The ice warrior episode was OK but the rest awful.last sat felt like watching a star trek Voyager episode.I've not really enjoyed Dr who since David Tennant left tbh.
Care to explain why benny? Then we could have a civilised discussion about it and I would be able to see your point of view and understand it
I'm not benny but I share some of his concerns.
I've been a Doctor Who obsessive for around 5 years. I've been a fan for a lot longer but there is something else now that's taken place in the part of my brain that covers obsession
There's no doubt in my mind that Matt Smith is a great actor and he is great portraying the Doctor the way he does, kind of an old man in a young mans body as it were, but I just don't connect if that's the right word, with the direction the show seems to be going. That said, I enjoyed "Hide" last week and is the first episode since TATM that I've been looking forward to rewatching.
So I've not given up on the show or anything, I still look forward to watching I just feel like I've lost track somehow and i'm somehow disconnected with it.
That is the way I feel.matt smith is a good actor and has really played the part well but I just don't care or connect with the character in the same way I did when David Tennant was the doctor.in fact I have never moved on. I'm still stuck on 1st Jan 2010. Now there's a story there.I was out for a couple of new years day pints hoping to be home for end of time part 2 but recording anyway.got home,had missed the start but no matter would watch later.had to peek though so turned it on right at the moment there were 3 knocks ARRRG.I cared back then.
I don't create new threads just for my opinion or to say "what a great series!" or "What a crap series!" -- THIS IS WHAT THE EXISTING THREADS ARE FOR !
If you know how to use a forum at all you will see that people have created threads where others can share thoughts etc on existing topics can do just that, and generate a discussion based on their thoughts and opinions. What the OP has done is to say "this series is shit. post over." -- how can a discussion be had from this as opposed to a thread which says "I think the series is becoming too childish for this this and this reason? Do you agree? what are your thoughts?" or a thread saying "here is somewhere we can discusss the episode as it airs/ after it airs. please share your thoughts on said episode"
Creating a thread like this does not make the OP's post more important or correct than anyone else's but that's what it comes across as.
Please keep your nasty spiteful tone to yourself missy, I've had a great day out at my friend's wedding today and horrible extremist-feminist toned posts like yours will not ruin it.
Loving the completely absurd and bewildering use of the word "adversely" there by the way. I think you meant "conversely", meaning the opposite. Adverse means bad.
I beg your pardon?
I'm being nasty an spiteful?
Please re read the tone of your post and mine and re evaluate whose being Nasty and spiteful
Well said Davros. I think one of the most corrosive and offensive things on this forum isn't the occasional rude comment or poorly judged remark...it is those forum members who start a thread stating an opinion with no evidence and then when the debate gets going completely refuse to engage in the very discussion they have chosen to start. This sort of thing is not just ignorant but very disrespectful to fellow forum members.
A case in point is the recent 'childish' thread. Someone states a vague opinion with ZERO evidence to back that opinion up and doesn't even attempt to justify their argument. People then duly respond in kind and argue their point and the OP totally refuses to engage and respond to the points. Which can only lead to the conclusion that they had no basis for their argument or opinion in the first place. Which renders it almost pointless.
Anyone can make a statement. But the work is to back that statement up. So if you think Doctor Who is childish and like 'CBBC' you cannot just say that and consider it job done. You explain the rationale for this opinion and present evidence. The fact these sorts of posters choose not to speaks volumes unfortunately.
It is also noticeable that these sorts of threads are peppered with rather self important phrases like 'Someone has to say it' or 'Time someone told the truth' or 'this is what people are thinking but don't want to admit'. As if they are some oracle of truth, a daring source of free speech uttering words us deluded fans dare not say. Not true of course. I am happy to slate DW when it is bad (Hello there 'Wedding of River Song') but mostly I think its brilliant. I am not fooling myself or anyone. Its my opinion. The arrogance of those that claim some of us are just blinkered fan boys or girls because we don't constantly tear the show apart is not on.
See that's the thing about an opinion. You don't need evidence to have one
You can have your ratings and feedback threads all you want but the general feel around the doctor who boards and social media is that it's going down hill for people.
Do not ask me to trawl through a billion pages just to eat a few quotes because I won't do it
I agree with the OP. Series 7 has been by far the worst yet, IMO.
At least series 2 had some decent episodes, e.g. Tooth and Claw, The Girl in the Fireplace, the superb Impossible Planet/Satan Pit (and I would rather watch Love & Monsters again than most of the episodes from series 7).
Series 7 has yet to have a single episode that I've found memorable for the right reasons. My sister, brother in law and mother all agree that it's now utter drivel.
See that's the thing about an opinion. You don't need evidence to have one
You can have your ratings and feedback threads all you want but the general feel around the doctor who boards and social media is that it's going down hill for people.
Do not ask me to trawl through a billion pages just to eat a few quotes because I won't do it
Its true. You don't need evidence to have one. But you do to have one worth listening to I am afraid. Or at least for me.
A question for you.
Consider a matter such as Science...physics or something similar. On the one hand you have someone like Brian Cox who has studied and immersed himself in the subject and can give you an informed and educated opinion that crucially comes backed up with knowledge and evidence gathered from study.
On the other hand you have a drunk man in the pub who has never studied the subject, maybe scanned a few Wikipedia entries though little more but once a few whiskeys have gone down he likes to hold forth about the origins of the universe and apace and time and all things associated. He sure can make his voice heard. Quite a shouty chap actually.
Now both have an opinion. Both use that right to express it in their own way and quite right to.
But whose 'opinion' would you rather listen to?
In the same way. If you think Doctor Who is now childish and like CBBC then you need to back that up. Just saying it isn't enough. That is if the opinion or view is well informed. If it is then you should be able to draw parallels between DW as it is now and as it was and say exactly WHY it is more childish- the use of examples and citing actual episodes and incidents would be helpful. Then you should he able to use examples of CBBC programs which you think resemble DW and explain why they are similar and in what ways.
Then people might listen more closely. If you don't do that you have just made a meaningless statement which is no more valid than me saying 'The Moon is made of Marshmallow'. There's an opinion for you. Fancy arguing against it?
See that's the thing about an opinion. You don't need evidence to have one
You can have your ratings and feedback threads all you want but the general feel around the doctor who boards and social media is that it's going down hill for people.
Do not ask me to trawl through a billion pages just to eat a few quotes because I won't do it
You've also quite bizarrely chosen to discount the wider evidence from a wide spread of people that is fairly gathered through ratings and AI and fan feedback but then choose to fall back on personal anecdotal evidence to try and prove your point as if this is somehow more valid purely because it supports your individual view.
Then to cap it off you admit you cannot he bothered to even back up your opinion thereby proving my original point.
Of course what these sorts of threads are saying is 'I don't like Doctor Who anymore'. Which is fine. That isn't something which is necessarily rational. People have different tastes. And they are very personal and often inexplicable. It is just how you feel. I am a massive Cider fan. Good Cider. I love it. But there is one particular brand of Scrumpy served in my local public house that I despise with a passion. I just don't like it. Why? I couldn't really say. My friends like it. Its a well made and carefully crafted beverage. But I just don't like it. Isn't to my taste. And that's fine. I don't drink it. Instead I choose a drink I do enjoy. And love that. What I don't do is sit ay the bar waiting to tell anyone who dares order that certain drink that they are wrong and shouldn't like it and then say 'My friends Mums second cousins Cat doesn't like that either...so nor should you. Stop drinking it. Its rubbish'. Why do that? Just accept its your own personal taste and view and be comfortable with it.
Of course if I then started saying that the Cider was bad because it is made with blenderised cat food I would need to try and at least back that up with some evidence.
*Please note. I realize Doctor Who is more important than cider. It Is more important than anything. Ironically these posts have been helped or hindered depending on your own opinion by Cider. But not the cider I don't like. Not that one. Because I don't drink it. I drink the ones I do like.
See that's the thing about an opinion. You don't need evidence to have one
You can have your ratings and feedback threads all you want but the general feel around the doctor who boards and social media is that it's going down hill for people.
Do not ask me to trawl through a billion pages just to eat a few quotes because I won't do it
Are you sure about that? I'll save you some time from trawling through a billion pages, you don't need to find any quotes and I won't bother either but you can just look at the poll for this weeks episode at the top of the forum, and then if you like you can look at the poll for last weeks episode, or perhaps the week before. Keep going and let me know when you find a single poll that supports your theory.
See that's the thing about an opinion. You don't need evidence to have one
No, but an opinion without evidence is trivial to argue against, and even easier to dismiss.
You can have your ratings and feedback threads all you want but the general feel around the doctor who boards and social media is that it's going down hill for people.
Which is tantamount to saying that your opinion actually outranks evidence.
Sorry, but that's just not the case. We have a far more widely mixed bag of opinions here, and it just can't be boiled down to such a simple generalisation.
I like saladfingers81's analogy, and I'll take it a step further, because some people have asked why negative criticism attracts a stronger response than positive feedback.
Here's the analogy - you're in a pub, and you shout out "Cider is the best thing ever, and the people who like it are great!". A few people look around, maybe one or two raise a glass and cheer, everyone else ignores you. In the next pub, you do the same, but shout, "Cider is rubbish, and the people who like it are idiots!"
Which statement is most likely to provoke an angry response? Surely there's no surprise that you're more likely to get a rebuttal (possibly a violent one) from the people who drink it and take exception to your criticism, than from the people who don't but disagree with your cheering.
Negative feedback is very valid, but needs to framed carefully. There are many posters round here that do that on a regular basis, and I for one, love 'em.
Unless a flame war is what you're aiming for, of course.
See that's the thing about an opinion. You don't need evidence to have one
You can have your ratings and feedback threads all you want but the general feel around the doctor who boards and social media is that it's going down hill for people.
Do not ask me to trawl through a billion pages just to eat a few quotes because I won't do it
Well I don't agree. More people have easy access to social media these days and are less intimidated by joining a site and starting a thread on any topic they want. When looking at forum front page it does appear that there is a groundswell of dissatisfaction but this is because people that have a positive regard for something don't , on the whole, start threads highlighting their enjoyment when something they are expecting to enjoy brings them joy. If they did it would be just as annoying . Most of the really negative thread starters don't hang around for long on the whole, but a more positive contributor will. They then learn the rules of forum etiquette and make their posts in the relevant threads without annoying other members or distorting the picture of 'wot fandom finks' to the extent that the number of negative threads started by a minority is used as evidence that their view is the majority one.
I don't mind negative comments. I don' t mind strongly opinionated statements that cannot be justified with any proper evidence or use emotive language or phrases. But try and find a relevant, existing thread to do it in...
Another point I would make is, get this, there have always been negative posts about Doctor Who in Doctor Who forums. You think there is a general feeling of negativity now? You should have visited some boards during RTD' s second series, and when Torchwood started I honestly thought he would have to go into exile with Salman Rushdie...you would have thought he was the antichrist!
Anyway for me, series 7 is pretty much staking a claim for 'best ever' and I do really feel sorry, so so sorry, for those that aren't enjoying it as much as me and the rest of my one man clique...
Anyway, must to bed. A horrible early morning and shocking hangover await...
I'm sorry, but I'm really quite embarrassed by the tone of some of the posts on here. People do have the right to their opinions, you know, even if you disagree with them. Free speech?
davros, I would defend to the last your rights to have your opinions about the show. Sometimes I share them, sometimes I dont. But do you really think that it's ok to, for example, effectively yell at another poster who is upset about, not the show as much as being told she isn't allowed an opinion, and accuse them of being "nasty....spiteful" and having a"horrible extremist-feminist tone" (whatever that is supposed to be). On a forum about a family TV show. Really? And to be congratulated for saying something like that to someone? Sorry, but that has really crossed the line for me, I'm afraid.
Defending your views about the show is fine, having those views, WHATEVER they are, is fine. Someone saying " I don't like x,y,z aspect of the show" is not a personal attack on anyone who feels differently, even if they dont give scientifically-proven ."facts" to back up their opinions. It really isn't.
Any more than me saying "I loved series 7A" (which I did) is an attack on the possibly vast majority who thought it was a pile of rubbish.
I'm sorry, but I'm really quite embarrassed by the tone of some of the posts on here. People do have the right to their opinions, you know, even if you disagree with them. Free speech?
davros, I would defend to the last your rights to have your opinions about the show. Sometimes I share them, sometimes I dont. But do you really think that it's ok to, for example, effectively yell at another poster who is upset about, not the show as much as being told she isn't allowed an opinion, and accuse them of being "nasty....spiteful" and having a"horrible extremist-feminist tone" (whatever that is supposed to be). On a forum about a family TV show. Really? And to be congratulated for saying something like that to someone? Sorry, but that has really crossed the line for me, I'm afraid.
Defending your views about the show is fine, having those views, WHATEVER they are, is fine. Someone saying " I don't like x,y,z aspect of the show" is not a personal attack on anyone who feels differently, even if they dont give scientifically-proven ."facts" to back up their opinions. It really isn't.
Any more than me saying "I loved series 7A" (which I did) is an attack on the possibly vast majority who thought it was a pile of rubbish.
And herein lies the problem, far too many posters on here take a negative post about the show as some sort of personal attack on them and dive into the thread to defend the show's honour.
As for this "back up your opinions with facts" nonsense, for goodness sake this is an internet forum, not a court of law. If someone posts a negative opinion why do posters feel they have to respond, why can't they just ignore the thread because by responding they are actually keeping the thread going whereas ignoring it would mean it would quickly drop off page 1 and be forgotten about.
At the end of the day nobody on here is going to change another posters opinion of the show, no matter how much "justification" they can provide for their own views, so why even try to, it's a waste of time and just leads to threads becoming increasingly antagonistic, just as this one has.
And herein lies the problem, far too many posters on here take a negative post about the show as some sort of personal attack on them and dive into the thread to defend the show's honour.
As for this "back up your opinions with facts" nonsense, for goodness sake this is an internet forum, not a court of law. If someone posts a negative opinion why do posters feel they have to respond, why can't they just ignore the thread because by responding they are actually keeping the thread going whereas ignoring it would mean it would quickly drop off page 1 and be forgotten about.
At the end of the day nobody on here is going to change another posters opinion of the show, no matter how much "justification" they can provide for their own views, so why even try to, it's a waste of time and just leads to threads becoming increasingly antagonistic, just as this one has.
Quite. A very balanced and sensible post. Thank you, WelshNige.. I don't mind strong opinions either way on the show, most fans will have them, but really do take exception to the rudeness and ganging up on/personal attacks on posters who aren't seen to be following the party line (and that's what it feels like. Most bizarre for a discussion forum)
It's really making me think twice before posting anything at all, tbh, in case it inadvertently "offends". I want to continue visiting the forum, but if this continues, I'm not sure I'll bother for much longer.
I take Miss Sylvia's tone as a personal attack against me because I can see both sides of an argument, so long as I know where the other poster is coming from so I can understand their reasoning. Miss Sylvia has proven time and time again that she cannot do this and woe betide you if you say anything against her.
And herein lies the problem, far too many posters on here take a negative post about the show as some sort of personal attack on them and dive into the thread to defend the show's honour.
Or another interpretation could be -, to advocate a different viewpoint. Every viewpoint, positive or negative, is worthy of counterpoint. Excepting trolls, of course.
At the end of the day nobody on here is going to change another posters opinion of the show, no matter how much "justification" they can provide for their own views, so why even try to, it's a waste of time and just leads to threads becoming increasingly antagonistic, just as this one has.
Welcome to the Internet. However, I don't think proving someone else wrong is necessarily the goal here, and as long as that's kept in mind, discussions can be civil.
Or another interpretation could be -, to advocate a different viewpoint. Every viewpoint, positive or negative, is worthy of counterpoint. Excepting trolls, of course.
Welcome to the Internet. However, I don't think proving someone else wrong is necessarily the goal here, and as long as that's kept in mind, discussions can be civil.
Advocating a different viewpoint is one thing. Thats what discussion is about. I like a good debate, but personal attacks on "dissenters" (rather than their views) is really quite another.
The show is now rubbish. It belongs on CBBC :rolleyes:
^^ This view is provocative in nature because it establishes itself as undeniable fact that no one can argue against. No one can really ague for it without coming across the same way, really.
I think the show is rubbish now. What happened to the scenes in the TARDIS at the beginning of the episodes? I thought they helped flesh out the characters, and made me care about the companion more. I'm also getting tired of Matt Smith's little kid act, his lame attempts at "humour" bring the show down and make it feel like it belongs on CBBC.
^^ not my viewpoint, but one that I can understand completely because an attempt has been made to illustrate the original point and show why the poster has reached the conclusions they have reached. Each of these points can then be discussed at length, their pros and cons, which will raise other points which may have contributed to or arisen from them. For example, I kind of miss the establishing scenes in the TARDIS too; I don't mind if they are in the series or not, but they were good because they acted as the single repetitive feature of the series, an anchor from which the stories spring. However I can also understand how these scenes could feel repetitive and over used, and so we do need stories without them as much as stories with them IMO...
Advocating a different viewpoint is one thing. Thats what discussion is about. I like a good debate, but personal attacks on "dissenters" (rather than their views) is really quite another.
But what about personal attacks on people who are expressing a positive opinion? As also happens frequently... Why is that people pick up on attacks on "dissenters" but attacks on others goes unnoticed and unchallenged?
Comments
I'm not benny but I share some of his concerns.
I've been a Doctor Who obsessive for around 5 years. I've been a fan for a lot longer but there is something else now that's taken place in the part of my brain that covers obsession
There's no doubt in my mind that Matt Smith is a great actor and he is great portraying the Doctor the way he does, kind of an old man in a young mans body as it were, but I just don't connect if that's the right word, with the direction the show seems to be going. That said, I enjoyed "Hide" last week and is the first episode since TATM that I've been looking forward to rewatching.
So I've not given up on the show or anything, I still look forward to watching I just feel like I've lost track somehow and i'm somehow disconnected with it.
I beg your pardon?
I'm being nasty an spiteful?
Please re read the tone of your post and mine and re evaluate whose being Nasty and spiteful
Disgusting behaviour
See that's the thing about an opinion. You don't need evidence to have one
You can have your ratings and feedback threads all you want but the general feel around the doctor who boards and social media is that it's going down hill for people.
Do not ask me to trawl through a billion pages just to eat a few quotes because I won't do it
At least series 2 had some decent episodes, e.g. Tooth and Claw, The Girl in the Fireplace, the superb Impossible Planet/Satan Pit (and I would rather watch Love & Monsters again than most of the episodes from series 7).
Series 7 has yet to have a single episode that I've found memorable for the right reasons. My sister, brother in law and mother all agree that it's now utter drivel.
Its true. You don't need evidence to have one. But you do to have one worth listening to I am afraid. Or at least for me.
A question for you.
Consider a matter such as Science...physics or something similar. On the one hand you have someone like Brian Cox who has studied and immersed himself in the subject and can give you an informed and educated opinion that crucially comes backed up with knowledge and evidence gathered from study.
On the other hand you have a drunk man in the pub who has never studied the subject, maybe scanned a few Wikipedia entries though little more but once a few whiskeys have gone down he likes to hold forth about the origins of the universe and apace and time and all things associated. He sure can make his voice heard. Quite a shouty chap actually.
Now both have an opinion. Both use that right to express it in their own way and quite right to.
But whose 'opinion' would you rather listen to?
In the same way. If you think Doctor Who is now childish and like CBBC then you need to back that up. Just saying it isn't enough. That is if the opinion or view is well informed. If it is then you should be able to draw parallels between DW as it is now and as it was and say exactly WHY it is more childish- the use of examples and citing actual episodes and incidents would be helpful. Then you should he able to use examples of CBBC programs which you think resemble DW and explain why they are similar and in what ways.
Then people might listen more closely. If you don't do that you have just made a meaningless statement which is no more valid than me saying 'The Moon is made of Marshmallow'. There's an opinion for you. Fancy arguing against it?
You've also quite bizarrely chosen to discount the wider evidence from a wide spread of people that is fairly gathered through ratings and AI and fan feedback but then choose to fall back on personal anecdotal evidence to try and prove your point as if this is somehow more valid purely because it supports your individual view.
Then to cap it off you admit you cannot he bothered to even back up your opinion thereby proving my original point.
I am sorry but I find your argument bizarre.
Of course if I then started saying that the Cider was bad because it is made with blenderised cat food I would need to try and at least back that up with some evidence.
*Please note. I realize Doctor Who is more important than cider. It Is more important than anything. Ironically these posts have been helped or hindered depending on your own opinion by Cider. But not the cider I don't like. Not that one. Because I don't drink it. I drink the ones I do like.
Are you sure about that? I'll save you some time from trawling through a billion pages, you don't need to find any quotes and I won't bother either but you can just look at the poll for this weeks episode at the top of the forum, and then if you like you can look at the poll for last weeks episode, or perhaps the week before. Keep going and let me know when you find a single poll that supports your theory.
Which is tantamount to saying that your opinion actually outranks evidence.
Sorry, but that's just not the case. We have a far more widely mixed bag of opinions here, and it just can't be boiled down to such a simple generalisation.
Oh well I managed to get to page 3 before biting.
Here's the analogy - you're in a pub, and you shout out "Cider is the best thing ever, and the people who like it are great!". A few people look around, maybe one or two raise a glass and cheer, everyone else ignores you. In the next pub, you do the same, but shout, "Cider is rubbish, and the people who like it are idiots!"
Which statement is most likely to provoke an angry response? Surely there's no surprise that you're more likely to get a rebuttal (possibly a violent one) from the people who drink it and take exception to your criticism, than from the people who don't but disagree with your cheering.
Negative feedback is very valid, but needs to framed carefully. There are many posters round here that do that on a regular basis, and I for one, love 'em.
Unless a flame war is what you're aiming for, of course.
Well I don't agree. More people have easy access to social media these days and are less intimidated by joining a site and starting a thread on any topic they want. When looking at forum front page it does appear that there is a groundswell of dissatisfaction but this is because people that have a positive regard for something don't , on the whole, start threads highlighting their enjoyment when something they are expecting to enjoy brings them joy. If they did it would be just as annoying . Most of the really negative thread starters don't hang around for long on the whole, but a more positive contributor will. They then learn the rules of forum etiquette and make their posts in the relevant threads without annoying other members or distorting the picture of 'wot fandom finks' to the extent that the number of negative threads started by a minority is used as evidence that their view is the majority one.
I don't mind negative comments. I don' t mind strongly opinionated statements that cannot be justified with any proper evidence or use emotive language or phrases. But try and find a relevant, existing thread to do it in...
Another point I would make is, get this, there have always been negative posts about Doctor Who in Doctor Who forums. You think there is a general feeling of negativity now? You should have visited some boards during RTD' s second series, and when Torchwood started I honestly thought he would have to go into exile with Salman Rushdie...you would have thought he was the antichrist!
Anyway for me, series 7 is pretty much staking a claim for 'best ever' and I do really feel sorry, so so sorry, for those that aren't enjoying it as much as me and the rest of my one man clique...
Anyway, must to bed. A horrible early morning and shocking hangover await...
davros, I would defend to the last your rights to have your opinions about the show. Sometimes I share them, sometimes I dont. But do you really think that it's ok to, for example, effectively yell at another poster who is upset about, not the show as much as being told she isn't allowed an opinion, and accuse them of being "nasty....spiteful" and having a"horrible extremist-feminist tone" (whatever that is supposed to be). On a forum about a family TV show. Really? And to be congratulated for saying something like that to someone? Sorry, but that has really crossed the line for me, I'm afraid.
Defending your views about the show is fine, having those views, WHATEVER they are, is fine. Someone saying " I don't like x,y,z aspect of the show" is not a personal attack on anyone who feels differently, even if they dont give scientifically-proven ."facts" to back up their opinions. It really isn't.
Any more than me saying "I loved series 7A" (which I did) is an attack on the possibly vast majority who thought it was a pile of rubbish.
Psychology apparently.
I didn't like the last year of David Tennant/RTD. My brain told me it was because the programme was now not very good.
My brain was absolutely certain this was the reason I didn't like it, silly brain.
And herein lies the problem, far too many posters on here take a negative post about the show as some sort of personal attack on them and dive into the thread to defend the show's honour.
As for this "back up your opinions with facts" nonsense, for goodness sake this is an internet forum, not a court of law. If someone posts a negative opinion why do posters feel they have to respond, why can't they just ignore the thread because by responding they are actually keeping the thread going whereas ignoring it would mean it would quickly drop off page 1 and be forgotten about.
At the end of the day nobody on here is going to change another posters opinion of the show, no matter how much "justification" they can provide for their own views, so why even try to, it's a waste of time and just leads to threads becoming increasingly antagonistic, just as this one has.
Quite. A very balanced and sensible post. Thank you, WelshNige.. I don't mind strong opinions either way on the show, most fans will have them, but really do take exception to the rudeness and ganging up on/personal attacks on posters who aren't seen to be following the party line (and that's what it feels like. Most bizarre for a discussion forum)
It's really making me think twice before posting anything at all, tbh, in case it inadvertently "offends". I want to continue visiting the forum, but if this continues, I'm not sure I'll bother for much longer.
Welcome to the Internet. However, I don't think proving someone else wrong is necessarily the goal here, and as long as that's kept in mind, discussions can be civil.
Advocating a different viewpoint is one thing. Thats what discussion is about. I like a good debate, but personal attacks on "dissenters" (rather than their views) is really quite another.
^^ This view is provocative in nature because it establishes itself as undeniable fact that no one can argue against. No one can really ague for it without coming across the same way, really.
I think the show is rubbish now. What happened to the scenes in the TARDIS at the beginning of the episodes? I thought they helped flesh out the characters, and made me care about the companion more. I'm also getting tired of Matt Smith's little kid act, his lame attempts at "humour" bring the show down and make it feel like it belongs on CBBC.
^^ not my viewpoint, but one that I can understand completely because an attempt has been made to illustrate the original point and show why the poster has reached the conclusions they have reached. Each of these points can then be discussed at length, their pros and cons, which will raise other points which may have contributed to or arisen from them. For example, I kind of miss the establishing scenes in the TARDIS too; I don't mind if they are in the series or not, but they were good because they acted as the single repetitive feature of the series, an anchor from which the stories spring. However I can also understand how these scenes could feel repetitive and over used, and so we do need stories without them as much as stories with them IMO...
From here the discussion grows
But what about personal attacks on people who are expressing a positive opinion? As also happens frequently... Why is that people pick up on attacks on "dissenters" but attacks on others goes unnoticed and unchallenged?