All New Who

Mrs Figg wrote:This is knucklehead sex, don't knock it.

OK but we need to choose a safe-word

Oh forumshire. You so random.

The safeword is NOT 'Moffat'.

True that... Same goes for 'Sexist ' and 'Amy' and ' Pond'.

I feel we are already getting this thread back on track! *proud admin*

It's all due to Figgy's "this is knucklehead sex" comment.   Everything just started making sense after that.

here to help.

{{{From here on in I ill no longer be posting on the Who thread here save for the occasional video and Who news.
I took the recent piece I pout up here on the nature and use of paradoxes in last series and posted it elsewhere- just since last night there are three pages of responses- all engaging with the topic, discussing how much the Doctor knew or didn't at the start, some questioning where certain bits would fit in such a scenario which has led to smaller discussions around specific aspects of the idea ect- in short everything I had hoped to spark here in terms of a debate on the overall thematic aspects of last series.

What this demonstrates to me is proof of what I have been feeling for some time- that there was nothing contentious, hostile or any such thing else about the post I have been making as subjects for debate, and that folks on here have no desire, wish or intention when I make such posts of engaging with the post itself or the subject matter- they just want to have a go and use it as an excuse to repeat the same old pet negatives unrelated to the topic at hand.

For that reason I shall continue to post Who stuff elsewhere but here from now on. Which is a shame- I used to think of here as the best place on the web for fairness, debate without rancour or personal dislike. But that's not a view regards the Who thread at least I can any longer sustain where just because its me saying something seems reason enough for hostility towards any proposed topic.
The fact that the same post elsewhere, where no-one knows me, got so many positive and interesting responses taking the debate forwards with new ideas and questions seems proof enough to me of this.
I leave this thread therefore to the haters and those who just want to have a dig rather than any actual real discussions- do enjoy ourselves its all yours now.}}}

The thing is Petty that you took it upon yourself to write a piece which you hoped others here would comment and be interested in, and I appreciate the time and effort you took to write it, but you cant get angry if nobody is interested in debating the minutiae of Clara if they aren't interested in her. I don't find her an interesting subject and I said so, so its not fair to expect others to have the same level of interest and get angry when they don't as if its an insult to you personally. Nobody is insulting you personally. If on another forum they give you 3 pages of replies, maybe its a Who forum, people who only talk about Who, and are only there to talk about Clara? you cant expect the same level of dedication here, and its not fair to expect it.
As for the last Clara recap you did, you asked for comments and got them, its not others fault if you didn't like them. Somebody gave their personal opinion and you kind of took it personally and got defensive and a bit pushy. If you keep talking things so personally you are setting yourself up to feel insulted and feeling people are not appreciating you, which is ridiculous.
If people don't like Clara or couldn't give a toss about Clara then that should be allowed. Its not as if you are having people trawl the internet for Moffat character assassinations as I have seen people do for the writers of GOT. Up to now the 'debate' has been rather low key and reasonable and I don't know why you have got all sniffy. so get over it and keep on trucking.

{{{It had nothing to do about Clara- it was about the theme of paradoxes in series 9.
And it doesn't matter the subject- I've covered four completely separate topics for debate- and the response has been the same each time- ignore the topic and have a go. I don't need that, don't want it, and wont put up with it any more.
Why do folks even come on the Who thread if they have no interest in discussing any aspect of the show other than how much they hate it? You cant just say its cause its about Clara when she is not been the subject of three out of four proposed topics.
I have enough shit in my life, I come here to discuss the show but only ever get folk wanting to start a fight- regardless of topic. So no thanks. I'll go elsewhere where folk, regardless of their like or not of current episodes, can still discus interesting aspects of the show in a manner that's not primarily consumed in just having a dig}}}

It's just that your whole presentation is in the style of a challenge. Sort of "Can anyone offer counter examples to my statement?" People don't want to get into that.

{{Bar a few minor changes to the post referencing here it was exactly the same post copied and pasted- there pages of interesting engaging response- here accusation that I am being aggressive and no response to the topic proposed and just more repeated hate of the show. Speaks for itself if you ask me.}}}

{{Her is the post as it was put up on here - Id love to know Halfy what is aggressive or combative or even challenging folk about it. Seems to me thereis nothing of the such about it but what others bring to it.}}}

'Time Travel Conundrums and Series 9

Having recently finished re watching series 9 start to finish I am struck by the paradoxes and classic time travel riddles which it has. In particular in relation to the overall arc of the Hybrid.

But first lets take a look at the stories themselves – the first is The Magicians Apprentice/The Witches Familiar- whose central story deals with the classic time travel conundrum of if you could go back and kill Hitler when he was still an innocent child- would you and should you do it? Replace Hitler with Davros and you have the same scenario.

The next story is Under the Lake/Before the Flood which upfront tells you its a paradox story, a bootstrap paradox to be precise. That's important- remember it for later!

The next story The Girl who Died/The Woman who Lived is not on the surface a paradox or classic time travel conundrum.
However its all about the character of Me, and she, by being made immortal by the Doctor, becomes part of the larger series wide paradoxes. She becomes part of events already underway (begging the question of pre-destiny or not?).

Next up for stories dealing with paradoxes is Face the Raven/Hell Bent/Heaven Sent, although the story itself is not a paradox this episode is the keystone to the series overall paradoxes. Its here everyone caught up in the overall events comes together - Me, the Doctor, Clara and the Time Lords- and the paradoxes become apparent.

And by Hell Bent the two overall paradoxes can be put together.

The first paradox is the Doctos actions. In that it clear that the Doctor knows from the start the outcome- but seems to be hazy on two events, well one for definite, maybe two- firstly exactly when Clara dies, all he seems to know is that it will be once they start travelling together again.

There are loads of points that show this- its the reason he goes into the past and goes on a week long bender, having just set in motion events which he knows will lead to Clara's death (I'll come back to this one), when he meets her and she asks which one of them is dying he hugs her and tells her he is hiding his face from her, implying to hide the truth written on it that she is.

In Under the Lake he tells her he feels a duty of care to keep her safe, and warns her against acting too recklessly and too much like him, in the Girl Who Lived he again tells her that he is worried every time they have an adventure something will happen to her , in the Zygon inversion he makes an oblique reference to events in Hell Bent along with a very knowing look lingered on by the camera as he looks at her. This alongside more such small glances at telling story moments that I am sure I have forgotten.

The second thing he may or may not know is the eventual outcome of events, I think not, I think he only knows as far as saving Clara, after they go to the very last moments of time to escape the Time Lords, I don't think he knows what happens after that, or if the path will lead him to his destruction or not.

But to go back to the Doctor setting things in motion. Which is the first, and more subtle of the series arcs as it requires two watches to be really certain of and some hindsight to fill it all in.

In the prequel to series 9 the Doctor gives his confession dial to the head of the Sisterhood of Karn, and says '”you know who to give this too”- we later find out that person is Missy. But in response to being given it Ohila replies, “The path you have set yourself on can only lead to your destruction.”
This can't pertain to Davros, as he has nothing to do with the dial.

But the confession dial is the Doctors means to the Time Lords, to the extraction chamber and to saving Clara- its also a path which could lead to his destruction- but he has to know future events to know that the confession dial is the key to events and will set him on 'the path'.

Giving the confession dial over begins the chain of events which follows, and the Doctor knows it because he has gone ahead to see what happens- it is in short a series long bootstrap paradox- he gives her the confession dial because he knows he gives her the confession dial, which explains why that particular paradox out of the many sorts in his series was given such prominence with a full intro length, fourth wall breaking explanation of the bootstrap paradox in Before the Flood.

This brings us to the second paradox of the series and the up front one- the Hybrid, we are teased with mentions of it all series. But what's really important about it is that what happens is a result of the Time Lords interfering because they are afraid of it.

They create the Hybrid by trying to find out about the Hybrid.

By setting the trap for the Doctor in Face the Raven they inadvertently kill Clara, that grief, pain, self-recrimination and memory of her driving him on and his sense of duty to her will push him to extremes in the hell of the Confession Dial to save her, and in doing what is necessary to save her he breaks all his own rules for being the Doctor in Hell Bent and becomes the very Hybrid prophesied that the Time Lords were trying to stop in the first place. Its only realisation, understanding and self-sacrificing that ultimately redeem him and let him become the Doctor again.

But its the Time Lords who create him, who make him the Hybrid by trying to stop it happening.
But its also interwoven with the Doctors own paradox of having prior knowledge of key events and so twisting things to his preferred outcome. He is as Ohila said in the first episode of the series, “right behind you, and one step ahead.” A statement which is in itself, a paradox.

So basically series 9 has two paradoxes for an arc, one surface one more subtle, and several individual paradoxes in individual stories, plus time-travel conundrums, physical and moral.

Anyone got any thoughts on my pondering, or anything else they may have noticed I've overlooked?'

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{Bar a few minor changes to the post referencing here it was exactly the same post copied and pasted- there pages of interesting engaging response- here accusation that I am being aggressive and no response to the topic proposed and just more repeated hate of the show. Speaks for itself if you ask me.}}}

If you ever feel like having a discussion about Who and don't want to post it in the thread, feel free to PM me, can't promise I'll be any fun to converse with (I only own The War Games and the TV Movie on DVD so it's been years since I've seen some of the episodes), but if I'm available/interested in the subject I'll do my best to respond if I can.

{{Cheers Malick that's appreciated. I should also publicly state the issues relating to this thread you have never been a part of and your contributions to the Who thread have always been show related, informative and positive contributions }}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{Cheers Malick that's appreciated. I should also publicly state the issues relating to this thread you have never been a part of and your contributions to the Who thread have always been show related, informative and positive contributions   }}

Thanks, the reason why I didn't personally reply to your post above was because I didn't really have anything to say, other than 'I agree with you, there was lots of symbolism and parallels in the structure of series 9).

You know Malick, most of the time that is all you need to do.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{{It had nothing to do about Clara- it was about the theme of paradoxes in series 9.
And it doesn't matter the subject- I've covered four completely separate topics for debate- and the response has been the same each time- ignore the topic and have a go. I don't need that, don't want it, and wont put up with it any more.
Why do folks even come on the Who thread if they have no interest in discussing any aspect of the show other than how much they hate it? You cant just say its cause its about Clara when she is not been the subject of three out of four proposed topics.
I have enough shit in my life, I come here to discuss the show but only ever get folk wanting to start a fight- regardless of topic. So no thanks. I'll go elsewhere where folk, regardless of their like or not of current episodes, can still discus interesting aspects of the show in a manner that's not primarily consumed in just having a dig}}}

Petty. If people have 'ignored' the topic its probably because A) they agree with you, B) Don't know what you are talking about because they haven't watched the show as diligently as you, or C) are just not that fussed and just come here for general chat without the deep discussion. So you are assuming things about other people which are fundamentally unfair. I am sure everyone here respects your love of all things Who, nobody is deliberately ignoring you just to piss you off, and CERTAINLY nobody is here just to have a dig at you OR the show. We are a varied bunch of people with varying levels of Who commitment. or knowledge of the show. You are a super fan and expect us to have the same level of knowledge as you. I watch the show take in the impressions I have and talk about what interests me most about Who, ie the gender/feminist side of things, other details either go over my head or don't interest me. If I haven't repied its because sadly the topic for discussion hasn't grabbed me, NOT because I want to ignore you or have a dig. I really do appreciate your writing topics of debate, but some of your recaps have been from your perspective and its hard to know what you mean sometimes, maybe its just me being thick or its too involved, whatever the case. NOBODY is having a dig, that's for sure. I do understand your frustration though, if you love a show and all you are getting is negativity its pretty soul destroying, but unlike other shows the people who post here do genuinely like Who and don't want to drag it down, unlike another show I could mention. So if you do get some negative responses its not because we come here to 'hate' that's just downright wrong. ok some people have a problem with some things Moffat has done, but that's what fucking debate is, its about balance, you talk about what you like and what you don't like, what you don't do is turn into an internet troll and search the web for articles calling Moffat or whoever a horrible human being, which nobody has done here thank goodness. I have in the past called PJ and Moffat idiots for doing things I don't like, even going so far as to say Moffat has sexist tendencies, but only as regards the show, not them as human beings, because I don't know them as human beings, so I am not having a dig at Moffat the human ( ) just the show characters. What is really bad is not having a debate but having someone just drip poison knowing they hate the show. I love Who, that's why I like to post here and when I like something I say so and its certainly not to have a dig at you. I really hope you realise you are blowing this up out of all proportion.

{Maybe I am Figg- I cant say I can only say what it feels like from my end- and the slightly more subjective information that the same post elsewhere gets a completely different response- this leads me towards believing its not the message folk are having the problem with here, but the messenger.}}

Wait, doesn't "debate" almost require taking digs at each other? Take parliamentary debates or congressional debates for example. Digs are how you score points, right? I'm 100% serious here. That's why I've always preferred the words conversation or discussion among friends.

Petty, whenever you ask for a debate I often try to oblige if I've got the time, but any "taking the piss" is just in fun. No disrespect intended, it's just the way I banter with friends. I wouldn't even bother otherwise. Life's too short.

{{{Digs at the argument yes, fair game in a debate, digs at the person no. As to point scoring that's not what I see the point as- the reception of the above post elsewhere shows this- there folk have taken issue with how I have interpreted some events, I responded it opened up new areas neither side had considered going into the debate- that's what a good debate should do. Its what could have happened here on the exact same topic, or any of the others if anyone was interested enough to do so. But no instead we've yet again had pages of non-discussion, how terrible Moffat and his characters are yet again, accusations thrown against me of being aggressive and discontent instead.

And the aggressive thing really hurts, I mean the post that started this current debacle was me simply asking Amarie to clarify a statement she had made in response to one of my pieces, for the very good reason I had not understood what she meant by it.

'Then please explain them to me- if you could lay out what the features of their characters that are the same are I would at least see where you are coming from. As right now I can't, they seem like two quite distinct characters to me with different personalities, motivations, relationships, and character arc.'

The reply I got to this was-

'I think you should consider doing that yourself. Take a step back and try to change your perspective. When you find something similar, just make a note of it. If you need to quickly add why that similarity you just recognized as being similar is not similar at all - as you did above- simply make two lists.'


No matter how many times I go back and read the exchanges I'm really being aggressive here? (I even said please) I'm being the difficult one in this exchange? }}}

Petty, I'm not going to attempt to speak for either you or Amarie, but to me your request for an explanation seemed entirely appropriate. I also find Amarie's reply just as appropriate.  

Scotsmen in my experience have a very direct (some would say blunt) way of expressing themselves that I take for granted, and Norwegians have a certain feistiness too.
(we all know that in the same circumstances if Norc hadn't felt like answering she'd have simply said " ").

I have both Scottish and Norwegian neighbors so this all seems normal to me. Is it aggressive? I don't know, but I'm  pretty certain there's no disrespect intended.

{{{Disrespect no. But neither is there a point to it.
I put up a topic for debate, I get attacked for being aggressive from some quarters, and the only comment anyone makes on the subject I don't understand and asking for clarification leads to a fight. I don't think the reply is aggressive from Amarie, deliberately awkward yes, when she could just explain what she means, but not aggressive.
But then I see nothing aggressive in what I wrote either but somehow yet again I am the only one who stands accused of being so.

And that sort of response just isn't worth taking the hour or so it took me to research and compose the topic post for. So in the future when I want to discuss the show, or its themes, characters ect I will do so elsewhere where the responses, for or against, are at least worth the effort and hard to find time put in, and where the responses do not always seem to lead to me having to defend myself against accusations of being hostile. Which, even being Scottish, is no fun at all.
I find this very sad but I simply don't see the point in me continuing to post Who related topics here in these circumstances. There is simply no point when you look at the responses all recent attempts to do so here have had.
I will keep it to fan vids and official news announcements only for here.}}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{Maybe I am Figg- I cant say I can only say what it feels like from my end- and the slightly more subjective information that the same post elsewhere gets a completely different response- this leads me towards believing its not the message folk are having the problem with here, but the messenger.}}

that's bollocks.

That's me being aggressive? I'm giving you a challenge, one I genuinely think you'd benefit from. You never consider that I mean well, not even when I give you praise. Giving you a list would mean nothing because it came from me. And we would be right where we were. If you took the effort of investigating these claims yourself, you might find something which might make you go "well I suppose some people might find that simmilar".

I'm on the phone on a walk alone which is why I have time to type anything for a change...

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{{Disrespect no. But neither is there a point to it.
I put up a topic for debate, I get attacked for being aggressive from some quarters, and the only comment anyone makes on the subject I don't understand and asking for clarification leads to a fight. I don't think the reply is aggressive from Amarie, deliberately awkward yes, when she could just explain what she means, but not aggressive.
But then I see nothing aggressive in what I wrote either but somehow yet again I am the only one who stands accused of being so.

And that sort of response just isn't worth taking the hour or so it took me to research and compose the topic post for. So in the future when I want to discuss the show, or its themes, characters ect I will do so elsewhere where the responses, for or against, are at least worth the effort and hard to find time put in, and where the responses do not always seem to lead to me having to defend myself against accusations of being hostile. Which, even being Scottish, is no fun at all.
I find this very sad but I simply don't see the point in me continuing to post Who related topics here in these circumstances. There is simply no point when you look at the responses all recent attempts to do so here have had.
I will keep it to fan vids and official news announcements only for here.}}}

sometimes you can create these things by insisting on an answer that the other person doesn't want to give, for whatever reason, instead of thinking oh this person is being a bit ambiguous, I will let it lie, instead you worry at it like a dog with a bone insisting on an answer. nobody is attacking you and nobody is saying you have been aggressive, just a bit pushy. you cant insist and insist on somebody answering your questions without seeming over the top. please stop being so touchy about a trivial comment. anyone would think Who and Clara had been trashed going by your reaction. maybe you took exception of Clara being mentioned at the same time as Rose, dunno.