >probably needed a break too.
He of course did later return to the role for some audio dramas.
WEll this is the most likely scenario.
On 2026-06-27 01:42:03 +0000, Hornplayer9599 said:
On 6/26/2026 19:01, Your Name wrote:
The mistake the BBC made was not keeping Tom Baker and
Jon Pertwee on much longer, and then ending the show
after they left.
Well...as I understand things, after Roger Delgado's death,
Pertwee really didn't have it in him to continue any longer
than he did; not sure the BBC would have been able to
convince him to stay.
Perhaps that was one of the reasons.
According to some sources:
"When Jon Pertwee's request for a increased fee for a sixth
season of Doctor Who was rejected by Shaun Sutton, he
decided to leave the show."
If true, it simply came down to greed, as it too often does.
He himself of course claimed the usual nonsense about "didn't
want to be typecast" and "want to pursue other roles", as
almost every actor quitting a role does.
Jon Pertwee was also reportedly suffering from back pain
problems, so probably needed a break too.
He of course did later return to the role for some audio
dramas.
On 6/26/2026 19:01, Your Name wrote:
The mistake the BBC made was not keeping Tom Baker and
Jon Pertwee on much longer, and then ending the show
after they left.
Well...as I understand things, after Roger Delgado's death,
Pertwee really didn't have it in him to continue any longer
than he did; not sure the BBC would have been able to convince
him to stay.
What about Coronation Street?
Verily, in article <111no99$10ot$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <111nj2m$115vt$1@dont-email.me>,
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2026-06-27 01:42:03 +0000, Hornplayer9599 said:
Well...as I understand things, after Roger Delgado's death, Pertwee
really didn't have it in him to continue any longer than he did; not
sure the BBC would have been able to convince him to stay.
Perhaps that was one of the reasons.
According to some sources:
"When Jon Pertwee's request for a increased fee for a sixth season
of Doctor Who was rejected by Shaun Sutton, he decided to leave
the show."
If true, it simply came down to greed, as it too often does.
He himself of course claimed the usual nonsense about "didn't want to
be typecast" and "want to pursue other roles", as almost every actor
quitting a role does.
Jon Pertwee was also reportedly suffering from back pain problems, so
probably needed a break too.
He of course did later return to the role for some audio dramas.
WEll this is the most likely scenario.
There could have been multiple factors.
JON: "Look, guys, it's just not the same without Roger, and my back is >killing me. If you offered more compensation, maybe it'd feel worth it."
SHAUN: "Jon, it's the BBC. We don't have any money."
The public is then told that Pertwee wanted to pursue other
opportunities. Nobody ever wants to admit that it came down to money,
even though money is how we measure the other factors.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
Your Name wrote:
On 2026-06-27 01:42:03 +0000, Hornplayer9599 said:
On 6/26/2026 19:01, Your Name wrote:
The mistake the BBC made was not keeping Tom Baker and
Jon Pertwee on much longer, and then ending the show
after they left.
Well...as I understand things, after Roger Delgado's death,
Pertwee really didn't have it in him to continue any longer
than he did; not sure the BBC would have been able to
convince him to stay.
Perhaps that was one of the reasons.
According to some sources:
"When Jon Pertwee's request for a increased fee for a sixth
season of Doctor Who was rejected by Shaun Sutton, he
decided to leave the show."
If true, it simply came down to greed, as it too often does.
Nothing wrong with looking for more money for a contract
extension. Jon Pertwee was a popular actor.
Had he stayed on, we might never have got Tom Baker. So things
happen for a reason.
He himself of course claimed the usual nonsense about "didn't
want to be typecast" and "want to pursue other roles", as
almost every actor quitting a role does.
Jon Pertwee was also reportedly suffering from back pain
problems, so probably needed a break too.
He of course did later return to the role for some audio
dramas.
Pertwee more famously returned as the 3rd Doctor in "The Five
Doctors" in 1983.
The two BBC Radio dramas that he did, with Elisabeth Sladen and
Nicholas Courtney, were in the 1990's. (There was supposed to be
a third one but Jon Pertwee died in the meantime.)
Hornplayer9599 wrote:
On 6/26/2026 19:01, Your Name wrote:
The mistake the BBC made was not keeping Tom Baker and
Jon Pertwee on much longer, and then ending the show
after they left.
Well...as I understand things, after Roger Delgado's death,
Pertwee really didn't have it in him to continue any longer
than he did; not sure the BBC would have been able to convince
him to stay.
Barry Letts, Terrance Dicks and Katy Manning were also leaving
the show at that time... so regardless of the PR spin, a new
Doctor coming in made sense.
The Doctor wrote:
What about Coronation Street?
It's s*t!
Next question...
In article <xn0prit9yvxb8o000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Your Name wrote:
He of course did later return to the role for some
audio dramas.
Pertwee more famously returned as the 3rd Doctor in "The
Five Doctors" in 1983.
The two BBC Radio dramas that he did, with Elisabeth Sladen
and Nicholas Courtney, were in the 1990's.
I wonder if a copy is available for purchase.
In article <xn0pritejw3yr2002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
What about Coronation Street?
It's shit!
Next question...
Well Jodie Whittaker would fit into Coronation Street.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0prit9yvxb8o000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Your Name wrote:
He of course did later return to the role for some
audio dramas.
Pertwee more famously returned as the 3rd Doctor in "The
Five Doctors" in 1983.
The two BBC Radio dramas that he did, with Elisabeth Sladen
and Nicholas Courtney, were in the 1990's.
I wonder if a copy is available for purchase.
Both of the Third Doctor radio dramas have been released
commercially by the BBC. If you haven't bought them by now,
why would you be interested now?
When you open your wallet Bats fly out...
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pritejw3yr2002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
What about Coronation Street?
It's s*t!
Next question...
Well Jodie Whittaker would fit into Coronation Street.
FAIL.
That's not a question.
In article <111mos5$qp3n$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 26/06/2026 15:23, The Doctor wrote:
In article <111m0tp$j1mg$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 26/06/2026 12:24, Daniel70 wrote:
On 26/06/2026 7:36 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 25/06/2026 07:30, Theory11 wrote:
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted:
If you want to make a show with a female main protagonists don't hijack >>>> one with a male protagonist and gender swap them and then tell the
audience to go and f*k grass if they don't like it. You go and f*k
grass and create something new of your own.
RTD and his spiritual leader Idlehands aka The Devil
You mean Chibnall.
can burn in Hell for eterniry.
All of them can Burn.
Idlehands did Get kicked out of Heaven
for rebellion according to Lord Jesus Chirst.
And I think your 'audience returning' verses 'obtaining finance'
proposition might be a bit of a 'Chicken before the Egg' situation." >>>>>
Why might anybody put funds into a project that can't attract an
audience that makes it worthwhile funding a project that can't attract >>>>> an audience to attract the money ........."??
McCoy: Then the show's dead Jim. It's dead Jim... Dead!
Kirk: Are you completely sure Bones? Look at it again.
McCoy: It's showing no life signs. None whatsoever.
Scotty: Yee canna break the laws of good writing Cap'en. The doctor is >>>> right. It's dead.
McCoy: The medical tricorder indicates that it died of a massive
literary infarction which could have easily been prevented.
Kirk: But why Bones, why?
Spock: It's demise displayed a completely predictable logical
Its...
Error noted.
progression Captain. Instead of good story telling the only thing that >>>> mattered to the writers was political massaging. The main protagonist
who was intrinsically a white, British, heterosexual, male character was >>>> turned into a woman who identified as a lesbian, despite the natural
audience being composed mainly of white, British, heterosexual, men.
Then this gender swapped protagonist was eventually race and gender
swapped into a black effeminate homosexual Rwandan man and the show was >>>> made all about him being black and gay and used to sexually groom
children peddling gender and identity politics to the tiny remaining
audience wasn't remotely interested in. They were all told that they
...was not...
Spock does not speak using contractions.
were incels, and, please excuse the colourful language Captain, to go
and f*k grass.
Scotty: Those degenerates have no decency.
Spock: They also wrote it primarily for 6 year old girls, writing which >>>> didn't appeal to effeminate Rwandan homosexual men wearing skits and
...did not...
At least, unlike the degenerate soap-opera hacks from hell Davies and
Chibnall, or the piece of s*t hack Alex Kurtzman who mentored them, I
do rewrites.
pretending to be women that the main protagonist was made to represent, >>>> and effeminate Rwandan homosexual men wearing skirts and pretending to >>>> be women didn't appeal to the 6 year old girls they wrote it for either. >>>>
...did not...
Kirk: I see Spock. These audiences, already tiny in numbers, were also >>>> mutually exclusive, so nobody watched it at all.
Spock: Yes Captain.
Scotty: Apart from a handful of people that watched it so that others
didnrCOt have to.
...didn'a have teh...
Got to remember he's Scottish.
Aye.
Spock: Correct Mr Scott.
Kirk: It therefore stood no chance after the changes that were made to it. >>>>
Scotty: Disgusting.
Spock: Fascinating.
Kirk: To be woke is to be uninformed. I sincerely hope we do not suffer >>>> the same fate.
Here's the second draft.
McCoy: Then the show's dead Jim. It's dead Jim... Dead!
Kirk: Are you completely sure Bones? Look at it again.
McCoy: It's showing no life signs. None whatsoever.
Scotty: Yee canna break the laws of good writing Cap'en. The doctor is
right. It's dead.
McCoy: The medical tricorder indicates that it died of a massive
literary infarction which could have easily been prevented.
Kirk: But why Bones, why?
Spock: Its demise displayed a completely predictable logical progression
Captain. Instead of good story telling the only thing that mattered to
the writers was political massaging. The main protagonist who was
intrinsically a white, British, heterosexual, male character was turned
into a woman who identified as a lesbian, despite the natural audience
being composed mainly of white, British, heterosexual, men. Then this
gender swapped protagonist was eventually race and gender swapped into a
black effeminate homosexual Rwandan man and the show was made all about
him being black and gay and used to sexually groom children peddling
gender and identity politics to the tiny remaining audience was not
remotely interested in. They were all told that they were incels, and,
please excuse the colourful language Captain, to go and fuck grass.
Scotty: Those degenerates have no decency.
Spock: They also wrote it primarily for 6 year old girls, writing which
did not appeal to effeminate Rwandan homosexual men wearing skits and
pretending to be women that the main protagonist was made to represent,
and effeminate Rwandan homosexual men wearing skirts and pretending to
be women did not appeal to the 6 year old girls they wrote it for either.
Kirk: I see Spock. These audiences, already tiny in numbers, were also
mutually exclusive, so nobody watched it at all.
Spock: Yes Captain.
Scotty: Apart from a handful of people that watched it so that others
didn'a have teh.
Spock: Correct Mr Scott.
Kirk: It therefore stood no chance after the changes that were made to it. >>
Scotty: Disgusting.
Spock: Fascinating.
Kirk: To be woke is to be uninformed. I sincerely hope we do not suffer
the same fate.
I wonder if we could get AI to make this? Anyone what to try? There's
lots of shorts going around with Uhura, Troi, 7 of 9, and Jadzea Dax
talking together on the bridge of the Enterprise dressed in tight costumes. >>
I prefer AI analysing stuff, not creating stuff.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0prit9yvxb8o000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Your Name wrote:
He of course did later return to the role for some
audio dramas.
Pertwee more famously returned as the 3rd Doctor in "The
Five Doctors" in 1983.
The two BBC Radio dramas that he did, with Elisabeth Sladen
and Nicholas Courtney, were in the 1990's.
I wonder if a copy is available for purchase.
Both of the Third Doctor radio dramas have been released
commercially by the BBC. If you haven't bought them by now,
why would you be interested now?
When you open your wallet Bats fly out...
Since Chibnall made it the Tiemless child.
On 27/06/2026 02:51, The Doctor wrote:
In article <111mos5$qp3n$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 26/06/2026 15:23, The Doctor wrote:
In article <111m0tp$j1mg$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 26/06/2026 12:24, Daniel70 wrote:
On 26/06/2026 7:36 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 25/06/2026 07:30, Theory11 wrote:
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted:
If you want to make a show with a female main protagonists don't hijack >>>>> one with a male protagonist and gender swap them and then tell the
audience to go and f*k grass if they don't like it. You go and f*k
grass and create something new of your own.
RTD and his spiritual leader Idlehands aka The Devil
You mean Chibnall.
can burn in Hell for eterniry.
All of them can Burn.
Idlehands did Get kicked out of Heaven
for rebellion according to Lord Jesus Chirst.
And I think your 'audience returning' verses 'obtaining finance'
proposition might be a bit of a 'Chicken before the Egg' situation." >>>>>>
Why might anybody put funds into a project that can't attract an
audience that makes it worthwhile funding a project that can't attract >>>>>> an audience to attract the money ........."??
McCoy: Then the show's dead Jim. It's dead Jim... Dead!
Kirk: Are you completely sure Bones? Look at it again.
McCoy: It's showing no life signs. None whatsoever.
Scotty: Yee canna break the laws of good writing Cap'en. The doctor is >>>>> right. It's dead.
McCoy: The medical tricorder indicates that it died of a massive
literary infarction which could have easily been prevented.
Kirk: But why Bones, why?
Spock: It's demise displayed a completely predictable logical
Its...
Error noted.
progression Captain. Instead of good story telling the only thing that >>>>> mattered to the writers was political massaging. The main protagonist >>>>> who was intrinsically a white, British, heterosexual, male character was >>>>> turned into a woman who identified as a lesbian, despite the natural >>>>> audience being composed mainly of white, British, heterosexual, men. >>>>> Then this gender swapped protagonist was eventually race and gender
swapped into a black effeminate homosexual Rwandan man and the show was >>>>> made all about him being black and gay and used to sexually groom
children peddling gender and identity politics to the tiny remaining >>>>> audience wasn't remotely interested in. They were all told that they
...was not...
Spock does not speak using contractions.
were incels, and, please excuse the colourful language Captain, to go >>>>> and f*k grass.
Scotty: Those degenerates have no decency.
Spock: They also wrote it primarily for 6 year old girls, writing which >>>>> didn't appeal to effeminate Rwandan homosexual men wearing skits and
...did not...
At least, unlike the degenerate soap-opera hacks from hell Davies and
Chibnall, or the piece of s*t hack Alex Kurtzman who mentored them, I
do rewrites.
pretending to be women that the main protagonist was made to represent, >>>>> and effeminate Rwandan homosexual men wearing skirts and pretending to >>>>> be women didn't appeal to the 6 year old girls they wrote it for either. >>>>>
...did not...
Kirk: I see Spock. These audiences, already tiny in numbers, were also >>>>> mutually exclusive, so nobody watched it at all.
Spock: Yes Captain.
Scotty: Apart from a handful of people that watched it so that others >>>>> didnrCOt have to.
...didn'a have teh...
Got to remember he's Scottish.
Aye.
Spock: Correct Mr Scott.
Kirk: It therefore stood no chance after the changes that were made to it.
Scotty: Disgusting.
Spock: Fascinating.
Kirk: To be woke is to be uninformed. I sincerely hope we do not suffer >>>>> the same fate.
Here's the second draft.
McCoy: Then the show's dead Jim. It's dead Jim... Dead!
Kirk: Are you completely sure Bones? Look at it again.
McCoy: It's showing no life signs. None whatsoever.
Scotty: Yee canna break the laws of good writing Cap'en. The doctor is
right. It's dead.
McCoy: The medical tricorder indicates that it died of a massive
literary infarction which could have easily been prevented.
Kirk: But why Bones, why?
Spock: Its demise displayed a completely predictable logical progression >>> Captain. Instead of good story telling the only thing that mattered to
the writers was political massaging. The main protagonist who was
intrinsically a white, British, heterosexual, male character was turned
into a woman who identified as a lesbian, despite the natural audience
being composed mainly of white, British, heterosexual, men. Then this
gender swapped protagonist was eventually race and gender swapped into a >>> black effeminate homosexual Rwandan man and the show was made all about
him being black and gay and used to sexually groom children peddling
gender and identity politics to the tiny remaining audience was not
remotely interested in. They were all told that they were incels, and,
please excuse the colourful language Captain, to go and fuck grass.
Scotty: Those degenerates have no decency.
Spock: They also wrote it primarily for 6 year old girls, writing which
did not appeal to effeminate Rwandan homosexual men wearing skits and
pretending to be women that the main protagonist was made to represent,
and effeminate Rwandan homosexual men wearing skirts and pretending to
be women did not appeal to the 6 year old girls they wrote it for either. >>>
Kirk: I see Spock. These audiences, already tiny in numbers, were also
mutually exclusive, so nobody watched it at all.
Spock: Yes Captain.
Scotty: Apart from a handful of people that watched it so that others
didn'a have teh.
Spock: Correct Mr Scott.
Kirk: It therefore stood no chance after the changes that were made to it. >>>
Scotty: Disgusting.
Spock: Fascinating.
Kirk: To be woke is to be uninformed. I sincerely hope we do not suffer
the same fate.
I wonder if we could get AI to make this? Anyone what to try? There's
lots of shorts going around with Uhura, Troi, 7 of 9, and Jadzea Dax
talking together on the bridge of the Enterprise dressed in tight costumes. >>>
I prefer AI analysing stuff, not creating stuff.
I managed to get Copilot to generate some thumbnails for the parody >crossover script using the original Star Trek characters before it
decided to go all copyright on me.
You can see them all here.
https://postimg.cc/gallery/sDXWSdL
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 28/06/2026 12:41 am, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0prit9yvxb8o000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Your Name wrote:
He of course did later return to the role for some
audio dramas.
Pertwee more famously returned as the 3rd Doctor in "The
Five Doctors" in 1983.
The two BBC Radio dramas that he did, with Elisabeth Sladen
and Nicholas Courtney, were in the 1990's.
I wonder if a copy is available for purchase.
Both of the Third Doctor radio dramas have been released
commercially by the BBC. If you haven't bought them by now,
why would you be interested now?
He's not, particularly .... but, still, it's a post!!
--When you open your wallet Bats fly out...--
Daniel70
On 27/06/2026 11:53 am, The Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Since Chibnall made it the Tiemless child.
Since Chibnall made WHAT WHAT??
----
Daniel70
In article <111qb8o$3dp7p$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
I managed to get Copilot to generate some thumbnails for
the parody crossover script using the original Star Trek
characters before it decided to go all copyright on me.
You can see them all here.
https://postimg.cc/gallery/sDXWSdL
You can post that in alt.drwho.creative .
The Doctor wrote:
In article <111qb8o$3dp7p$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
I managed to get Copilot to generate some thumbnails for
the parody crossover script using the original Star Trek
characters before it decided to go all copyright on me.
You can see them all here.
https://postimg.cc/gallery/sDXWSdL
You can post that in alt.drwho.creative .
That would still be the wrong newsgroup. They are Star Trek
images!
Although judging by the stuff you knock up and call art, you
are obviously visually challenged... so you probably didn't
notice.
In article <xn0prljyl3njlmz000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <111qb8o$3dp7p$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
You can see them all here.
https://postimg.cc/gallery/sDXWSdL
You can post that in alt.drwho.creative .
That would still be the wrong newsgroup. They are Star Trek
images!
Although judging by the stuff you knock up and call art, you
are obviously visually challenged... so you probably didn't
notice.
But based on DW going woke.
Nice to see you are awake.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0prljyl3njlmz000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <111qb8o$3dp7p$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
You can see them all here.
https://postimg.cc/gallery/sDXWSdL
You can post that in alt.drwho.creative .
That would still be the wrong newsgroup. They are Star Trek
images!
Although judging by the stuff you knock up and call art, you
are obviously visually challenged... so you probably didn't
notice.
But based on DW going woke.
They are still images of Star Trek characters.
Nice to see you are awake.
Nice to see you are still a dope.
Or are you doing your best Dalek impression... "my vision is
impaired, I can not see"...
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0prljyl3njlmz000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <111qb8o$3dp7p$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
You can see them all here.
https://postimg.cc/gallery/sDXWSdL
You can post that in alt.drwho.creative .
That would still be the wrong newsgroup. They are Star Trek
images!
Although judging by the stuff you knock up and call art, you
are obviously visually challenged... so you probably didn't
notice.
But based on DW going woke.
They are still images of Star Trek characters.
Nice to see you are awake.
Nice to see you are still a dope.
Or are you doing your best Dalek impression... "my vision is
impaired, I can not see"...
On 29/06/2026 19:10, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0prljyl3njlmz000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <111qb8o$3dp7p$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
You can see them all here.
https://postimg.cc/gallery/sDXWSdL
You can post that in alt.drwho.creative .
That would still be the wrong newsgroup. They are Star Trek
images!
Although judging by the stuff you knock up and call art, you
are obviously visually challenged... so you probably didn't
notice.
But based on DW going woke.
They are still images of Star Trek characters.
Did you read the script? It's a Star Trek/Doctor Who crossover and
before I could add Rose Tyler regenerating I got busted by the AI police
for copyright despite it being a parody. Imagine the patient to be Rose >Tyler as in the final image.
Nice to see you are awake.
Nice to see you are still a dope.
Or are you doing your best Dalek impression... "my vision is
impaired, I can not see"...
Emergency, emergency, under attack, under attack...
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 29/06/2026 19:10, Blueshirt wrote:
They are still images of Star Trek characters.
Did you read the script?
It's a Star Trek/Doctor Who crossover
and before I could add Rose Tyler regenerating I got
busted by the AI police for copyright despite it being
a parody.
Imagine the patient to be Rose Tyler as in the final image.
Or are you doing your best Dalek impression... "my vision
is impaired, I can not see"...
Emergency, emergency, under attack, under attack...
The True Doctor wrote:
On 29/06/2026 19:10, Blueshirt wrote:
They are still images of Star Trek characters.
Did you read the script?
It's not woke enough.
It's a Star Trek/Doctor Who crossover
Lovely. Because that's what this world needs right now
isn't it?
and before I could add Rose Tyler regenerating I got
busted by the AI police for copyright despite it being
a parody.
Yet the AI Police let Dave perpetrate his visual crimes against
us daily without stopping him.
Imagine the patient to be Rose Tyler as in the final image.
It's Star Trek Jim, just not as we know it...
Or are you doing your best Dalek impression... "my vision
is impaired, I can not see"...
Emergency, emergency, under attack, under attack...
This is not war... this is pest control!
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 00:23:02 |
| Calls: | 949 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 281,474 |