BillFitzmaurice.info

BrentEvans wrote: And I STILL think it's funny that the Brit didn't get this while the guys from Kansas and Texas did.

Maybe he prefers to watch Mexican soap operas? Or Bollywood?

Bill Fitzmaurice wrote:Maybe he prefers to watch Mexican soap operas? Or Bollywood?

If that were the case...

I realised it was Doctor who. I didn't realise Timp had been cast into outer darkness. I mean, come on guys, he was a juvenile light weight, compared to others who freaked around with authorised builders reputations. You just ignore kids.

And it seems byacey wasn't too sure either, initially. The fact it takes numerous posts to get to the bottom of it, frankly just makes me, sigh.

I found one snippet that hadn't been erased. Search on the word 'cogent'. But be quick, the doctor might erase it.

The last time I watched Dr who, it was Tom Baker, not the recent ponce/s. But since you raise it, I've never really thought of dr who as an alpha male.

Charles Jenkinson wrote: The last time I watched Dr who, it was Tom Baker, not the recent ponce/s.

That's somewhat forgivable, then. Baker appeared in the 50th anniversary special alongside Tenant and Smith, with a one-off appearance by John Hurt as the "War Doctor", by the way... it was great.

Eccleston, Tennant, and Smith have certainly been younger and more modern than previous Doctors, but they've all done well with the character. The writing is excellent, and the current writers do marvelous jobs with character development and also with winding threads through each series and arcs across each Doctor's run. You really have to go back and watch them again a couple of times to get it all.. very deep stuff (especially during Smith's run). For instance, the "cracks in the universe" was introduced in Smith's first episode, and resolved in his penultimate episode whilst at the same time setting up the next story arc for Capaldi. Masterfully done IMHO.

I look for good things during Capaldi's run. It's noised about that he'll probably end up being the most popular and longest running Doctor since Baker.

Back on topic though.. searching for the Timp's name brings up quite a few posts. With most forum software, if you delete the user (as opposed to simply applying the banhammer) you also delete the user's posts. This is a two edged sword as it can really screw with the coherency of threads.

OTOH.. it's not like he actually said anything useful most of the time.

BrentEvans wrote: OTOH.. it's not like he actually said anything useful most of the time.

While that's most likely true, he no longer has the option to defend himself on a public internet forum though does he...

BrentEvans wrote: In the Doctor who universe, when someone falls through a crack in the universe, they are erased from history. Occasionally, due to some circumstance or another, the person (who now never existed) will be remembered by the living. In that case, the Doctor has to sort out the differences (IE, explain who the never was person is) and fix any problems that might arise.

And I STILL think it's funny that the Brit didn't get this while the guys from Kansas and Texas did.

This emoticon says it all:

byacey wrote:
This emoticon says it all:

dalek-smiley.gif

We need this emoticon. Chris, are you listening?

Grant Bunter wrote: While that's most likely true, he no longer has the option to defend himself on a public internet forum though does he...

Sure, he can't defend himself... he lost that ability when he got banhammered due to his inability to conform to the norm on this private membership only forum.

That said... he is just a kid and let's hope he learned a valuable lesson about life from that.

BrentEvans wrote: Sure, he can't defend himself... he lost that ability when he got banhammered due to his inability to conform to the norm on this private membership only forum.

While it's true that you have to apply and be accepted to post on this forum, anyone who cares to peruse the forum can do so. Any thread, any post. It's all available to see, it's on the net.
I hope you're not thinking only members can view threads and posts.

Otherwise why do you see "I've been lurking here a while and decided to join up" type statements in intro's etc....

Grant Bunter wrote: While it's true that you have to apply and be accepted to post on this forum, anyone who cares to peruse the forum can do so. Any thread, any post. It's all available to see, it's on the net.
I hope you're not thinking only members can view threads and posts.

Obviously. The point is, though, that if you want to post here (which includes defending oneself) you have to play by the rules. Because of that, you can't whine when you get banned and people later talk about you.

Grant Bunter wrote:

BrentEvans wrote: Sure, he can't defend himself... he lost that ability when he got banhammered due to his inability to conform to the norm on this private membership only forum.

While it's true that you have to apply and be accepted to post on this forum, anyone who cares to peruse the forum can do so. Any thread, any post. It's all available to see, it's on the net.
I hope you're not thinking only members can view threads and posts.

Otherwise why do you see "I've been lurking here a while and decided to join up" type statements in intro's etc....

I saw that emoticon tonight over on the violin making website I frequent and thought it was thread appropriate.

I'm grateful that non members can read through the threads here. When I was initially looking for subs to build, I waded through a lot of crap on many websites before I arrived at this site. If I hadn't been able to see anything of any value here, I probably would have kept moving on and written it off as another wannabe site.

Rules be rules!

Sports Clubs have them.
Pubs Have them.
O.M.C.G.'s Have them.
Crooks live and die by them.

I guess if you don't want to play by the rules you're out. Tough lesson if he was "ignorant" to this policy; Given his portrayed intellect, I feel he new he was treading a fine line. Kind of like on1sony

Politics is for politicians - I like speakers my self, Low, highly sensitive ones.Now where were we.......

@HifiBob Videos Please !

Titanium Hand wrote:Rules be rules!

Crooks live and die by them.

Wait, what


(Dr. Who, I also started with Tom Baker in the 70's)

BrentEvans wrote:Eccleston, Tennant, and Smith have certainly been younger and more modern than previous Doctors, but they've all done well with the character. The writing is excellent, and the current writers do marvelous jobs with character development and also with winding threads through each series and arcs across each Doctor's run. You really have to go back and watch them again a couple of times to get it all.. very deep stuff (especially during Smith's run). For instance, the "cracks in the universe" was introduced in Smith's first episode, and resolved in his penultimate episode whilst at the same time setting up the next story arc for Capaldi. Masterfully done IMHO.

I'm gonna have to call you out on this, admittedly it's better than most of the crap pumped out onto the small screen but it's still aimed at kids, always has been. It's just that some adults seem to have latched onto it. It's cheesy camp fun but it's pretty far from well written. An example for something excellently written and well realised would be the recently finished Breaking Bad, not Who...

I'll happily admit it's better than recent crap like Lost or Fringe though, I hate when writers leave threads hanging all over the place and just hope people watching will ignore them. That's realllll lazy but a problem when you have so many writers all writing different episodes.

LelandCrooks wrote:

Titanium Hand wrote:Rules be rules!

Crooks live and die by them.

Wait, what

Classic! ( like when people say "Oh dear!" in my presence hahahahaha )