We all knew that Doctor Who was over. Anyone that has seen this modern trash >could see it a mile away. However even writers involved with the show are >expressing the same sentiment. With ZERO demand or direction for NEW Doctor >material as well as the show now being completely in limbo.
https://youtu.be/8qxQ7XZFHGE?si=799Pg1oCE-IUCzAQ
--
Let's go Brandon!
RETCON THE TIMELESS CHILD TOTALLY OUT OF DOCTOR WHO!.
In article <10d7q90$3rlsu$3@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
We all knew that Doctor Who was over. Anyone that has seen this modern trash >> could see it a mile away. However even writers involved with the show are
expressing the same sentiment. With ZERO demand or direction for NEW Doctor >> material as well as the show now being completely in limbo.
https://youtu.be/8qxQ7XZFHGE?si=799Pg1oCE-IUCzAQ
--
Let's go Brandon!
Sack RTD and get a brand new showrunners who will
do what the fans want: RETCON THE TIMELESS CHILD TOTALLY OUT OF DOCTOR WHO!.
In article <10d80gc$13af$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
RETCON THE TIMELESS CHILD TOTALLY OUT OF DOCTOR WHO!.
You know, a new showrunner could just ignore it. When a
show runs this long, things fall out of continuity all by
themselves. Most modern viewers have probably never heard
of the Guardians or the Celestials, which means they're
effectively gone unless deliberately brought back.
*Ignore* the bloody Timeless Child.
Melissa
On 10/21/2025 6:06 AM, The Doctor wrote:
In article <10d7q90$3rlsu$3@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous-a <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
We all knew that Doctor Who was over. Anyone that has seen this
modern trash
could see it a mile away. However even writers involved with the show
are
expressing the same sentiment. With ZERO demand or direction for NEW
Doctor
material as well as the show now being completely in limbo.
https://youtu.be/8qxQ7XZFHGE?si=799Pg1oCE-IUCzAQ
--
Let's go Brandon!
Sack RTD and get a brand new showrunners who will
do what the fans want: RETCON THE TIMELESS CHILD TOTALLY OUT OF DOCTOR
WHO!.
More accurately:-a "Sack RTD and do what the half dozen fans who post
here want."
I don't believe you speak for all Whovians.
If you retcon the Timeless Child what do you plan to do for the 26th* regeneration?
*12 original + one from River Song + 12 more from the exiled Time Lords.
-aNote: this count would include the Fugitive Doctor and the War Doctor
if the Timeless Child story line is removed, making the upcoming Billy
Piper incarnation the 19th Doctor.
(1: Jo Martin, 2: William Hartnell, 3: Patrick Troughton, 4: Jon
Pertwee, 5: Tom Baker, 6: Peter Davison, 7: Colin Baker, 8: Sylvester
McCoy, 9: Paul McGann, 10: John Hurt, 11: Christopher Eccleston, 12:
David Tennant, 13: Matt Smith, 14: Matt Smith, 15: Peter Capaldi, 16:
Jodie Whittaker, 17: David Tennant, 18: Ncuti Gatwa, and 19: Billy Piper)
By this calculation they have 6 regenerations left, unless the writers
come up with another gimmick to give them more.-a Oh!-a Wait! They have, with the Timeless Child they have infinite regenerations!
The Timeless Child monster cannot be ignored as it changes the Doctor's entire origin story and turns him into an entirely different character
which is that of an unrepentant war criminal hiding from their crimes.
despite all previous incarnations being white, male, and
heterosexual,
In article <10d8im3$43md$2@dont-email.me>,
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM says...
despite all previous incarnations being white, male, and
heterosexual,
Most of his incarnations were asexual, in practice if not
by statement.
Melissa
They already gave the Doctor another set of regenerations at the end of
The Time of the Doctor.
On 10/21/2025 11:16 AM, The True Doctor wrote:
They already gave the Doctor another set of regenerations at the end
of The Time of the Doctor.
I included those and there was a limit, they gave him another 12.
In article <10d8i9v$3ujh$1@dont-email.me>,
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM says...
The Timeless Child monster cannot be ignored as it changes the Doctor's
entire origin story and turns him into an entirely different character
which is that of an unrepentant war criminal hiding from their crimes.
That's exactly why it should be ignored.
Melissa
On 10/21/2025 6:06 AM, The Doctor wrote:
In article <10d7q90$3rlsu$3@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
We all knew that Doctor Who was over. Anyone that has seen this modern trash
could see it a mile away. However even writers involved with the show are >>> expressing the same sentiment. With ZERO demand or direction for NEW Doctor >>> material as well as the show now being completely in limbo.
https://youtu.be/8qxQ7XZFHGE?si=799Pg1oCE-IUCzAQ
--
Let's go Brandon!
Sack RTD and get a brand new showrunners who will
do what the fans want: RETCON THE TIMELESS CHILD TOTALLY OUT OF DOCTOR WHO!.
More accurately: "Sack RTD and do what the half dozen fans who post
here want."
I don't believe you speak for all Whovians.
If you retcon the Timeless Child what do you plan to do for the 26th* regeneration?
*12 original + one from River Song + 12 more from the exiled Time
Lords. Note: this count would include the Fugitive Doctor and the War Doctor if the Timeless Child story line is removed, making the upcoming Billy Piper incarnation the 19th Doctor.
(1: Jo Martin, 2: William Hartnell, 3: Patrick Troughton, 4: Jon
Pertwee, 5: Tom Baker, 6: Peter Davison, 7: Colin Baker, 8: Sylvester
McCoy, 9: Paul McGann, 10: John Hurt, 11: Christopher Eccleston, 12:
David Tennant, 13: Matt Smith, 14: Matt Smith, 15: Peter Capaldi, 16:
Jodie Whittaker, 17: David Tennant, 18: Ncuti Gatwa, and 19: Billy
Piper)
By this calculation they have 6 regenerations left, unless the writers
come up with another gimmick to give them more. Oh! Wait! They have,
with the Timeless Child they have infinite regenerations!
Then there's Peter Cushing, although he's a different "Doctor Who"
entirely ... supposedly.
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
Then there's Peter Cushing, although he's a different "Doctor Who"
entirely ... supposedly.
He did a great job in the role, though. I'm only sad that David Niven
never got a chance at it.
--scott
In article <10d80gc$13af$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
RETCON THE TIMELESS CHILD TOTALLY OUT OF DOCTOR WHO!.
You know, a new showrunner could just ignore it. When a
show runs this long, things fall out of continuity all by
themselves. Most modern viewers have probably never heard
of the Guardians or the Celestials, which means they're
effectively gone unless deliberately brought back.
*Ignore* the bloody Timeless Child.
Melissa
On 10/21/2025 6:06 AM, The Doctor wrote:
In article <10d7q90$3rlsu$3@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
We all knew that Doctor Who was over. Anyone that has seen this modern trash
could see it a mile away. However even writers involved with the show are >>> expressing the same sentiment. With ZERO demand or direction for NEW Doctor >>> material as well as the show now being completely in limbo.
https://youtu.be/8qxQ7XZFHGE?si=799Pg1oCE-IUCzAQ
--
Let's go Brandon!
Sack RTD and get a brand new showrunners who will
do what the fans want: RETCON THE TIMELESS CHILD TOTALLY OUT OF DOCTOR WHO!.
More accurately: "Sack RTD and do what the half dozen fans who post
here want."
I don't believe you speak for all Whovians.
If you retcon the Timeless Child what do you plan to do for the 26th* >regeneration?
*12 original + one from River Song + 12 more from the exiled Time Lords.
Note: this count would include the Fugitive Doctor and the War Doctor
if the Timeless Child story line is removed, making the upcoming Billy
Piper incarnation the 19th Doctor.
(1: Jo Martin, 2: William Hartnell, 3: Patrick Troughton, 4: Jon
Pertwee, 5: Tom Baker, 6: Peter Davison, 7: Colin Baker, 8: Sylvester
McCoy, 9: Paul McGann, 10: John Hurt, 11: Christopher Eccleston, 12:
David Tennant, 13: Matt Smith, 14: Matt Smith, 15: Peter Capaldi, 16:
Jodie Whittaker, 17: David Tennant, 18: Ncuti Gatwa, and 19: Billy Piper)
By this calculation they have 6 regenerations left, unless the writers
come up with another gimmick to give them more. Oh! Wait! They have,
with the Timeless Child they have infinite regenerations!
----
Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.
Tim Merrigan
On 21/10/2025 18:23, The True Melissa wrote:
In article <10d80gc$13af$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
RETCON THE TIMELESS CHILD TOTALLY OUT OF DOCTOR WHO!.
You know, a new showrunner could just ignore it. When a
show runs this long, things fall out of continuity all by
themselves. Most modern viewers have probably never heard
of the Guardians or the Celestials, which means they're
effectively gone unless deliberately brought back.
*Ignore* the bloody Timeless Child.
The Timeless Child monster cannot be ignored as it changes the Doctor's >entire origin story and turns him into an entirely different character
which is that of an unrepentant war criminal hiding from their crimes.
Melissa
----
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 <10d8i9v$3ujh$1@dont-email.me>,
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM says...
The Timeless Child monster cannot be ignored as it changes the Doctor's
entire origin story and turns him into an entirely different character
which is that of an unrepentant war criminal hiding from their crimes.
That's exactly why it should be ignored.
Melissa
On 10/21/2025 11:16 AM, The True Doctor wrote:
They already gave the Doctor another set of regenerations at the end of
The Time of the Doctor.
I included those and there was a limit, they gave him another 12.
----
Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.
Tim Merrigan
On 21/10/2025 21:14, Tim Merrigan wrote:
On 10/21/2025 11:16 AM, The True Doctor wrote:
They already gave the Doctor another set of regenerations at the end
of The Time of the Doctor.
I included those and there was a limit, they gave him another 12.
It was never stated how many they gave him. They could have been unlimited.
----
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 2025-10-21 18:06:58 +0000, Tim Merrigan said:
On 10/21/2025 6:06 AM, The Doctor wrote:
In article <10d7q90$3rlsu$3@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
We all knew that Doctor Who was over. Anyone that has seen this modern trash
could see it a mile away. However even writers involved with the show are >>>> expressing the same sentiment. With ZERO demand or direction for NEW Doctor
material as well as the show now being completely in limbo.
https://youtu.be/8qxQ7XZFHGE?si=799Pg1oCE-IUCzAQ
--
Let's go Brandon!
Sack RTD and get a brand new showrunners who will
do what the fans want: RETCON THE TIMELESS CHILD TOTALLY OUT OF DOCTOR WHO!.
More accurately: "Sack RTD and do what the half dozen fans who post
here want."
I don't believe you speak for all Whovians.
If you retcon the Timeless Child what do you plan to do for the 26th*
regeneration?
*12 original + one from River Song + 12 more from the exiled Time
Lords. Note: this count would include the Fugitive Doctor and the War
Doctor if the Timeless Child story line is removed, making the upcoming
Billy Piper incarnation the 19th Doctor.
(1: Jo Martin, 2: William Hartnell, 3: Patrick Troughton, 4: Jon
Pertwee, 5: Tom Baker, 6: Peter Davison, 7: Colin Baker, 8: Sylvester
McCoy, 9: Paul McGann, 10: John Hurt, 11: Christopher Eccleston, 12:
David Tennant, 13: Matt Smith, 14: Matt Smith, 15: Peter Capaldi, 16:
Jodie Whittaker, 17: David Tennant, 18: Ncuti Gatwa, and 19: Billy
Piper)
By this calculation they have 6 regenerations left, unless the writers
come up with another gimmick to give them more. Oh! Wait! They have,
with the Timeless Child they have infinite regenerations!
But that's a mis-calcualtion. If you take the show back to it's
*proper* version, then Jo Martin, Jodie Whittaker, and Ncuti Gatwa
don't count at all. There's also no evidence that Billie Piper is the
new Doctor (semi-permanent or temporary). Paul McGann doesn't count
either and possibly neither does John Hurt.
Then there's Peter Cushing, although he's a different "Doctor Who"
entirely ... supposedly.
But that's a mis-calcualtion. If you take the show back to it's *proper* version, then Jo Martin, Jodie Whittaker, and Ncuti Gatwa don't count at all. There's also no evidence that Billie Piper is the new Doctor (semi- permanent or temporary). Paul McGann doesn't count either and possibly neither does John Hurt.
On 10/21/2025 1:57 PM, Your Name wrote:
But that's a mis-calcualtion. If you take the show back to it's *proper*
version, then Jo Martin, Jodie Whittaker, and Ncuti Gatwa don't count at
all. There's also no evidence that Billie Piper is the new Doctor (semi-
permanent or temporary). Paul McGann doesn't count either and possibly
neither does John Hurt.
Says you. I'll take the word of the powers that be at BBC over yours.
As I said before, I don't believe that you speak for all Whovians, or
any, for that matter, other than yourself.
----
Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.
Tim Merrigan
On 10/21/2025 1:57 PM, Your Name wrote:
But that's a mis-calcualtion. If you take the show back to it's
*proper* version, then Jo Martin, Jodie Whittaker, and Ncuti Gatwa
don't count at all. There's also no evidence that Billie Piper is the
new Doctor (semi- permanent or temporary). Paul McGann doesn't count
either and possibly neither does John Hurt.
Says you. I'll take the word of the powers that be at BBC over yours.
As I said before, I don't believe that you speak for all Whovians, or
any, for that matter, other than yourself.
On 2025-10-22 01:25:59 +0000, Tim Merrigan said:
On 10/21/2025 1:57 PM, Your Name wrote:
But that's a mis-calcualtion. If you take the show back to it's
*proper* version, then Jo Martin, Jodie Whittaker, and Ncuti Gatwa
don't count at all. There's also no evidence that Billie Piper is the
new Doctor (semi- permanent or temporary). Paul McGann doesn't count
either and possibly neither does John Hurt.
Says you. I'll take the word of the powers that be at BBC over yours.
As I said before, I don't believe that you speak for all Whovians, or
any, for that matter, other than yourself.
The BBC doesn't really give a flying monkey crap about "Doctor Who" nor
the viewers / fans. As soon as it no longer makes "enough" money for
them, they'll drop it as quickly as they can. They'll also butcher it
with all sorts of stupid ideas in misguided attempts to "attract a new >audience".
In article <10d9br8$ar91$1@dont-email.me>,
Tim Merrigan <tppm@rr.ca.com> wrote:
On 10/21/2025 1:57 PM, Your Name wrote:
But that's a mis-calcualtion. If you take the show back to it's *proper* >>> version, then Jo Martin, Jodie Whittaker, and Ncuti Gatwa don't count at >>> all. There's also no evidence that Billie Piper is the new Doctor (semi- >>> permanent or temporary). Paul McGann doesn't count either and possibly
neither does John Hurt.
Says you. I'll take the word of the powers that be at BBC over yours.
As I said before, I don't believe that you speak for all Whovians, or
any, for that matter, other than yourself.
IYIO
--
Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.
Tim Merrigan
Again, please keep the Dr. Who slop out of the
rec.arts.sf.fandom newsgroup. That's a low-volume
newsgroup for discussing fandom itself, meaning coventions
and the people who attend and run them, and fanzines and
the people who write and publish them.
In recent days the unwanted Dr. Who slop has exceeded all
other traffic in that newsgroup, threatening to destroy it.
On 10/21/2025 7:45 PM, The Doctor wrote:
In article <10d9br8$ar91$1@dont-email.me>,-+Kay es IYIO?
Tim Merrigan <tppm@rr.ca.com> wrote:
On 10/21/2025 1:57 PM, Your Name wrote:
But that's a mis-calcualtion. If you take the show back to it's *proper* >>>> version, then Jo Martin, Jodie Whittaker, and Ncuti Gatwa don't count at >>>> all. There's also no evidence that Billie Piper is the new Doctor (semi- >>>> permanent or temporary). Paul McGann doesn't count either and possibly >>>> neither does John Hurt.
Says you. I'll take the word of the powers that be at BBC over yours.
As I said before, I don't believe that you speak for all Whovians, or
any, for that matter, other than yourself.
IYIO
--
Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.
Tim Merrigan
--
Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.
Tim Merrigan
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Again, please keep the Dr. Who slop out of the
rec.arts.sf.fandom newsgroup. That's a low-volume
newsgroup for discussing fandom itself, meaning coventions
and the people who attend and run them, and fanzines and
the people who write and publish them.
What about the newsgroups that discuss these shows, are they
not a part of "fandom" too? I mean, a fan writing something
about a sci-fi show for a fanzine or in a Usenet post is pretty
similar. A newsgroup could even be considered an online fanzine!
In recent days the unwanted Dr. Who slop has exceeded all
other traffic in that newsgroup, threatening to destroy it.
How can traffic destroy a newsgroup? Traffic keeps it alive.
You are free to use filters or killfiles to ignore the
posts/posters that you don't want to see and/or read though.
Also, who decides what content is wanted and unwanted on any
specific newsgroup? Surely the readers of any newsgroup exercise
their own judgement by using the aforesaid filter mechanisms to
decide what content they read, or ignore?
On 21/10/2025 19:28, The True Melissa wrote:
In article <10d8i9v$3ujh$1@dont-email.me>,
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM says...
The Timeless Child monster cannot be ignored as it changes the Doctor's
entire origin story and turns him into an entirely different character
which is that of an unrepentant war criminal hiding from their crimes.
That's exactly why it should be ignored.
It can't be ignored. It has to be completely removed from canon.
In article <10d8pqo$6fts$4@dont-email.me>,
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM says...
On 21/10/2025 19:28, The True Melissa wrote:
In article <10d8i9v$3ujh$1@dont-email.me>,
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM says...
The Timeless Child monster cannot be ignored as it changes the Doctor's >> >> entire origin story and turns him into an entirely different character
which is that of an unrepentant war criminal hiding from their crimes.
That's exactly why it should be ignored.
It can't be ignored. It has to be completely removed from canon.
"Has to be?"
There's no way to enforce that.
Melissa
What about the newsgroups that discuss these shows, are they
not a part of "fandom" too? I mean, a fan writing something
about a sci-fi show for a fanzine or in a Usenet post is pretty
similar. A newsgroup could even be considered an online fanzine!
In recent days the unwanted Dr. Who slop has exceeded all
other traffic in that newsgroup, threatening to destroy it.
How can traffic destroy a newsgroup? Traffic keeps it alive.
You are free to use filters or killfiles to ignore the
posts/posters that you don't want to see and/or read though.
Also, who decides what content is wanted and unwanted on any
specific newsgroup? Surely the readers of any newsgroup exercise
their own judgement by using the aforesaid filter mechanisms to
decide what content they read, or ignore?
The Opposite of IMHO.IYIO-+Kay es IYIO?
--
Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.
Tim Merrigan
--
Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.
Tim Merrigan
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
What about the newsgroups that discuss these shows, are they
not a part of "fandom" too? I mean, a fan writing something
about a sci-fi show for a fanzine or in a Usenet post is
pretty similar. A newsgroup could even be considered an
online fanzine!
Yes. The rec.arts.sf.fandom group could be thought of as a
metagroup for discussing those groups. It's not a fanzine,
it's a place where people discuss fanzines.
In recent days the unwanted Dr. Who slop has exceeded all
other traffic in that newsgroup, threatening to destroy it.
How can traffic destroy a newsgroup? Traffic keeps it alive.
You are free to use filters or killfiles to ignore the
posts/posters that you don't want to see and/or read though.
That's what we do for the most part.
All of the Dr. Who threads in r.a.s.f come from one person
and if people would trim the newsgroups line when replying
to him, we woudn't see any of the trash.
Also, who decides what content is wanted and unwanted on any
specific newsgroup? Surely the readers of any newsgroup
exercise their own judgement by using the aforesaid filter
mechanisms to decide what content they read, or ignore?
Well, there is a newsgroup charter after all.
In article <xn0pcccd65cf7q5002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Again, please keep the Dr. Who slop out of the
rec.arts.sf.fandom newsgroup. That's a low-volume
newsgroup for discussing fandom itself, meaning coventions
and the people who attend and run them, and fanzines and
the people who write and publish them.
What about the newsgroups that discuss these shows, are they
not a part of "fandom" too? I mean, a fan writing something
about a sci-fi show for a fanzine or in a Usenet post is
pretty similar. A newsgroup could even be considered an
online fanzine!
In recent days the unwanted Dr. Who slop has exceeded all
other traffic in that newsgroup, threatening to destroy it.
How can traffic destroy a newsgroup? Traffic keeps it alive.
You are free to use filters or killfiles to ignore the
posts/posters that you don't want to see and/or read though.
Also, who decides what content is wanted and unwanted on any
specific newsgroup? Surely the readers of any newsgroup
exercise their own judgement by using the aforesaid filter
mechanisms to decide what content they read, or ignore?
Lynch is being irrational as usual.
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
What about the newsgroups that discuss these shows, are they
not a part of "fandom" too? I mean, a fan writing something
about a sci-fi show for a fanzine or in a Usenet post is
pretty similar. A newsgroup could even be considered an
online fanzine!
Yes. The rec.arts.sf.fandom group could be thought of as a
metagroup for discussing those groups. It's not a fanzine,
it's a place where people discuss fanzines.
Oh goodie... we'll have to start some threads here about "Doctor
Who" fanzines so! ;-)
In recent days the unwanted Dr. Who slop has exceeded all
other traffic in that newsgroup, threatening to destroy it.
How can traffic destroy a newsgroup? Traffic keeps it alive.
You are free to use filters or killfiles to ignore the
posts/posters that you don't want to see and/or read though.
That's what we do for the most part.
Proper order. That's the correct way to read Usenet newsgroups.
All of the Dr. Who threads in r.a.s.f come from one person
and if people would trim the newsgroups line when replying
to him, we wouldn't see any of the trash.
That's a valid complaint. Although in fairness, 'he' didn't
actually start this thread.
Also, who decides what content is wanted and unwanted on any
specific newsgroup? Surely the readers of any newsgroup
exercise their own judgement by using the aforesaid filter
mechanisms to decide what content they read, or ignore?
Well, there is a newsgroup charter after all.
Nobody here seems to be complaining about the "The government
shutdown" thread. Is that [off-topic] subject mentioned in this
newsgroup's charter? Plus, the person who started that thread
didn't even mark it as OT!
We were also discussing learning to drive and electronic
cars here a few weeks back too, I can't recall seeing anybody
complaining about that discussion either.
<shrugs>
Paul McGann doesn't count either
RTD continued with the Timeless Child hence his downfall.
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Again, please keep the Dr. Who slop out of the
rec.arts.sf.fandom newsgroup. That's a low-volume
newsgroup for discussing fandom itself, meaning coventions
and the people who attend and run them, and fanzines and
the people who write and publish them.
What about the newsgroups that discuss these shows, are they
not a part of "fandom" too? I mean, a fan writing something
about a sci-fi show for a fanzine or in a Usenet post is pretty
similar. A newsgroup could even be considered an online fanzine!
In recent days the unwanted Dr. Who slop has exceeded all
other traffic in that newsgroup, threatening to destroy it.
How can traffic destroy a newsgroup? Traffic keeps it alive.
You are free to use filters or killfiles to ignore the
posts/posters that you don't want to see and/or read though.
Also, who decides what content is wanted and unwanted on any
specific newsgroup? Surely the readers of any newsgroup exercise
their own judgement by using the aforesaid filter mechanisms to
decide what content they read, or ignore?
In article <10d8s44$75th$1@dont-email.me>,
YourName@YourISP.com says...
Paul McGann doesn't count either
Why doesn't he count?
Melissa
The woke believe in controlling what everyone else says, thinks, and
does. They don't believe in free speech and discussion of anything that
is different to them. They are both Cybermen and Daleks.
In article <10d8s44$75th$1@dont-email.me>,
YourName@YourISP.com says...
Paul McGann doesn't count either
Why doesn't he count?
Melissa
On 2025-10-22 21:49:38 +0000, The True Melissa said:
In article <10d8s44$75th$1@dont-email.me>,
YourName@YourISP.com says...
Paul McGann doesn't count either
Why doesn't he count?
Melissa
The movie was simply Americanised garbage in an attempt to "break into"
the US market ... and failed spectacularly on all fronts.
On 10/22/2025 6:53 AM, The Doctor wrote:
The Opposite of IMHO.IYIO-+Kay es IYIO?
--
Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.
Tim Merrigan
--
Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.
Tim Merrigan
Thanks. I knew, from context, that it was an insult, but how is
"ignorant" the opposite of "humble" (or "arrogant", for that matter)?
----
Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.
Tim Merrigan
In article <10d95f6$29oh$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca says...
RTD continued with the Timeless Child hence his downfall.
That era was a failure before the Timeless Child arc,
IMO.
Melissa
On 2025-10-22 21:49:38 +0000, The True Melissa said:
In article <10d8s44$75th$1@dont-email.me>,
YourName@YourISP.com says...
Paul McGann doesn't count either
Why doesn't he count?
Melissa
The movie was simply Americanised garbage in an attempt to "break into"
the US market ... and failed spectacularly on all fronts.
On 10/22/2025 4:02 PM, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-10-22 21:49:38 +0000, The True Melissa said:
In article <10d8s44$75th$1@dont-email.me>,
YourName@YourISP.com says...
Paul McGann doesn't count either
Why doesn't he count?
Melissa
The movie was simply Americanised garbage in an attempt to "break into"
the US market ... and failed spectacularly on all fronts.
He's not counted because of the movie, but because of the short piece
before "The Day of The Doctor" that ended with his regeneration into
John Hurt.
----
Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.
Tim Merrigan
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pcccd65cf7q5002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Again, please keep the Dr. Who slop out of the
rec.arts.sf.fandom newsgroup. That's a low-volume
newsgroup for discussing fandom itself, meaning coventions
and the people who attend and run them, and fanzines and
the people who write and publish them.
What about the newsgroups that discuss these shows, are they
not a part of "fandom" too? I mean, a fan writing something
about a sci-fi show for a fanzine or in a Usenet post is
pretty similar. A newsgroup could even be considered an
online fanzine!
In recent days the unwanted Dr. Who slop has exceeded all
other traffic in that newsgroup, threatening to destroy it.
How can traffic destroy a newsgroup? Traffic keeps it alive.
You are free to use filters or killfiles to ignore the
posts/posters that you don't want to see and/or read though.
Also, who decides what content is wanted and unwanted on any
specific newsgroup? Surely the readers of any newsgroup
exercise their own judgement by using the aforesaid filter
mechanisms to decide what content they read, or ignore?
Lynch is being irrational as usual.
No Dave, he's posting his opinion. Which is what discussions
on Usenet are supposed to be about. You know, people discussing
things reasonably, like adults. Or maybe you don't know...
I just object, in principle, to people who think they own a
certain newsgroup, especially when they seem to have no problem
starting off-topic threads in it themself!
I didn't say he was completely wrong though, I was just putting
across my POV.
On 10/22/2025 3:07 PM, The True Doctor wrote:
The woke believe in controlling what everyone else says, thinks, and
does. They don't believe in free speech and discussion of anything that
is different to them. They are both Cybermen and Daleks.
Projecting much?
----
Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.
Tim Merrigan
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pcccd65cf7q5002@post.eweka.nl>, Blueshirt
<blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Again, please keep the Dr. Who slop out of the
rec.arts.sf.fandom newsgroup. That's a low-volume newsgroup for
discussing fandom itself, meaning coventions and the people who
attend and run them, and fanzines and the people who write and
publish them.
What about the newsgroups that discuss these shows, are they not
a part of "fandom" too? I mean, a fan writing something about a
sci-fi show for a fanzine or in a Usenet post is pretty similar.
A newsgroup could even be considered an online fanzine!
In recent days the unwanted Dr. Who slop has exceeded all other
traffic in that newsgroup, threatening to destroy it.
How can traffic destroy a newsgroup? Traffic keeps it alive. You
are free to use filters or killfiles to ignore the posts/posters
that you don't want to see and/or read though.
Also, who decides what content is wanted and unwanted on any
specific newsgroup? Surely the readers of any newsgroup exercise
their own judgement by using the aforesaid filter mechanisms to
decide what content they read, or ignore?
Lynch is being irrational as usual.
No Dave, he's posting his opinion. Which is what discussions on
Usenet are supposed to be about. You know, people discussing things reasonably, like adults. Or maybe you don't know...
I just object, in principle, to people who think they own a certain newsgroup,
especially when they seem to have no problem starting off-topic
threads in it themself!
I didn't say he was completely wrong though, I was just putting
across my POV.
On 23/10/2025 7:01 am, Blueshirt wrote:^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pcccd65cf7q5002@post.eweka.nl>, Blueshirt
<blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Again, please keep the Dr. Who slop out of the
rec.arts.sf.fandom newsgroup. That's a low-volume newsgroup for
discussing fandom itself, meaning coventions and the people who
attend and run them, and fanzines and the people who write and
publish them.
What about the newsgroups that discuss these shows, are they not
a part of "fandom" too? I mean, a fan writing something about a
sci-fi show for a fanzine or in a Usenet post is pretty similar.
A newsgroup could even be considered an online fanzine!
In recent days the unwanted Dr. Who slop has exceeded all other
traffic in that newsgroup, threatening to destroy it.
How can traffic destroy a newsgroup? Traffic keeps it alive. You
are free to use filters or killfiles to ignore the posts/posters
that you don't want to see and/or read though.
Also, who decides what content is wanted and unwanted on any
specific newsgroup? Surely the readers of any newsgroup exercise
their own judgement by using the aforesaid filter mechanisms to
decide what content they read, or ignore?
Lynch is being irrational as usual.
No Dave, he's posting his opinion. Which is what discussions on
Usenet are supposed to be about. You know, people discussing things
reasonably, like adults. Or maybe you don't know...
I just object, in principle, to people who think they own a certain
newsgroup,
... but ... but ... but this newsgroup appears on Binky's news-server so
he MUST OWN IT, surely!! ;-P--
especially when they seem to have no problem starting off-topicAs we ALL can do. If we don't like the views expressed ... KILL-FILE
threads in it themself!
I didn't say he was completely wrong though, I was just putting
across my POV.
that poster!!
--
Daniel70
On 22/10/2025 11:13, Blueshirt wrote:
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Also, who decides what content is wanted and unwanted on any
specific newsgroup? Surely the readers of any newsgroup
exercise their own judgement by using the aforesaid filter
mechanisms to decide what content they read, or ignore?
The woke believe in controlling what everyone else says,
thinks, and does. They don't believe in free speech and
discussion of anything that is different to them. They are
both Cybermen and Daleks.
On 23/10/2025 7:01 am, Blueshirt wrote:
I just object, in principle, to people who think they
own a certain newsgroup,especially when they seem to have
no problem starting off-topic threads in it themself!
I didn't say he was completely wrong though, I was just
putting across my POV.
As we ALL can do. If we don't like the views expressed ...
KILL-FILE that poster!!
On 10/22/2025 1:02 PM, Blueshirt wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Well, there is a newsgroup charter after all.
Nobody here seems to be complaining about "The government
shutdown" thread. Is that [off-topic] subject mentioned in
this newsgroup's charter? Plus, the person who started that
thread didn't even mark it as OT!
We were also discussing learning to drive and electronic
cars here a few weeks back too, I can't recall seeing anybody
complaining about that discussion either.
<shrugs>
Actually, the Doctor Who discussions are more on topic than
those. The people in the Doctor Who discussions are fans of
a StFnal TV series, i.e. a fandom of an SF art.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/10/2025 11:13, Blueshirt wrote:
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Also, who decides what content is wanted and unwanted on any
specific newsgroup? Surely the readers of any newsgroup
exercise their own judgement by using the aforesaid filter
mechanisms to decide what content they read, or ignore?
The woke believe in controlling what everyone else says,
thinks, and does. They don't believe in free speech and
discussion of anything that is different to them. They are
both Cybermen and Daleks.
Well, taking the general point... yes, Usenet is (and should be)
free of control. People can say whatever they want, and people
are free to ignore, delete or killfile anybody that they don't
want to read.
Daniel70 wrote:
On 23/10/2025 7:01 am, Blueshirt wrote:
As we ALL can do. If we don't like the views expressed ...
I just object, in principle, to people who think they
own a certain newsgroup,especially when they seem to have
no problem starting off-topic threads in it themself!
I didn't say he was completely wrong though, I was just
putting across my POV.
KILL-FILE that poster!!
Some people seem to have a problem doing that and prefer to
wade through "slop"! ;-)
Each to their own and all that...
In article <xn0pccrvzabds4z001@post.eweka.nl>,
I didn't say he was completely wrong though, I was just putting
across my POV.
And then there is Lynch.
Please stop living a sheletered life!
In article <xn0pcdrl16ssx91003@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Well, taking the general point... yes, Usenet is (and
should be) free of control. People can say whatever
they want, and people are free to ignore, delete or
killfile anybody that they don't want to read.
Killfiling sucks.
I think the basic issue is that for several years, rasf people have
been politely asking you to stop crossposting into here. Not just
one person, but a lot of people. Not just recently, but for a long
time now. I think they expect politeness in return because this is
a polite place, and we are not getting it.
The Binky Doctor wrote:^^^^^<-PAedophile talker noted
^^^^^<-PAedophile talker notedPlease stop living a sheletered life!Says Binky as he posts from his mothers basement.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pcdrl16ssx91003@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Well, taking the general point... yes, Usenet is (and
should be) free of control. People can say whatever
they want, and people are free to ignore, delete or
killfile anybody that they don't want to read.
Killfiling sucks.
Of course you would say that, as you are probably the person
on Usenet most responsible for people actually USING their
killfiles!
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
I think the basic issue is that for several years, rasf people have
been politely asking you to stop crossposting into here. Not just
one person, but a lot of people. Not just recently, but for a long
time now. I think they expect politeness in return because this is
a polite place, and we are not getting it.
Yes. Thank you. That's exactly what I meant.
Yes, people can use killfiles, but not everyone's software supports
them, and not everyone knows how to use them. Rasff is, as I said,
intended for people who attend or run conventions, and for people
who publish or write for fanzines. Not all such people are computer
experts. If they find the free and open Internet overrun with
off-topic crap, they'll give up on it and move to a walled garden such
as Reddit or Facebook. People unable to govern themselves soon find >themselves governed by tyrants. Or by jailers. Or by Elon Musk.
I've never been on Reddit or Facebook, but I did post rather a lot
to a Typepad blog. But the whole of Typepad recently went out of
business. All of my content, and all of those communities, are
just gone.
Some Dr. Who related posts might be on topic on rasff. For instance
if someone who writes or acts for that show will be at next month's
Philcon. But, thanks to more posts being dumped here about "The
Timeless Child" than about all conventions, fanzines, fans, and other
topics put together, any such post would almost certainly be blocked
by killfiles. Or wouldn't be seen because everyone has given up on
trying to find anything at all in this newsgroup.
Most people, if they find themselves in a neighborhood with lots of
broken windows and lots of trash on the sidewalks don't go to a lot of
effort to clean up the place. Instead, they simply decide they're in
a bad neighborhood, and go elsewhere.
I'm against censorship. But communications can be destroyed, not
just by censorship, but also by being drowned out by vast amounts
of unwanted off-topic spam, scams, and slop.
For instance I recently had to await a phone call from a termite >exterminator. If I didn't answer, he'd assume nobody was home, and
would not show up. So I had to field over a hundred scam calls while
waiting for one legitimate call. That reminded me why I can no longer
chat with friends on the phone. They can't get through to me. And I
can't get through to them. We're all held hostage by overwhelming
amounts of unwanted crap.
Do Dr. Who fans really want to be seen throughought fandom as rude
a*les who turn everything they touch into a useless slum? It would
seem so.
----
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
In article <xn0pccrvzabds4z001@post.eweka.nl>,
I didn't say he was completely wrong though, I was just putting
across my POV.
And then there is Lynch.
I think the basic issue is that for several years, rasf people have been politely asking you to stop crossposting into here. Not just one person,
but a lot of people. Not just recently, but for a long time now. I think they expect politeness in return because this is a polite place, and we are not getting it.
--scott
On 10/22/2025 3:07 PM, The True Doctor wrote:
The woke believe in controlling what everyone else says, thinks, and
does. They don't believe in free speech and discussion of anything that
is different to them. They are both Cybermen and Daleks.
Projecting much?
On 24/10/2025 1:17 am, Scott Dorsey wrote:^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:Don't worry, Scott, the regulars in rec.arts.drwho have been asking
In article <xn0pccrvzabds4z001@post.eweka.nl>,
I didn't say he was completely wrong though, I was just putting
across my POV.
And then there is Lynch.
I think the basic issue is that for several years, rasf people have been
politely asking you to stop crossposting into here. Not just one person,
but a lot of people. Not just recently, but for a long time now. I think >> they expect politeness in return because this is a polite place, and we are >> not getting it.
--scott
Binky for years to be sensibly/polite about his postings .... but we
have failed, miserably!!--
--
Daniel70
In article <10d7q90$3rlsu$3@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
We all knew that Doctor Who was over. Anyone that has seen this modern trash >> could see it a mile away. However even writers involved with the show are
expressing the same sentiment. With ZERO demand or direction for NEW Doctor >> material as well as the show now being completely in limbo.
https://youtu.be/8qxQ7XZFHGE?si=799Pg1oCE-IUCzAQ
--
Let's go Brandon!
Sack RTD and get a brand new showrunners who will
do what the fans want: RETCON THE TIMELESS CHILD TOTALLY OUT OF DOCTOR WHO!.
On 10/21/25 6:06 AM, The Doctor wrote:
In article <10d7q90$3rlsu$3@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
We all knew that Doctor Who was over. Anyone that has seen this modern trash
could see it a mile away. However even writers involved with the show are >>> expressing the same sentiment. With ZERO demand or direction for NEW Doctor >>> material as well as the show now being completely in limbo.
https://youtu.be/8qxQ7XZFHGE?si=799Pg1oCE-IUCzAQ
--
Let's go Brandon!
Sack RTD and get a brand new showrunners who will
Who is RTD, Russell T Davies? Why use abbrevs?
do what the fans want: RETCON THE TIMELESS CHILD TOTALLY OUT OF DOCTOR WHO!.
On 10/21/25 6:06 AM, The Doctor wrote:
In article <10d7q90$3rlsu$3@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
We all knew that Doctor Who was over. Anyone that has seen this modern trash
could see it a mile away. However even writers involved with the show are >>> expressing the same sentiment. With ZERO demand or direction for NEW Doctor >>> material as well as the show now being completely in limbo.
https://youtu.be/8qxQ7XZFHGE?si=799Pg1oCE-IUCzAQ
--
Let's go Brandon!
Sack RTD and get a brand new showrunners who will
Who is RTD, Russell T Davies? Why use abbrevs?
do what the fans want: RETCON THE TIMELESS CHILD TOTALLY OUT OF DOCTOR WHO!.
On 2025-11-02 01:18:24 +0000, Pluted Pup said:
On 10/21/25 6:06 AM, The Doctor wrote:
In article <10d7q90$3rlsu$3@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
We all knew that Doctor Who was over. Anyone that has seen this modern trash
could see it a mile away. However even writers involved with the show are >>>> expressing the same sentiment. With ZERO demand or direction for NEW Doctor
material as well as the show now being completely in limbo.
https://youtu.be/8qxQ7XZFHGE?si=799Pg1oCE-IUCzAQ
--
Let's go Brandon!
Sack RTD and get a brand new showrunners who will
Who is RTD, Russell T Davies? Why use abbrevs?
Yes, it is him. Abbreviations are quicker to type, plus it can also
mean "Real Total Dickhead", because that is actually the same thing
too. :-p
do what the fans want: RETCON THE TIMELESS CHILD TOTALLY OUT OF DOCTOR WHO!.
Yes, people can use killfiles, but not everyone's software supports
them, and not everyone knows how to use them.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 19:06:48 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
5 files (8,203K bytes) |
| Messages: | 184,913 |
| Posted today: | 1 |