Re: Shall We All Leave At Once?


"Phil Bowles" <philipbowles2003@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:5cccdb88-d71d-482d-be26-46ac71d12377@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 16 May, 13:57, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Phil Bowles" <philipbowles2...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:2c2e5563-0fa6-47b5-be30-5397ac0455f0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





> On 16 May, 11:57, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> <stevesi...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

>>news:5a14179c-aff3-40e6-b9cf-e1fa7da79645@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> > It's a bit ***, this Usenet Group. Time has passed. The Doctor is >> > the
>> > winner of some prize that matters to him alone. Aggy is always >> > right,
>> > in a fly's eye. TopPoster is... well, whatever.

>> TOSH!

> JAPBIRD!

>> Yads has always been here and I've been here for over a decade so the
>> problems with this group are nothing to do with us. TopPoster is an
>> obsessive compulsive spamming troll.

> Hey, Aggy's got a point (about TopPoster anyway)...

> At least Yads tries to comment on the
>> actual series. The facts are that 95% of the time I am right and its
>> those
>> opposing me who are wrong.

> ...and then he ruins it. Still, it's funny.

> The should stop posting on subjects then know
>> nothing about such as ancient history, religion and production matters
>> otherwise I will continue to make fools of them.

> See what I mean? Oh, I do so love irony.

>> Now lets get down to the real problem. People who try to defend RTD no
>> matter what, and what's worse its exactly the same people who want to
>> lick
>> RTDs arse

> But at least they try to comment on the actual series...

No. All they do is slag of other posters who disagree with them or think the
new series is not as good as the original or that RTD is crap.

No, no, can't say I've read anything from anyone like that. Care to
give any examples? There are people who defend Davies against
irrelevant personal criticism about his sexuality and the like, but I

And way do they waste their time doing that? It's an issue that doesn't concern them in any way but these PC LOONIES take it upon themselves to intervene when no one else is bothered.

don't think I've read anything by anyone who hasn't at some point
criticised something he's done - and I think it's universally agreed
he's not a terribly good writer. I've certainly seen people take issue
with the idea that the old series was some sort of golden age that the
new one has yet to surpass (in my case, more because the old series
was mostly a lot worse than it's fondly remembered to be than because
the new one's especially good), but I haven't seen any of those people
slagging off others for thinking otherwise, and they've all
contributed productively to on-topic discussions.

> Aggy, I think we'll have to add punctuation to the list of concepts
> you struggle with (you know, along with English, Greek, linguistics,
> religion, history ancient or recent, television production,
> philosophy, logic, drama, physics, biology...) I have to say I've been

That just proves your ignorance. I know what I am talking about but you just
slag off anything you don't understand

What a bizarre world you live in, where STUPID IGNORANT, FOOL and so
forth don't represent "slagging off" but patient criticism of bad
arguments does.

They are statements of fact.


and people who talk about subjects
you have no comprehension of.

You are funny, I'll give you that. I shouldn't give you this advice,
as it will only spoil my fun in the unlikely event you heed it, but
it's a good idea, when you find that absolutely everyone else is
pointing out that you're mistaken about something, to go back and
check that you have actually understood it correctly yourself rather
than assuming everyone else is wrong. I will admit, your commentaries
can be a fascinating educational experience as they prompt me to check
the material you're referring to to check the veracity of your claims.
But alarm bells should start to ring given just how many times I've
checked and pointed out that you've completely misunderstood the
source material, or are using it to claim someone said something other

Nope. You've never understood the source material, source language or anything. You try to pretend you know about subjects you not only don't understand but have never studied. All you do is parrot ignorant common beliefs which are totally wrong and won't accept being corrected by people who have actually studied the subjects and the source texts and source languages and religions.

than what they actually did. Most of this material is pretty widely
accessible, and you get caught out remarkably easily. And trying to
cover your mistakes by waving around a claim of expertise is just
sophistry.

I have not covered up any mistakes. I have admitted any mistakes I have made.


> thinking they themselves are better than
>> anyone else and qualified to challenge the experts on any subject >> simply

> I will give you this, though - you have an *excellent* grasp of irony.

> Either that, or you're throwing a tantrum because people are always
> pointing out where your reasoning or grasp of facts are flawed - best

No. These people are just showing their ignorance of the facts. Just like
they attack the Doctor Who authors and members of the Restoration Team and
prominent fans and website creators they attack anyone with competence who
brings up any subject or fact they are ignorant of.

So, just sour grapes then. The only criticism I've heard levelled has
been against a website owner who supposedly claims to have sourced
missing episodes and then fails to deliver - no idea how accurate that

He never made the claims you attribute to him. All he did was report a news story and he was attacked over it for months even before it was proven to be a hoax. That is the kind of thing that has ruined this group.

is, and I don't have any interest in the subject. As for you "bringing
up any subject or fact they are ignorant of" (since you're the only
person you credit as being "anyone of competence").

Lets take the subject of the word "homosexual". I made the valid point that it doesn't mean what you think it does but all you do is parrot out ignorant dictionaries without actually considering the meaning of the word itself. You have no competence whatsoever in either Greek or Latin and you slag off the people that do. The same goes for ancient religion or history. You have never studied a primary or secondary text in your life let alone one in the original language and when someone who has tells you what they actually say you refuse to accept their authority and carry on parroting you ignorant misguided common beliefs which are totally wrong. You're as bad a as Dalek responding to its conditioning.


> advice is for you to heed your own about not posting on subjects you
> know nothing about. I'll give you credit - you know a lot about
> classic Who (if it makes you feel better to describe yourself as
> "qualified to talk about that subject" or an "expert" rather than a
> nerd).

>> because they worship RTD and the new series.

> You're the one who keeps giving it 7-10 out of 10...

No I don't.

Okay, 7-9 out of 10 then - wasn't there one episode you said you'd
given 9 rather than 10 because the Doctor wasn't serious enough or
some such nonsense?

When was the last time I gave an episode 9 for this season? The highest mark I've awarded was 8.


Phil Bowles


.

Loading