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.
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 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 ........."??
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
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.
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.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 00:13:19 |
| Calls: | 1,101 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,598 |