Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: Ian Levine's Doctor Who Group Poll on the Timeless Child...
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:55:15 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 155
Message-ID: <vingm3$7d89$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vi7cbb$6k2$1@gallifrey.nk.ca> <xn0otteurfvhc000@post.eweka.nl>
 <vi7t4i$55dd$1@dont-email.me> <xn0ottk3x1d995l000@post.eweka.nl>
 <vi8df0$7rgb$1@dont-email.me> <vi9j0p$gsbt$1@dont-email.me>
 <viaanm$ktvd$3@dont-email.me> <xn0otuu972mq8m5002@post.eweka.nl>
 <vialus$mil7$2@dont-email.me> <xn0otuzvx2ug4m8002@post.eweka.nl>
 <vib9qi$pmtv$4@dont-email.me> <xn0otvxaf3mmjhh006@post.eweka.nl>
 <vid13h$15lp0$7@dont-email.me> <xn0otxqa55li8rk004@post.eweka.nl>
 <vigaip$20gue$4@dont-email.me> <xn0ou1qsp5lh1zm003@post.eweka.nl>
 <viihj2$2pbna$2@dont-email.me> <xn0ou20kz74k78b000@post.eweka.nl>
 <viindm$2q9gv$3@dont-email.me> <xn0ou22oe77azuy000@post.eweka.nl>
 <vij62g$2u697$2@dont-email.me> <xn0ou320j8251gk001@post.eweka.nl>
 <vikqd3$3fc3h$2@dont-email.me> <xn0ou4but9b61z7001@post.eweka.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2024 18:55:16 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9f87bfc37099670b6cfbc9a42fd2172a";
	logging-data="242953"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19OIk8YOq4JTPPJRQVTjycP+S/in20Clsg="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:y3VJct69zBaxCPXR3qiEQTl48Vc=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <xn0ou4but9b61z7001@post.eweka.nl>
Bytes: 8094

On 03/12/2024 10:24, Blueshirt wrote:
> The True Doctor wrote:
> 
>> On 02/12/2024 13:23, Blueshirt wrote:
>>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/12/2024 23:00, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You are the one who started referring to the FAKE NEWS
>>>>>> claim that Disney+ paid $200,000,000 for Doctor Whoke.
>>>>>> There is no evidence whatsoever for such a deal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please provide a message ID to one of my posts where I
>>>>> have claimed the Disney deal was worth $200m to the
>>>>> BBC... or any figure actually. I certainly can not
>>>>> recall ever having done so, as $200m seems way over the
>>>>> top... a long way over the top!
>>>>
>>>> You stated, (Message-ID:
>>>> <xn0otxqa55li8rk004@post.eweka.nl>) "At a guess, Disney
>>>> put a lot more $ in to The Acolyte and didn't expect the
>>>> return they got! They wouldn't have spent half as much for
>>>> the Doctor Who streaming rights."
>>>
>>> So where have I stated Disney paid $200m to the BBC? What you
>>> have posted does not back up your argument one bit, as I said
>>> they WOULDN'T have spent half as much. Which in English
>>> means, nowehere near the amount they [reportedly] spent on
>>> the Acolyte.
>>
>> In English half as much means 50%. Not spending half as much
>> usually implies spending something in the region of about 40%
>> instead.
> 
> I didn't say half as much you clown!
> 

Yes you did. "... They wouldn't have spent half as much for the Doctor 
Who streaming rights."

> Tell me, is English even your first language? If it isn't then

It clearly isn't yours.

> it might explain a few things.
> 
> The whole conversation is above, maybe go back and re-read it,
> slowly, so you can take in the words... then maybe use a
> dictionary to find out what they actually mean.

I've just quoted the relevant line. You implied that Disney spent less 
than half as much on Doctor Whoke as they did on the Wokolyte for one 
season.

> 
>>> I am assuming that as an educated person you know what the
>>> word "wouldn't" means!
>>
>> Wouldn't spend half as much implies something less than 50%
>> and more than nothing and usually nearer the higher end than
>> the lower, otherwise a person would say I wouldn't spend a
>> third or a quarter of what they are spending if they meant
>> something lower since those are the next lowest fractions in
>> the sequence.
>>
>> So the figure you were actually claiming automatically
>> quantified the upper bound as 1/2 and the lower bound as 1/3
>> by exclusion of anything lower. If you take the mid point ie.
>> (1/2 + 1/3)/2 = (5/6)/2 = 5/12 you get approximately 42%.
>>
>> If Disney+ are spending 250 million of the first season of the
>> Wokolyte as claimed by the FAKE NEWS and 100 million on the
>> first season of Doctor Whoke, also as claimed by the FAKE
>> NEWS, then that's around 40% ((100/250) * 100) of the budget
>> of the Wokolyte.
> 
> You have to be trolling... as I know you are not really stupid.
> No sensible person to come to the above conclusion. You nearly
> had me there. Nice one.

I am quantifying your estimate.

>   
>>> But of course, you don't admit you got something wrong or
>>> apologise for saying I said something that I clearly didn't.
>>> We all make mistakes but I know what I typed. You just get
>>> carried away and then double-down.
>>
>> You went along with the FAKE NEWS narrative. You are allowed
>> to admit that the FAKE NEWS deceived you just like they do
>> everyone.
> 
> I never believed Disney paid anywhere near the $200m that YOU
> (and only you) have been quoting here. That would be madness.
>   

But the woke FAKE NEWS does, and everyone has been deceived by them.

>>> NOT ONCE have I used any figure, the only person using the
>>> $200m figure in this thread is you! But you then went and
>>> moved the goal posts, like you do, and switched the argument
>>> around.
>>
>> I've not moved any goal posts. The FAKE NEWS claimed Disney
>> spent $250 million on one season of the Wokolyte and $100
>> million on one season of Doctor Whoke. You went along with
>> that narrative by implying the same ratio between shows. Not
>> spending half as much implies spending around 40%.
> 
> Stop being stupid. No I didn't! I mentioned no figure and when
> asked to back up your claim with a message stating where I had
> mentioned the figure of $200m you provided a message where I
> actually hadn't used any figure at all! Do you really want to be

I quantified your figure to within a reasonable margin of error using 
existing data provided by the FAKE NEWS.

> like Dave? Carry on then, as you are only making yourself look
> stupid. You made a mistake and are not man enough to say, okay I
> misread your message, and move on.
>   

I've not made any mistake, except in believing the FAKE NEWS. I'm still 
waiting for Moffat's deal to show Doctor Who in China to come to pass.

>>>> This ultimately derives from the false narrative made up by
>>>> the FAKE NEWS which claims Disney spent $250 million on the
>>>> Wokolyte for one season and $200 million for the rights to
>>>> Doctor Whoke for 2 seasons, so they spent less than half as
>>>> much on Doctor Whoke as they spent on the Wokolyte. Either
>>>> way what they spent on one season of Doctor Whoke is
>>>> barely 1/20th of what they spent on the Whokolyte going by
>>>> the production values for each series, which proves the
>>>> FAKE NEWS are making it all up.
>>>
>>> BUT I NEVER CLAIMED DISNEY SPENT ANYTHING ON ANYTHING.
>>
>> You claimed Disney spent around 40% on Doctor Whoke as they
>> did on The Wokolyte.
> 
> <face palm> That is a bare faced lie as nowhere did I use the
> figure $200m or 40%... stop making things up.

You are trying to shift the goal posts. The FAKE NEWS quoted $200m and 
you insinuated at 40% by stating you wouldn't pay half as much implying 
your would pay less than 1/2 and probably more than 1/3 then next 
integral denominator, so averaging 42%.


-- 
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it 
stands for." -William Shatner