In article <UE%bm.101286$qz1.28779@newsfe12.ams2>,
Stephen Wilson <stephen.wilson2004nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:h4pen9$od8$1@gallifrey.nk.ca...

A very good question!! Abortion is the murder of a human being
pre-birth. Unless there is real danger to the fetus,
abortion is objectionable.

You are free to express your opinion. It is, as always, vastly
over-simplified and poorly thought out.

What if the foetus was the result of the woman being raped?
What if the foetus has severe defects?
What if the parent(s) do not have the finances/capability to bring up a
child?


Such questions is why eugenics exists.

We devalue humanity.

Not a subject that normally interests me, but I found myself in a
discussion recently about animal welfare as it relates to tadpoles,
which centred around the assertion that vertebrates have pain
receptors and so presumably react similarly to painful stimuli. It
didn't occur to me until afterwards that this raised a parallel with
the abortion issue, since a tadpole is essentially a foetus and the
girl I was talking to was assuming it had the neural wiring of an
adult vertebrate. I don't know whether she'd have appreciated the
knowledge that, in contending that an embryo had the pain receptors of
an adult frog, she was effectively an anti-abortionist...

Phil

Careful what fires you light!

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:37:08 -0700 (PDT), Hulahoop





sweeney...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 30, 9:30 am, Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:

It was a gratuitous indulgence for the sake of emotional impact. If
you can't understand that then you have very little humanity left in
you.

Iggy AIUI, you believe that you the death scene of Jack's grandchild
was gratuitous and unnecessary

OK so that is the effect that it had on you.

For me this was the inevitable result of Jack asking himself if he
should sacrifice many unknown children or one child, his
grandchild?

I think it is disingenuous of you say that people who cannot
understand that the scene was a gratuitous indulgence for the sake of
emotional impact have very little humanity left in them.  That is your
opinion but I happen to disagree with it

Different people viewing the same events can be affected in different
ways.  You do not have the monopoly on emotional impact, and neither
does anyone else posting here

Just because I did not throw a brick at my TV or say that RTD is sick
when I saw that death on screen, it does not mean that I gratuitously
enjoyed it or that you must have a greater level of humanity in you.
IMHO it means it affected us differently on an emotional level.   My
reaction is not better than yours and vice versa

I enjoyed Children of Earth.  Yes it was implausible nonsense but when
has that ever been an issue for Doctor Who and its spin-offs?

Anyway as with many flamewars it seems this will never be resolved
with either both sides agreeing:
*   that one of the opposing opinions actually was right, or
*   that both sides actually have the right to their opinions.

So I suppose we should just wait untill we are all bored of the topic

I'm not proud to say I've seen some things in my time that would make
these wankers drop their guts. Seeing such a thing paraded on TV as
the gratuitously emotional climax to an unbelievable popcorn fantasy
made me want to drop mine.

If that is what we class as entertainment then we are sick beyond
belief.

"Ignis Fatuus" <Ignis@fatuusisland.com> wrote in message
news:nl117594qg9oi8ablkk3ubb9ute7l0e0de@4ax.com...

But that isn't the real horror of the piece. The real horror was using
the torture and murder of one child to lend an emotional charge to a
preposterous tale, under the pretext of sacrificing a life to save
millions. If that's your idea of entertainment then you really do need
help.

Oh for God's sake! Entertainment programmes are full of events that enhance
the drama. Have you ever tried watching Casualty or the Bill? Or even
Coronation Street and EastEnderes. They're full of nasty things happening to
children and adults.

At least in Torchwood, the child's death actually meant something - the
saving of millions of other children and the vanquishing of the aliens.

Meanwhile, in real life, there are adults torturing animals and children
just for fun. That's real sadism.

If you feel so strongly about it, stop complaining about Torchwood on a
newsgroup, get out into the world and save some real children.

Or get a grip!!

On 29 July, 20:30, Robin Miller <Not_My@Real_Address.com> wrote:
pbow...@aol.com wrote:
As often as you repeat this, it remains as I've pointed out, a non
sequitur. The death of the kid wasn't a convincing solution to the
alien(s) - agreed. It wasn't intended to make a "moral or
philosophical lesson" - I'm not sure anyone's suggested it was.
But it doesn't in any way follow that it was "intended to indulge
emotions of the audience" - it was intended for the 'benefit' of the
characters in the story, not the audience; it's the surviving
characters' reactions to the event that were meant to "indulge the
emotions of the audience" (an indulgence which, as I've pointed out
before, is the whole point of drama) - the effect on Alice, on Jack,
and on their relationship - not the kid himself.
Phil
Well of course the entire series asked the question of whether it is
moral to sacrifice an innocent life to save many more. You can't really
be saying, can you, that that wasn't a question posed throughout the
five episodes? Are you saying that the sole point of the series was to
show the effect, at the end, on Jack of the loss of his grandson, and of
his relationship with his daughter, neither of whom the audience had
heard of before?

No, I'm saying that that was the point of using Jack's grandson as a
sacrificial lamb. The theme of sacrificing innocents to save millions
has, as you pointed out, been ably made throughout the series -
killing a kid to drive it home didn't raise any "moral or
philosophical issues" that weren't already covered.

As for not having heard of Jack's daughter or grandson before, what
does that have to do with whether we relate to the effect on Jack of
making that decision? Do you need to know someone's daughter
personally to imagine how they'd feel if that person was killed or
estranged from them? And in any case we'd had a good part of five
hours to get to know Alice (her son, not so much, but what we knew of
her largely revolved around her desire to protect him). It surprises
me that a lot of people seem to miss the point that the story was
centred around children because they were something each of the
characters had a major stake in - it's not a coincidence that all of
the children featured in the opening scenes (except the ones on the
street) turned out to be relatives of major characters, or that Gwen's
pregnancy coincidentally manifested in a story in which both Jack and
Ianto were revealed to have children among their relatives.

Phil

I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.arts.drwho when
Ignis Fatuus got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:

So how then did we, the audience, benefit from the spectacle, in all
it's gruesome detail? It was one of the few moments of reality in a
show that was dominated by pure fantasy, and it served no plausible
purpose other than winding up a preposterous plot with an emotional
charge.

So we benefitted because it (i) wound up the plot and (ii) caused some
character development.

And it was hardly gruesome.

I saw the "must be a child" demand as one way of avoiding the
increasingly predictable ending of Jack offering himself up for the
task that would have destroyed a normal human. Jack would have sent the
signal, fallen over, then revived a few minutes later - certainly more
physical pain for himself, but nothing he'd have to suffer for long
afterwards.

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:00:57 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"





stephen.wilson2004nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:h4qe7s$p1d$1@gallifrey.nk.ca...
In article <h4ptfp$5u...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Dano <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
One thing you have to say for RTD...he sure knows how to stir up a
storm!

Typical Homosexual / Atheist.

Oh fuck off Yads. You're a typical hypocritical, xenophobic, homophobic,
religious bigot. Just too stupid to recognise it.

From someone who regards the torture and murder of small children as
an acceptable form of fantasy entertainment that really is a bit rich.

--------------------------------------
Not "over a million", but only 325,000, pretty much all of them from
council estates and slums. Furthermore, there weren't going to be any
vaccinations, as that was *made-up*, by Frobisher.
Snarky
------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.arts.drwho when
Ignis Fatuus got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:

And as I've said, it's as realistic as trying to pour the contents of
the national grid through a five amp fuse.

If carrying the current for the split-second it would take for the fuse
to vapourize is enough to destroy the threat, then it's done the job.
When a singer uses destructive resonance to shatter a glass, they've not
usually done much damage to their own throat.

I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.arts.drwho when
Ignis Fatuus got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:08:53 +0100, The Face of Po
gkennington@potatojunkie.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.arts.drwho when
PEAT got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
Hail Eris! On 29 July, 04:23, Ignis Fatuus wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:14:58 -0700 (PDT), PEAT wrote:
Hail Eris! On 29 July, 03:17, Ignis Fatuus wrote:
[...]
When you've finished coercing blackmailing and sacking, who do you
have left to carry out this fraudulent vaccination on over a million
children under the noses of their parents and guardians?

You seem to be as much out of touch with reality as Russell T Davies.

Not "over a million", but only 325,000, pretty much all of them from
council estates and slums. Furthermore, there weren't going to be any
vaccinations, as that was *made-up*, by Frobisher.

Oh well; if it's just council estates and slums then that's ok.

No, not really, but that was the reasoning used. It may be a rather
dark observation, but it's entirely plausible that they'd reach that
conclusion. Politicians, generally speaking (there are exceptions to
every rule, except one;-{P}), are scum.

Also, for the purposes of "rounding up" the kids, council estates and
slums tend to have high population density. I can't remember whether
this was one of the arguments the politicians came up with while
justifying their thinly-disguised class-cleansing, or indeed if it's a
point you were hinting at above, but it means that the whole "grab the
kids" operation is made marginally less implausible than if it had been
10% randomly distributed around the country.

Why don't you try grabbing a kid off a council estate just to measure
the response you might get?

I expect the operation would need a large armed presence (possibly like
those shown in the episode itself) in a comparatively small number of
places; as opposed to sending a van down dirt tracks in every remote
countryside village.

"Brian Henderson" <BrianL.Henderson@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:FT0cm.1818$MA3.685@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Dano wrote:
pbowles@aol.com wrote:
If you didn't notice, the teachers and parents in the story *did* take
a dim view of the soldiers grabbing the kids...


Pretty "dim view" of soldiers too. All quite willing to follow orders to
herd innocent children onto buses against the wishes of the parents. Is
that where we are today? Such a low opinion of our troops who are sworn
to defend and protect their country and it's citizens...that they would
blindly accept such orders?

Hey, that's how RTD wrote it, with the "justification" that any soldier
that disobeyed would have his own children sent off to
alien-drug-sucking-land. What about soldiers without children? What's
going to keep them from following actual military protocol that says you
ignore illegal orders?

Because it's a soldier's job to follow orders. Any soldier that can think
for himself is a liability.

Utter Fucking Shite. A soldier can think for himself; and in addition

Nah, as far as RTD is concerned, everyone is an idiot.

Looking at some of the posts on this newsgroup, if RTD really did think
everyone was an idiot I think it would be fair to say he'd have a good
point...

"Ignis Fatuus" <Ignis@fatuusisland.com> wrote in message
news:443175dor36hu304umepc0fi1uhu3cc461@4ax.com...

You've really no idea what you're talking about. Offer an inoculation
in familiar surroundings - supervised by trusted authorities and I'd
agree.

My point is that those authorities would not buy into the inoculations
without verification. They are Not Government Puppets, and they follow
local procedures independently of government. If you don't believe me
ask your GP. The Government would have to come up with a documented
product from a reputable source before local practitioners would
accept it.

Ah. That'll be the same government that felt we needed to go to war against
Sadam Hussein. You know - the government that consulted the voters, and the
government that had proof of weapons of mass destruction.

If the world really was visited by aliens who wanted 10% of all the
children, do you think that normal rules of democracy would apply? And in
the case of Torchwood, every parent in the world had seen their children
stop. Every parent in the world would have been frightened, not knowing what
was happening to their children. Every parent would want them to be cured.

Without cooperation from the establishment you would need to recruit
an army to remove those children to an unknown destination against the
opposition of the medical establishment, the local authorities, and
the parents.

That's right. And that's what they did.


From where exactly?

"Ignis Fatuus" <Ignis@fatuusisland.com> wrote in message
news:0651759irledfovrut04lb0gg759jftiam@4ax.com...

How does the Torture and Murder of a Child make the Alien call off the
threat?

It doesn't and it didn't. The child was used to transmit a frequency back
at
the aliens. The frequency was fatal to the aliens.

Do you know how stupid that sounds. How much power do you think would
have to be channeled through the child in order to have the slightest
effect. He'd be dead before he drained enough juice to boil a cup of
soup in a microwave oven.

He did die. And he was only the focal point. Every other child in the world
was also involved.

Grow Up FFS. Look at the Realities. Is child abuse really a
justifiable form of mass entertainment.

Heed thine own advice. Torchwood was a bit of fiction, and at no point was
any child abused - either in reality or in the fiction. You're seeing child
abuse where there was none.

The child was Not Tortured and Murdered in the fiction? What planet do

On Jul 29, 5:24 pm, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
In article <KZ0cm.1822$MA3.1...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
Brian Henderson  <BrianL.Hender...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote:

Dano wrote:
One thing you have to say for RTD...he sure knows how to stir up a
storm!

He sure knows how to write shit, that's for sure.

That is his worldview.

Says the troll who only last week started a thread called "10 cheers
for Russell T Davies". Now you're agreeing that he writes shit! How
insincere!

"Ignis Fatuus" <Ignis@fatuusisland.com> wrote in message
news:pln0751u0k52uka7ofu9ikpqnmstup28r0@4ax.com...
It's easy to tell that you have no children - or on the face of it any
family at all. You accept the 'logic' of the story as if that somehow
condones the act. The story has no 'logic' at any level. The torture
and murder of a child was no credible solution to the alien threat
(which was not credible anyway). What purpose then did it serve, apart
from a useful plot device with an emotional twist? It was a gratuitous
piece of fantasy that makes the author as well as the character seem
like a monster.

It was far more than that. You don't seem to have grasped the essentials of
the story. It presented moral dilemmas. Jack had a choice. In 1965, it was
to allow 12 children to be used by the 456 in return for a vaccine. In 2009,
it was to allow 10% of all children on earth to be given to the 456 or to
kill them by sacrificing one child - his own grandson.

The threat was never realistically portrayed. The man committed an

I think you've blown a scene you didn't like out of all proportion and seem
to be so intent on hating the series (which you - and we - knew you were
going to - you've given us your opinion on both Dr Who since the 1960s and
Torchwood enough times) that most of the story has gone right over your
head.

"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:h4qe7s$p1d$1@gallifrey.nk.ca...
In article <h4ptfp$5u0$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
Dano <janeanddano@yahoo.com> wrote:
One thing you have to say for RTD...he sure knows how to stir up a
storm!



Typical Homosexual / Atheist.

Oh fuck off Yads. You're a typical hypocritical, xenophobic, homophobic,
religious bigot. Just too stupid to recognise it.

From someone who regards the torture and murder of small children as

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:24:55 +0100, "john smith" wrote:

I'm missing no points - there were none to miss.
The alien threat was totally unrealistic - traveling thousands of
billions of miles to harvest hundreds of millions of children and
transport them alive across the galaxy.

What episode was that mentioned in then? I must have missed it... I
interpreted the "aliens" more as Lovecraftian-type ultraterrestrials from
some twisted parallel dimension...

Wherever they came from they came equipped with the technology that
would enable them to contain and transport hundreds of millions
snip

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:52:39 -0700 (PDT), PEAT <popesnarky@gmail.com
wrote:

Hail Eris! On 27 July, 18:05, Ignis Fatuus wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:24:55 +0100, "john smith" wrote:

I'm missing no points - there were none to miss.
The alien threat was totally unrealistic - traveling thousands of
billions of miles to harvest hundreds of millions of children and
transport them alive across the galaxy.

What episode was that mentioned in then? I must have missed it... I
interpreted the "aliens" more as Lovecraftian-type ultraterrestrials
from
some twisted parallel dimension...

Wherever they came from they came equipped with the technology that
would enable them to contain and transport hundreds of millions
snip

Wrong! Thirty-five million children, not hundreds of millions. Let's
be clear, hundreds of millions would have been completely ridiculous.
35,000,000 -- not so much. Within acceptable tolerances for suspension
of disbelief.

Ten percent of all the children in the world.
Current estimate of the world population under sixteen is about 35
percent.
http://www.prb.org/pdf07/07WPDS_Eng.pdf

Current world population around Six Thousand Five Hundred Million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

Considering our own technology the figure of thirty five million is
staggering.

So what, if anything, is your point?

"Ignis Fatuus" <Ignis@fatuusisland.com> wrote in message
news:gsa075dg0rr5vdo78rg1d5rfdlm8hlut9g@4ax.com...
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:52:39 -0700 (PDT), PEAT <popesnarky@gmail.com
wrote:

Hail Eris! On 27 July, 18:05, Ignis Fatuus wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:24:55 +0100, "john smith" wrote:

I'm missing no points - there were none to miss.
The alien threat was totally unrealistic - traveling thousands of
billions of miles to harvest hundreds of millions of children and
transport them alive across the galaxy.

What episode was that mentioned in then? I must have missed it... I
interpreted the "aliens" more as Lovecraftian-type ultraterrestrials
from
some twisted parallel dimension...

Wherever they came from they came equipped with the technology that
would enable them to contain and transport hundreds of millions
snip

Wrong! Thirty-five million children, not hundreds of millions. Let's
be clear, hundreds of millions would have been completely ridiculous.
35,000,000 -- not so much. Within acceptable tolerances for suspension
of disbelief.

Ten percent of all the children in the world.
Current estimate of the world population under sixteen is about 35
percent.
http://www.prb.org/pdf07/07WPDS_Eng.pdf

Current world population around Six Thousand Five Hundred Million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

Considering our own technology the figure of thirty five million is
staggering.

So what, if anything, is your point?



THAT YOU ARE CONFLATING FACT WITH FICTION - YOU SENTIMENTAL OLD MORON!

Better a sentimental old moron than a morally, emotionally, and

"PEAT" <popesnarky@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:215015ef-e427-42e9-804a-b1ecb47f033f@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Hail Eris! On 27 July, 18:05, Ignis Fatuus wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:24:55 +0100, "john smith" wrote:

I'm missing no points - there were none to miss.
The alien threat was totally unrealistic - traveling thousands of
billions of miles to harvest hundreds of millions of children and
transport them alive across the galaxy.

What episode was that mentioned in then? I must have missed it... I
interpreted the "aliens" more as Lovecraftian-type ultraterrestrials from
some twisted parallel dimension...

Wherever they came from they came equipped with the technology that
would enable them to contain and transport hundreds of millions
snip

Wrong! Thirty-five million children, not hundreds of millions. Let's
be clear, hundreds of millions would have been completely ridiculous.
35,000,000 -- not so much. Within acceptable tolerances for suspension
of disbelief.

Snarky


"suspension
of disbelief."

Hah! Isn't that what it's about?

Ten Percent was the demand. Even a small child can do the math.