I am more than happy to admit that. Chibnall doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. On the other hand Moffat did, and look how disastrously that turned out. I don't expect any tears, tantrums and regrets next year apart from those whose name we are no longer allowed to mention.
Think the expression Boz is alluding to might have the initials MF, possibly?
Not a good idea to refer to someone as a MF in real life, though. That might not end well. No-one likes to be called a Muddy Funster.
(one for any Harry Enfield admirers there.)
I think it's an odd word to outlaw on here. I mean if you refer to someone as one directly in conversation and they object to the use of it and ask nicely if you one would refrain from using it then fine. But they DO exist. I mean, I would deny I am one, at least when it comes to DW- so I would politely ask not to be called as such but I think to outlaw the term in general is a bit...odd. For instance I would happily admit to being a Walking Dead ****** in the sense that I love the show almost uncritically because it just hits me in a certain somewhere that causes my critical faculties to switch off. I would still maintain that when it comes to DW and certain eras I am critical enough of all things to remain untainted by the word.
Same goes for the opposite word which apparently is also frowned on here- much as I dislike the reductive nature of the word (Im thinking of the one beginning with H) there definitely needs to be an easy catch-all term to describe certain people. I would not say necessarily that they exist on here, but for instance those that dedicate entire specially set up social media accounts just for voicing their dislike of certain writers...the green ink brigade. The kind that hounded certain writers off Twitter for instance. What do we call them? Is Ming-Mong ok? Because I mean its RTD endorsed so it should be fine but oh dear....everythings such a minefield now.
I think it's an odd word to outlaw on here. I mean if you refer to someone as one directly in conversation and they object to the use of it and ask nicely if you one would refrain from using it then fine. But they DO exist. I mean, I would deny I am one, at least when it comes to DW- so I would politely ask not to be called as such but I think to outlaw the term in general is a bit...odd. For instance I would happily admit to being a Walking Dead ****** in the sense that I love the show almost uncritically because it just hits me in a certain somewhere that causes my critical faculties to switch off. I would still maintain that when it comes to DW and certain eras I am critical enough of all things to remain untainted by the word.
Same goes for the opposite word which apparently is also frowned on here- much as I dislike the reductive nature of the word (Im thinking of the one beginning with H) there definitely needs to be an easy catch-all term to describe certain people. I would not say necessarily that they exist on here, but for instance those that dedicate entire specially set up social media accounts just for voicing their dislike of certain writers...the green ink brigade. The kind that hounded certain writers off Twitter for instance. What do we call them? Is Ming-Mong ok? Because I mean its RTD endorsed so it should be fine but oh dear....everythings such a minefield now.
Surely a real "thingy beginning with MF" would be happy to be called one, just as I'm happy to be a Tennant Fangirl?
Surely a real "thingy beginning with MF" would be happy to be called one, just as I'm happy to be a Tennant Fangirl?
True, but the problem is that often it's used to tar all those who disagree (with a negative opinion about SM) with the same paintbrush.
It can be funny when used in real debates amongst close friends, but when this phrase is deployed in a discussion in a forum like this (unless it's being used in a self deprecatory way), it's used to belittle and dismiss those with differing opinions. Often as a goad too.
It suggests that those with differing opinions are stupid and uncritical supporters.
Fundamentally, it reveals a lack of respect for those with differing opinions. That's why I often find its use offensive.
For me, it sours the atmosphere on this forum and I suspect is part of the reason why some noted forum members have left.
True, but the problem is that often it's used to tar all those who disagree (with a negative opinion about SM) with the same paintbrush.
It can be funny when used in real debates amongst close friends, but when this phrase is deployed in a discussion in a forum like this (unless it's being used in a self deprecatory way), it's used to belittle and dismiss those with differing opinions. Often as a goad too.
It suggests that those with differing opinions are stupid and uncritical supporters.
Fundamentally, it reveals a lack of respect for those with differing opinions. That's why I often find its use offensive.
For me, it sours the atmosphere on this forum and I suspect is part of the reason why some noted forum members have left.
That tired excuse again! Believe me the people who enjoy Moffat's work are just as capable of dishing out the bile as those who don't. I think more likely the reason they have left is that they were running out of excuses to defend Moffat's output.
That tired excuse again! Believe me the people who enjoy Moffat's work are just as capable of dishing out the bile as those who don't. I think more likely the reason they have left is that they were running out of excuses to defend Moffat's output.
You are literally proving GDK's point. For once can we start treating this forum like a place for grownups before you get words like dishing and excuses banned too?
You are literally proving GDK's point. For once can we start treating this forum like a place for grownups before you get words like dishing and excuses banned too?
Oh here we go ...... start accusing others of being childish because they make a point you can't accept (and still try to take the moral high ground!). There was nothing in my post that wasn't the truth.
That tired excuse again! Believe me the people who enjoy Moffat's work are just as capable of dishing out the bile as those who don't. I think more likely the reason they have left is that they were running out of excuses to defend Moffat's output.
BIB: Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?
Once again you miss the point entirely.
I don't (necessarily) object to the points made, but to the manner in which they're made.
I don't make these point (about the manner in which arguments are presented) as a debating tactic, merely to prop up my point of view on SM and his work. I genuinely find the manner distasteful.
Invective and name calling doesn't help you make your case. It's counter productive and is a sign of weakness in the case being made. A good case doesn't need that to persuade anybody.
There are some who dish it out on behalf of SM too, but not many (just as there are some anti-SM who dish it out, but not many). "Someone else did it first" was always a childish excuse and never a good reason to repeat the offence.
Why contribute to making it worse? Why not rise above it? More of us would get along then.
Oh here we go ...... start accusing others of being childish because they make a point you can't accept (and still try to take the moral high ground!). There was nothing in my post that wasn't the truth.
What point did you make exactly? "They did it first so it's their fault!"? Urgh.
I'm not sure what I'm meant to be struggling to accept there. If you can't come onto these forums without having to make everything about how stupid the rabid Moffat fans are and throwing a tantrum when you get called out for being a wind-up, I'm not sure why you bother coming here. You are one of the people who literally had the word fanboy flagged as an insult: if that isn't a red herring for what sort of level your behaviour is at, then I don't know what is.
What point did you make exactly? "They did it first so it's their fault!"? Urgh.
I'm not sure what I'm meant to be struggling to accept there. If you can't come onto these forums without having to make everything about how stupid the rabid Moffat fans are and throwing a tantrum when you get called out for being a wind-up, I'm not sure why you bother coming here. You are one of the people who literally had the word fanboy flagged as an insult: if that isn't a red herring for what sort of level your behaviour is at, then I don't know what is.
Incredible! You have no coherent argument so you start making things up. I never once said "they started it first". If you find my posts so abhorrent then why not do what any sensible person would do and just ignore them.
Incredible! You have no coherent argument so you start making things up. I never once said "they started it first". If you find my posts so abhorrent then why not do what any sensible person would do and just ignore them.
You did imply that you do it only because others do it.
I don't (necessarily) object to the points made, but to the manner in which they're made.
I don't make these point (about the manner in which arguments are presented) as a debating tactic, merely to prop up my point of view on SM and his work. I genuinely find the manner distasteful.
Invective and name calling doesn't help you make your case. It's counter productive and is a sign of weakness in the case being made. A good case doesn't need that to persuade anybody.
There are some who dish it out on behalf of SM too, but not many (just as there are some anti-SM who dish it out, but not many). "Someone else did it first" was always a childish excuse and never a good reason to repeat the offence.
Why contribute to making it worse? Why not rise above it? More of us would get along then.
And yet you are the one who claimed that those that didn't like Moffat were driving others away. If you make such a comment then you should be prepared for others to counter it. And again I never used the phrase "someone else did it first". If you are going to reply to posts the least you could do is read them properly.
And yet you are the one who claimed that those that didn't like Moffat were driving others away. If you make such a comment then you should be prepared for others to counter it. And again I never used the phrase "someone else did it first". If you are going to reply to posts the least you could do is read them properly.
Not quite true. Everyone is free to dislike SM's work. When the dislike is presented as you do, I think that's why some have left.
Oh, so now it's gone from "you said it" to "you implied it". Try responding to what was actually posted not what you imagine was posted.
No. You're deliberately missing the point because you can't accept it. If it's wrong behaviour, it's wrong. No excuses for contributing to further offences.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you didn't mean to imply that you only do it because others do, you must believe that there is nothing wrong in your behaviour, which makes your presentation of "others do it" as an excuse a spurious argument that you yourself don't believe and a mere debating tactic.
Which do you believe? That you've done nothing? Or that you do it only because others do?
And yet you are the one who claimed that those that didn't like Moffat were driving others away. If you make such a comment then you should be prepared for others to counter it. And again I never used the phrase "someone else did it first". If you are going to reply to posts the least you could do is read them properly.
And when you question peoples' opinions with the aggressiveness and hostility with which you do, then you can expect people to reply with the same respect you show them: which is to say, none at all. I know a fair few people on here who can openly criticise Moffat and yet engage in civilised debates with other members about why they feel the way they do, and yet you're one i always see rubbing heads with other members (in fact, I don't see you doing anything else)... why is that, I wonder?
I am more than happy to admit that. Chibnall doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. On the other hand Moffat did, and look how disastrously that turned out. I don't expect any tears, tantrums and regrets next year apart from those whose name we are no longer allowed to mention.
It's turned out pretty well under Moffat actually, a long, long way from this disaster that you proclaim it be. In fact, Doctor Who has never been more popular worldwide than it has been during the Moffat tenure.
That tired excuse again! Believe me the people who enjoy Moffat's work are just as capable of dishing out the bile as those who don't. I think more likely the reason they have left is that they were running out of excuses to defend Moffat's output.
I could criticise loads of Moffat's work all day - nearly as much as I can praise (an inevitability when he's written as much as he has). I know it's not important but I came very close to leaving myself not too long ago, I post relatively little compared to what I used to as it is. It has nothing to do with defending anyone's output... well, actually I'm wrong there. The output of the forum is often frankly the biggest deterrent, and I think other people have made valid points here. It often ranges from depressing to hostile here these days, with little room for anything else between. And that's not because of alternate views towards the show (there are people on here with vastly different views to my own who I love reading the comments from) it's because of the way people see fit to conduct their alternate views. It's offputting.
Naturally, I'm sure a comment like this deserves a "if you don't like it then leave" response, if any. But then that's the exact kind of vicious-cycle, unwelcoming hostile attitude that's been prominent on here for a little while that I think is the problem. There's a fair few forum members I miss on here, and they weren't the kind who sat their blindly defending anyone. They significantly improved the place by posting well-balanced posts and sharing their opinions in a polite way.
For the record this post isn't directed at you, or indeed anyone specific. I guess I've been fortunate enough to not have too many personal negative encounters on here myself so I've no right naming names. But I used to visit this place because I used to like visiting it, and I like Doctor Who. Now I visit just because I like Doctor Who.
I did mention the T&C's re: stuff like '(fill in blank, although it's usually the current Showrunner, which I guess it would be) Fanboy' on another thread and kinda (great story) wish I hadn't now. Was only making the point that if you go down that dismissive route, there's not going to be much discussion, really. Although said before the Moffat era edges it for me as regards C21 Who, there's not *that* much in it for me and wouldn't dismiss, say, someone who sees the RTD era as the 'golden' era as a 'fanboy/girl/small furry creature from Alpha Centurai. That's all. Not a would be Mod. Or a Rocker. Or indeed a Mocker like Ringo Starr. (Someone'll get it.)
Anyway, I'm now going to dismiss myself as a 'Hartnell era Fanboy' and alert myself accordingly! It's only a 'kids show' anyway. ;-)
(Runs)
eta I've copyrighted the phrase "Chibnall Cheerleader", btw! Gotta think ahead....
Comments
Who? Voldemort?!?
Not a good idea to refer to someone as a MF in real life, though. That might not end well. No-one likes to be called a Muddy Funster.
(one for any Harry Enfield admirers there.)
I think it's an odd word to outlaw on here. I mean if you refer to someone as one directly in conversation and they object to the use of it and ask nicely if you one would refrain from using it then fine. But they DO exist. I mean, I would deny I am one, at least when it comes to DW- so I would politely ask not to be called as such but I think to outlaw the term in general is a bit...odd. For instance I would happily admit to being a Walking Dead ****** in the sense that I love the show almost uncritically because it just hits me in a certain somewhere that causes my critical faculties to switch off. I would still maintain that when it comes to DW and certain eras I am critical enough of all things to remain untainted by the word.
Same goes for the opposite word which apparently is also frowned on here- much as I dislike the reductive nature of the word (Im thinking of the one beginning with H) there definitely needs to be an easy catch-all term to describe certain people. I would not say necessarily that they exist on here, but for instance those that dedicate entire specially set up social media accounts just for voicing their dislike of certain writers...the green ink brigade. The kind that hounded certain writers off Twitter for instance. What do we call them? Is Ming-Mong ok? Because I mean its RTD endorsed so it should be fine but oh dear....everythings such a minefield now.
Maybe.
Surely a real "thingy beginning with MF" would be happy to be called one, just as I'm happy to be a Tennant Fangirl?
True, but the problem is that often it's used to tar all those who disagree (with a negative opinion about SM) with the same paintbrush.
It can be funny when used in real debates amongst close friends, but when this phrase is deployed in a discussion in a forum like this (unless it's being used in a self deprecatory way), it's used to belittle and dismiss those with differing opinions. Often as a goad too.
It suggests that those with differing opinions are stupid and uncritical supporters.
Fundamentally, it reveals a lack of respect for those with differing opinions. That's why I often find its use offensive.
For me, it sours the atmosphere on this forum and I suspect is part of the reason why some noted forum members have left.
This is a good point. So in a sense just by denying one confirms hat one is not one,. Erm...
I suppose its all about context and intent when using the terms,
That tired excuse again! Believe me the people who enjoy Moffat's work are just as capable of dishing out the bile as those who don't. I think more likely the reason they have left is that they were running out of excuses to defend Moffat's output.
You are literally proving GDK's point. For once can we start treating this forum like a place for grownups before you get words like dishing and excuses banned too?
Oh here we go ...... start accusing others of being childish because they make a point you can't accept (and still try to take the moral high ground!). There was nothing in my post that wasn't the truth.
BIB: Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?
Once again you miss the point entirely.
I don't (necessarily) object to the points made, but to the manner in which they're made.
I don't make these point (about the manner in which arguments are presented) as a debating tactic, merely to prop up my point of view on SM and his work. I genuinely find the manner distasteful.
Invective and name calling doesn't help you make your case. It's counter productive and is a sign of weakness in the case being made. A good case doesn't need that to persuade anybody.
There are some who dish it out on behalf of SM too, but not many (just as there are some anti-SM who dish it out, but not many). "Someone else did it first" was always a childish excuse and never a good reason to repeat the offence.
Why contribute to making it worse? Why not rise above it? More of us would get along then.
What point did you make exactly? "They did it first so it's their fault!"? Urgh.
I'm not sure what I'm meant to be struggling to accept there. If you can't come onto these forums without having to make everything about how stupid the rabid Moffat fans are and throwing a tantrum when you get called out for being a wind-up, I'm not sure why you bother coming here. You are one of the people who literally had the word fanboy flagged as an insult: if that isn't a red herring for what sort of level your behaviour is at, then I don't know what is.
Incredible! You have no coherent argument so you start making things up. I never once said "they started it first". If you find my posts so abhorrent then why not do what any sensible person would do and just ignore them.
You did imply that you do it only because others do it.
And yet you are the one who claimed that those that didn't like Moffat were driving others away. If you make such a comment then you should be prepared for others to counter it. And again I never used the phrase "someone else did it first". If you are going to reply to posts the least you could do is read them properly.
Oh, so now it's gone from "you said it" to "you implied it". Try responding to what was actually posted not what you imagine was posted.
Not quite true. Everyone is free to dislike SM's work. When the dislike is presented as you do, I think that's why some have left.
My thoughts exactly. Even Moffat's more consistent than this.
No. You're deliberately missing the point because you can't accept it. If it's wrong behaviour, it's wrong. No excuses for contributing to further offences.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you didn't mean to imply that you only do it because others do, you must believe that there is nothing wrong in your behaviour, which makes your presentation of "others do it" as an excuse a spurious argument that you yourself don't believe and a mere debating tactic.
Which do you believe? That you've done nothing? Or that you do it only because others do?
And when you question peoples' opinions with the aggressiveness and hostility with which you do, then you can expect people to reply with the same respect you show them: which is to say, none at all. I know a fair few people on here who can openly criticise Moffat and yet engage in civilised debates with other members about why they feel the way they do, and yet you're one i always see rubbing heads with other members (in fact, I don't see you doing anything else)... why is that, I wonder?
It's turned out pretty well under Moffat actually, a long, long way from this disaster that you proclaim it be. In fact, Doctor Who has never been more popular worldwide than it has been during the Moffat tenure.
I could criticise loads of Moffat's work all day - nearly as much as I can praise (an inevitability when he's written as much as he has). I know it's not important but I came very close to leaving myself not too long ago, I post relatively little compared to what I used to as it is. It has nothing to do with defending anyone's output... well, actually I'm wrong there. The output of the forum is often frankly the biggest deterrent, and I think other people have made valid points here. It often ranges from depressing to hostile here these days, with little room for anything else between. And that's not because of alternate views towards the show (there are people on here with vastly different views to my own who I love reading the comments from) it's because of the way people see fit to conduct their alternate views. It's offputting.
Naturally, I'm sure a comment like this deserves a "if you don't like it then leave" response, if any. But then that's the exact kind of vicious-cycle, unwelcoming hostile attitude that's been prominent on here for a little while that I think is the problem. There's a fair few forum members I miss on here, and they weren't the kind who sat their blindly defending anyone. They significantly improved the place by posting well-balanced posts and sharing their opinions in a polite way.
For the record this post isn't directed at you, or indeed anyone specific. I guess I've been fortunate enough to not have too many personal negative encounters on here myself so I've no right naming names. But I used to visit this place because I used to like visiting it, and I like Doctor Who. Now I visit just because I like Doctor Who.
Anyway, I'm now going to dismiss myself as a 'Hartnell era Fanboy' and alert myself accordingly! It's only a 'kids show' anyway. ;-)
(Runs)
eta I've copyrighted the phrase "Chibnall Cheerleader", btw! Gotta think ahead....