Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: State of drwho
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 13:12:23 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <v6m1bn$1u2hk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6lvdu$e7j$8@gallifrey.nk.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 15:12:24 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="205dd74eac1dc3e1ef0e20ff61d4aea2";
	logging-data="2034228"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19DFxr61Ng0OWNt15+J/s+X"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UNq8x+8LZvFkH/GASIiISikqA1I=
	sha1:ER7m2gl0Frxjwm4WY3N9KKa+oNU=
Bytes: 3614

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> Lots to talk about

Yes there is
> 
> how AI meeses up 'classic' Doctor Who.

No, AI isn’t doing that. You are. AI cannot determine context, cannot watch
TV, and cannot make judgements or form opinions. It cannot review. Full
stop. All it can do is abstract the information it has. You and others feed
useless information to it, ask it to do something it is incapable of, and
then blame it for only being able to do the limited things it is able to
do. 

I mean, AI can “review” TV better than you or Aggie can. Given enough good
input. But that’s a really, REALLY low bar.

> how RTD is letting DW decay due to the Timeless Child influence.

No, RTD isn’t doing that. He’s barely touched on the Timeless Child. He has
made the Doctor being an orphan a core part of the 15th Doctor’s emotional
engagement with the universe. But change is not decay. It’s just change.

> Are people turned on of off by RTD's second coming.

I don’t know anyone who has sexual feelings either way about RTD or has
watched him come even once let alone twice. That’s someone’s private life.
Let’s NOT discuss it.

> Are woeks destoying Doctor Who.

Ewoks? That’s Star Wars.


> What are the real adience numbers.

Many people have told you and given you good empirical evidence on what the
audience numbers are like. BARB ratings are based on a long established
statistical sampling method that has been used for decades and gives what
broadcasters consider to be highly accurate estimates. Worldwide audiences
can be inferred by looking at a data capture site with a global footprint
(such as iMDB) and comparing the number of interactions tagged as being
from the U.K. to those tagged as from other countries. It seems likely that
a similar (very low) proportion of all viewers will interact with iMDB
worldwide- although there might be a slight underestimate of the worldwide
audience from that, as viewers whose first language is not English may
prefer to interact with similar sites in their own languages.

Or you can listen to Aggie and his YouTube friends making things up out of
their backsides and inventing elaborate conspiracy theories in order to
invent completely different and utterly unbelievable numbers. 

Remember Aggie’s recent assertion about his hero Doomcock: “He is 100%
correct even if he is making it all up”.  That’s not verbatim but it’s very
very close to what he said.

It’s up to you - use common sense or be a moron like
Aggie and his pals.

-- 
“Most of the Universe is knackered, babes.”  - The Doctor