All New Who

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{{
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. }}}

OK Petty, nobody's expecting you to change the way you talk, but this is a good example of the wording you often choose that can sometimes be misinterpreted as aggressive.
Phrases like "stands accused" and "you claim" seem to imply that there's a criminal case being tried and to suggest that the witness is lying.
If anybody but a Scotsman said "You claim..." to me, I might reply "Are you calling me a liar?" and see where the discussion goes from there...

{{I haven't taken exception to anything Figg- I am pointing out that I posted a topic for debate, the one answer it got here led immediately to a fight, and at the end of it I stand accused of being hostile and aggressive. And that's not worth making the initial post for. Thats not taking exception its just what has happened.
Especially when posting it elsewhere got exactly the sort of response I, in my naivety and stupidity when writing it, had envisioned happening here among people I like and respect and have chosen to spend all this time with. Instead I got the debate I had hoped to spark from a bunch of strangers and that's galling- and instead here its this and that's even more galling.
I am pretty sure this not just my imagination.}}}

{{David- I say accused because a claim was made and I don't accept that I am guilty of it here, and I use guilty here because as far as I am concerned an attack against my person in the sense of saying I was deliberately in some way being aggressive to get Amarie to answer or to enforce my view or whatever it is I am supposed to have done to be aggressive, is a serious charge that blackens a name, and I will respond to it in kind, with serious language to convey that I do indeed take such a charge very seriously- therefore accused. I am a writer, I instinctively seek for the most accurate word for the feelings and actions. I cant change that without unlearning everything I know and instinctively do as a writer. }}}

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.}}

I'm not sure if it's sad or funny, but this is actually a very accurate description of my end too. I feel I can't say a single thing without being yelled at and called Moffat-hater.

Though about 90% of the time I write English, it's formal e-mail replies at work, and hardly any creative writing or random chatter so I feel I am slowly drying out. None of them have ever called me a hater, that I know of anyway.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
{{David-..... I use guilty here because as far as I am concerned an attack against my person in the sense of saying I was deliberately in some way being aggressive to get Amarie to answer or to enforce my view or whatever it is I am supposed to have done to be aggressive, is a serious charge that blackens a name, and I will respond to it in kind }}}

So Petty, the way I read this, you're saying that you're intentionally going to blacken somebody else's name because you claim that they claim that you said something aggressive? Is that right?

Looking from the outside, it definitely seems Petty gets jumped upon for his Moffat love, but it's also true as Figgs pointed out that long very detailed analytical discussions are simply not what people are interested in here.

I know I'm one of the people who seems to be using the 'aggressive' label, but it didn't have to do with the example just posted, but with the Clara one. In that case there was a very detailed list of points made, with the response being a general 'we just don't care to get into it'. Followed by complaining about nobody wanting to participate in a debate.

This is a very small community, it's not an epic sized Who board. If the few people here don't want to debate finer points going back over years of the show, that's just the way it is. Take that conversation to the big boards. Shrug your shoulders and go on.

But it might be nice for people to respond nicely saying 'interesting points, but I can't dive into that depth.'

{{David I haven't done that to anyone. I specifically said in a previous response to you that I did not think Amaries post was aggressive, just awkward.  Nor did I think my post was aggressive- but thats the point, I still have that claim made against me- and its a claim before you question the use, because I don't accept its accuracy or that there was or is anything aggressive in the topic post, or in my request to Amarie to clarify what she meant. Therefore its a mere claim. Not a fact. And certainly not one I accept.}}

Unfortunately Petty the people on the other forum don't have the history that we do on the Who thread. Maybe we have unconsciously repeated the things we were all trying to avoid in this new Who thread, ie taking it way too seriously and being dramatic. your language was unnecessarily combative from the get-go, for fucks sake this is supposed to be fun not the third degree. so Amarie said Clara had a few Rose/Donna/Amy traits, so what! it doesn't freeking matter! what matters is that you seem determined to feel insulted. (pot calling kettle black anyone ) take some constructive criticism without freaking out.

{{{Halfy thanks for the clarification. But I was not complainng noone had responded to the Clara topic alone- but rather Amarie had, then when I had not understood her point, she gave the response she did. It was this, taken with the other recent attempts by me to spark debate by introducing topics (most uncontentious) and the usual response being folk using it as an excuse to bring up old complaints, or ignore it entirely. Or in worst case scenarios, such as the one we currently find ourselves in, a stupid fight and no discussion as well.
I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion however- which is why I have decided to only post fan vids and news here from now on and take interesting topics of debate elsewhere- I only find that sad in that I would rather discuss the show among friends than strangers. But there you go }}}

so Amarie said Clara had a few Rose/Donna/Amy traits, so what!- Figg

{{{Nothing. Thats not what this about.

' your language was unnecessarily combative from the get-go'

Fine. I give in. Its all down to me, I'm just an aggressive combative cunt. Well dont worry as I've said I will not be bringing Who topics here for discussion, its sure as hell not worth this.}}}

btw it used to irritate me when you wouldn't hear any criticism about Moffat, but I learnt from bitter experience that just posting negative things about him was going to create the same toxic environment we had before, therefore I have avoided discussions about his creations as much as possible, apart from saying I don't find Clara interesting which isn't Moffat hate, its just what I think. Maybe I am avoiding any detailed discussion of contentious characters and waiting for the new episodes with the new guy. you are not going to suddenly get a positive reaction from debating Clara/Amy for example. still cant stand them. sorry.

I haven't watched enough Who to have a valid opinion, but except for Clara being wicked cute and competent I didn't get any strong personality signals from her.

edit: the test for personality is if you can write sit-com jokes about a character's personality traits.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{{Halfy thanks for the clarification. But I was not complainng noone had responded to the Clara topic alone- but rather Amarie had, then when I had not understood her point, she gave the response she did.  It was this, taken with the other recent attempts by me to spark debate by introducing topics (most uncontentious) and the usual response being folk using it as an excuse to bring up old complaints, or ignore it entirely. Or in worst case scenarios, such as the one we currently find ourselves in, a stupid fight and no discussion as well.
I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion however- which is why I have decided to only post fan vids and news here from now on and take interesting topics of debate elsewhere- I only find that sad in that I would rather discuss the show among friends than strangers.  But there you go }}}

For Crying Out Loud! if half the people you are talking to DONT LIKE aspects of the show, you are going to get the usual negative comments about the topic discussed. there aren't enough of us who love Moffats version of Who without ANY complaint. you are the only one.

halfwise wrote:I haven't watched enough Who to have a valid opinion, but except for Clara being wicked cute and competent I didn't get any strong personality signals from her.

edit: the test for personality is if you can write sit-com jokes about a character's personality traits.

I didn't know that. I can imagine the Doctor as Benny Hill and instead of naked chicks its Daleks chasing him with their suckers turned into Rampant Rabbits.

This is intriguing:

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-05-19/captain-jacks-been-having-fun-with-roses-mum---but-is-it-a-torchwood-or-a-doctor-who-episode

9th Doctor audiobooks maybe? (It was confirmed by Big Finish that Christopher Eccleston politely, but firmly turned down the oppurtunity to reprise the role of the 9th Doctor for audioplays...they've still got ten more years on their license to persuade him though...)

Meanwhile, David Tennant and Catherine Tate are currently recording a series of new Who adventures

Assuming Radio Times haven't got confused and meant the ones just released, that's a very quick recomission...

(Only heard one of the 10DA audioplays so far, great fun! Just like watching series 4 again back in 2008)

I had hoped that the Who thread had been healed and we could have started fresh without all this nonsense starting up again. Maybe we can try again once the new show starts? I for one am going to draw a line under ever talking about Moffat related stuff ever again. its just not worth the agro. From now on I am a Moffat free zone.

Awwww!! And no posing lit up from the back by explosions, just Donna and 10. *happy sigh*

Mrs Figg wrote:I had hoped that the Who thread had been healed and we could have started fresh without all this nonsense starting up again. Maybe we can try again once the new show starts? I for one am going to draw a line under ever talking about Moffat related stuff ever again. its just not worth the agro. From now on I am a Moffat free zone.

And I'll try to find out what it is safe for me to talk about, I am sure something is bound to turn up.

Donna & 10

John Hurt returns as the War Doctor in September 2016, in three full cast audio plays from Big Finish productions. Doctor Who - The War Doctor 3: Agents of Chaos is the third volume in the ongoing saga, in which the War Doctor and Cardinal Ollistra (Jacqueline Pearce) are thrown deeper into the Time War.

The set opens with The Shadow Vortex by David Llewellyn, in which the Time Lords have detected that their quantum shield protecting Earth has been breached by the Daleks, and the War Doctor is sent to Berlin 1961, at the height of the Cold War, to investigate. There he finds that the Daleks have their own agent on the scene… That agent is played by Neve McIntosh, best known to Doctor Who fans as Madame Vastra of the Paternoster Gang, while the cast also includes Honeysuckle Weeks as Heleyna.

‘I was given a very open brief: Send the War Doctor to Earth,’ says David. ‘So then I started thinking, "Where on Earth (literally) can I picture the War Doctor?" and the first image that came to mind was Berlin's Brandenburg Gate in the early '60s - checkpoints in place, the boundary between East and West. Time War meets Cold War. Then I pictured a Dalek saucer landing right in front of it. Then I pictured the skies above Berlin swarming with Daleks. Then I got really, really excited and I started to write.’

In The Eternity Cage by Andrew Smith, the Sontarans continue their campaign to join the Time War - while the Time Lords and the Daleks refuse to allow them to join in. This may change, however, when the Sontarans score a victory over both sides…

The story will be Andrew's second set in Time War after the upcoming release of The Sontaran Ordeal in Doctor Who: Classic Doctors, New Monsters Volume 1.

Dan Starkey (also known for playing the Paternoster Gang’s butler Strax) is the Sontarans, while Josh Bolt (Last Tango in Halifax, Benidorm) plays Kalan.

‘I was asked to write a story taking for its inspiration Alistair MacLean’s Where Eagles Dare,’ says Andrew. ‘So we have an apparently impenetrable fortress on a mountaintop, and the Doctor leading an elite group on a rescue mission. But instead of the German army trying to stop them, it’s Sontarans! With the Daleks not far away either.’

The fate of Gallifrey hangs in the balance in Eye of Harmony by Ken Bentley, in which the Daleks gain the upper hand, while the Doctor and his allies fight to stay alive against all odds.

‘I grew up watching war films,’ says Ken. ‘They were a staple of weekend viewing when I was a boy, so it was great to have the opportunity to explore the genre in Doctor Who, where we generally avoid anything too dark. But even more exciting is that fact that I've written a play for John Hurt. JOHN HURT!! If you'd told me that might happen when I first started working for Big Finish I wouldn't have believed you.’

The box-set also introduces a new player into the Time War - the Dalek Time Strategist, who is voiced, as with the Daleks, by Nicholas Briggs

‘At the end of Dark Eyes, and the defeat of the Dalek Time Controller, it was hinted that a new 'Time Strategist' would be created in its wake…’ explains script editor Matt Fitton.

‘Daleks never go to war without a plan, and a Time War needs a special kind of planner, capable of viewing the field of conflict through four dimensions and beyond. This is the Dalek Time Strategist: a time-sensitive war-leader, utterly dedicated to achieving Dalek victory over the Time Lords by any means it can.’

Henry: You get on baiting those elephant traps.
Minnie: I don't see the point of them, you know.
Henry: What?
Minnie: We've never caught one.
Henry: That doesn't mean we must stop trying, Min of mine. Think of the dangers! Supposing you came down one morning for a cream-strainer, and found an elephant in the larder, eh?
Minnie: Well, I've never seen an elephant in the larder.
Henry: That is because they're hiding, Min of mine.
Minnie: Where do elephants hide? Tell me that! Where do elephants hide, buddy?
Henry: Well, I don't know, Saxophone-Min, but it's clear to me that they must hide somewhere. How else could they get away with it for so long?
(Queen Anne's rain)

Definitely Petty and Figgs.

Are you saying I'm fat?

{{{{{{{{ }}}}}}}}

{{{{ }}}}