At the premiere cinema showing of the opening of the new season, RTD had
this to say:

"I think The Timeless Child doesn’t mean anything to anyone, to a lot of
viewers. Genuinely, to a few outside the show – what does that mean? But
what it does mean is the Doctor’s an orphan, he was abandoned, he was
adopted by the Time Lords, so you play that for the emotions.
"I don't want to hang things off science fiction words, that simply won't
mean anything around the breakfast table. But, if you're talking about a
family with a world in which people adopt children, or foster children, or
abandoned children, then suddenly it begins to register with you. So that's
our take on that.
"And that's going to have a lot of ammunition and fuel going forward.
Because it goes Millie as Ruby Sunday, she was abandoned as a family on the
church doorstep. So you have the Doctor and companion suddenly chiming with
their lives connecting."

So - no retcon. RTD is basically going to ignore the Timeless Child per se,
but play on the idea of the Doctor being originally a foundling adopted by
the Time Lords. So it’s still there - but just as background motivation.

I can live with that.

--
“The timelines and … canon … are rupturing” - the Doctor

The Last Doctor wrote:

> At the premiere cinema showing of the opening of the new
> season, RTD had this to say:
>
> "I think The Timeless Child doesn’t mean anything to anyone,
> to a lot of viewers. Genuinely, to a few outside the show –
> what does that mean?

The correct answer is, the general public just don't care about
the Timeless Child.

A few self-entitled opinionated "fans" on YouTube seem to lose
sleep over it, but in a show that gets millions of viewers, a
few people here and there are just drops in the ocean. So RTD is
100% right.

In article <v15r44$1akk9$1@dont-email.me>,
The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>At the premiere cinema showing of the opening of the new season, RTD had
>this to say:
>
>"I think The Timeless Child doesn’t mean anything to anyone, to a lot of
>viewers. Genuinely, to a few outside the show – what does that mean? But
>what it does mean is the Doctor’s an orphan, he was abandoned, he was
>adopted by the Time Lords, so you play that for the emotions.
>"I don't want to hang things off science fiction words, that simply won't
>mean anything around the breakfast table. But, if you're talking about a
>family with a world in which people adopt children, or foster children, or
>abandoned children, then suddenly it begins to register with you. So that's
>our take on that.
>"And that's going to have a lot of ammunition and fuel going forward.
>Because it goes Millie as Ruby Sunday, she was abandoned as a family on the
>church doorstep. So you have the Doctor and companion suddenly chiming with
>their lives connecting."
>
>So - no retcon. RTD is basically going to ignore the Timeless Child per se,
>but play on the idea of the Doctor being originally a foundling adopted by
>the Time Lords. So it’s still there - but just as background motivation.
>
>I can live with that.
>

RTD , is he trying to be a Labour candidate or a Galloway suckup?

>--
>“The timelines and … canon … are rupturing” - the Doctor

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ;

In article <xn0olfhpv8wf19d002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>The Last Doctor wrote:
>
>> At the premiere cinema showing of the opening of the new
>> season, RTD had this to say:
>>
>> "I think The Timeless Child doesn’t mean anything to anyone,
>> to a lot of viewers. Genuinely, to a few outside the show –
>> what does that mean?
>
>The correct answer is, the general public just don't care about
>the Timeless Child.
>
>A few self-entitled opinionated "fans" on YouTube seem to lose
>sleep over it, but in a show that gets millions of viewers, a
>few people here and there are just drops in the ocean. So RTD is
>100% right.

How left are you?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ;

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <xn0olfhpv8wf19d002@post.eweka.nl>,
> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
> > The Last Doctor wrote:
> >
> >> At the premiere cinema showing of the opening of the new
> >> season, RTD had this to say:
> >>
> >> "I think The Timeless Child doesn’t mean anything to anyone,
> >> to a lot of viewers. Genuinely, to a few outside the show –
> >> what does that mean?"
> >
> > The correct answer is, the general public just don't care
> > about the Timeless Child.
> >
> > A few self-entitled opinionated "fans" on YouTube seem to
> > lose sleep over it, but in a show that gets millions of
> > viewers, a few people here and there are just drops in the
> > ocean. So RTD is 100% right.
>
> How left are you?

I'm so far left I'm right!

In article <xn0olg3d298l23r002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@eweka.news> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
>
>> In article <xn0olfhpv8wf19d002@post.eweka.nl>,
>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>> > The Last Doctor wrote:
>> >
>> >> At the premiere cinema showing of the opening of the new
>> >> season, RTD had this to say:
>> >>
>> >> "I think The Timeless Child doesn’t mean anything to anyone,
>> >> to a lot of viewers. Genuinely, to a few outside the show –
>> >> what does that mean?"
>> >
>> > The correct answer is, the general public just don't care
>> > about the Timeless Child.
>> >
>> > A few self-entitled opinionated "fans" on YouTube seem to
>> > lose sleep over it, but in a show that gets millions of
>> > viewers, a few people here and there are just drops in the
>> > ocean. So RTD is 100% right.
>>
>> How left are you?
>
>I'm so far left I'm right!

You are so far left you are wrong.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ;

The Doctor wrote on 5/5/24 11:50 am:
> In article <xn0olg3d298l23r002@post.eweka.nl>, Blueshirt
> <blueshirt@eweka.news> wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote:
>>> In article <xn0olfhpv8wf19d002@post.eweka.nl>, Blueshirt
>>> <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>> The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> At the premiere cinema showing of the opening of the new
>>>>> season, RTD had this to say:
>>>>>
>>>>> "I think The Timeless Child doesn’t mean anything to
>>>>> anyone, to a lot of viewers. Genuinely, to a few outside the
>>>>> show – what does that mean?"
>>>>
>>>> The correct answer is, the general public just don't care about
>>>> the Timeless Child.
>>>>
>>>> A few self-entitled opinionated "fans" on YouTube seem to lose
>>>> sleep over it, but in a show that gets millions of viewers, a
>>>> few people here and there are just drops in the ocean. So RTD
>>>> is 100% right.
>>>
>>> How left are you?
>>
>> I'm so far left I'm right!
>
> You are so far left you are wrong.
>
Well, NOW you've been told, Blueshirt!! ;-P
--
Daniel

In article <v17jnq$1pf4n$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote on 5/5/24 11:50 am:
>> In article <xn0olg3d298l23r002@post.eweka.nl>, Blueshirt
>> <blueshirt@eweka.news> wrote:
>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>> In article <xn0olfhpv8wf19d002@post.eweka.nl>, Blueshirt
>>>> <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>>> The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> At the premiere cinema showing of the opening of the new
>>>>>> season, RTD had this to say:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I think The Timeless Child doesn’t mean anything to
>>>>>> anyone, to a lot of viewers. Genuinely, to a few outside the
>>>>>> show – what does that mean?"
>>>>>
>>>>> The correct answer is, the general public just don't care about
>>>>> the Timeless Child.
>>>>>
>>>>> A few self-entitled opinionated "fans" on YouTube seem to lose
>>>>> sleep over it, but in a show that gets millions of viewers, a
>>>>> few people here and there are just drops in the ocean. So RTD
>>>>> is 100% right.
>>>>
>>>> How left are you?
>>>
>>> I'm so far left I'm right!
>>
>> You are so far left you are wrong.
>>
>Well, NOW you've been told, Blueshirt!! ;-P

it is call being left out of it!

>--
>Daniel

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ;

On 04/05/2024 18:26, The Last Doctor wrote:
> At the premiere cinema showing of the opening of the new season, RTD had
> this to say:
>
> "I think The Timeless Child doesn’t mean anything to anyone, to a lot of
> viewers. Genuinely, to a few outside the show – what does that mean? But
> what it does mean is the Doctor’s an orphan, he was abandoned, he was
> adopted by the Time Lords, so you play that for the emotions.

Oh yes, a child from another culture that was abducted, neglected, left
to die, experimented on, repeatedly murdered, and turned into an agent
of evil, a mass murdering genocidal maniac.

> "I don't want to hang things off science fiction words, that simply won't
> mean anything around the breakfast table. But, if you're talking about a
> family with a world in which people adopt children, or foster children, or
> abandoned children, then suddenly it begins to register with you. So that's
> our take on that.
> "And that's going to have a lot of ammunition and fuel going forward.
> Because it goes Millie as Ruby Sunday, she was abandoned as a family on the
> church doorstep. So you have the Doctor and companion suddenly chiming with
> their lives connecting."

I don't give a fuck about her or the child grooming pervert. There's
nothing for the majority of people to identify with or aspire two in
either of those characters. Ruby should have been an ordinary person,
from an ordinary home, living an ordinary life, like everyone else. Then
her life changes from the ordinary when she meets the Doctor, not a
child grooming pervert, and after undergoing new struggles and through a
heroic journey she learns new lessons and aspires to become someone
better than before. Gibson and Gatwa have shown us nothing about
learning, heroism, and wisdom. It's all nothing more than mind numbing
soap opera, bigoted left-wing lecturing, attempts to sexually groom
children, cartoon logic and magic instead of science, reason, and using
you mind to overcome adversity.

>
> So - no retcon. RTD is basically going to ignore the Timeless Child per se,
> but play on the idea of the Doctor being originally a foundling adopted by
> the Time Lords. So it’s still there - but just as background motivation.
>
> I can live with that.
>

Only if you condone systematic child abuse and murder.

--
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

In article <v18grd$1vts5$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>On 04/05/2024 18:26, The Last Doctor wrote:
>> At the premiere cinema showing of the opening of the new season, RTD had
>> this to say:
>>
>> "I think The Timeless Child doesn’t mean anything to anyone, to a lot of
>> viewers. Genuinely, to a few outside the show – what does that mean? But
>> what it does mean is the Doctor’s an orphan, he was abandoned, he was
>> adopted by the Time Lords, so you play that for the emotions.
>
>Oh yes, a child from another culture that was abducted, neglected, left
>to die, experimented on, repeatedly murdered, and turned into an agent
>of evil, a mass murdering genocidal maniac.
>
>> "I don't want to hang things off science fiction words, that simply won't
>> mean anything around the breakfast table. But, if you're talking about a
>> family with a world in which people adopt children, or foster children, or
>> abandoned children, then suddenly it begins to register with you. So that's
>> our take on that.
>> "And that's going to have a lot of ammunition and fuel going forward.
>> Because it goes Millie as Ruby Sunday, she was abandoned as a family on the
>> church doorstep. So you have the Doctor and companion suddenly chiming with
>> their lives connecting."
>
>I don't give a fuck about her or the child grooming pervert. There's
>nothing for the majority of people to identify with or aspire two in
>either of those characters. Ruby should have been an ordinary person,
>from an ordinary home, living an ordinary life, like everyone else. Then
>her life changes from the ordinary when she meets the Doctor, not a
>child grooming pervert, and after undergoing new struggles and through a
>heroic journey she learns new lessons and aspires to become someone
>better than before. Gibson and Gatwa have shown us nothing about
>learning, heroism, and wisdom. It's all nothing more than mind numbing
>soap opera, bigoted left-wing lecturing, attempts to sexually groom
>children, cartoon logic and magic instead of science, reason, and using
>you mind to overcome adversity.
>
>>
>> So - no retcon. RTD is basically going to ignore the Timeless Child per se,
>> but play on the idea of the Doctor being originally a foundling adopted by
>> the Time Lords. So it’s still there - but just as background motivation.
>>
>> I can live with that.
>>
>
>Only if you condone systematic child abuse and murder.

Spot on AGA!

>
>--
>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
>

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ;

The Spammer <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <v18grd$1vts5$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Loon<agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>> On 04/05/2024 18:26, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>> At the premiere cinema showing of the opening of the new season, RTD had
>>> this to say:
>>>
>>> "I think The Timeless Child doesn’t mean anything to anyone, to a lot of
>>> viewers. Genuinely, to a few outside the show – what does that mean? But
>>> what it does mean is the Doctor’s an orphan, he was abandoned, he was
>>> adopted by the Time Lords, so you play that for the emotions.
>>
>> Oh yes, a child from another culture that was abducted, neglected, left
>> to die, experimented on, repeatedly murdered,

Yep, there was definitely some pure evil done to that child by Tecteun. Of
course, we have no idea what anyone other than Tecteun actually knew about
that.

>> and turned into an agent
>> of evil, a mass murdering genocidal maniac.

This, however, is just lunatic invention from Aggie. There is a narrative
in the show suggesting that the Doctor worked for a “Black Ops” Division of
Time Lord security. But no indication that the Doctor did anything
personally evil and absolutely not one word about the Doctor committing
even one murder, let alone being a genocidal maniac.

>>
>>> "I don't want to hang things off science fiction words, that simply won't
>>> mean anything around the breakfast table. But, if you're talking about a
>>> family with a world in which people adopt children, or foster children, or
>>> abandoned children, then suddenly it begins to register with you. So that's
>>> our take on that.
>>> "And that's going to have a lot of ammunition and fuel going forward.
>>> Because it goes Millie as Ruby Sunday, she was abandoned as a family on the
>>> church doorstep. So you have the Doctor and companion suddenly chiming with
>>> their lives connecting."
>>
>> I don't give a fuck about her or the child grooming pervert.

Aggie is on some serious insane kick. Who is this “child grooming pervert”
he’s going on about? What evidence does he have that whoever this is, is a
“child grooming pervert”? Apart from those voices in his head?

>> There's
>> nothing for the majority of people to identify with or aspire two in
>> either of those characters.

Nothing positive about the Doctor? Nothing positive about an adopted child
who seems to have grown up into a healthy, happy young woman? Aggie doesn’t
seem to have a clue who he thinks he’s talking about, and certainly knows
nothing about “the majority of people”. He’s barely an expert on lunatic
racist middle aged incels who live in basement flats in Northampton, and
there’s no evidence that there’s more than ONE of them, let alone that they
are representative of “the majority of people”.

>> Ruby should have been an ordinary person,
>> from an ordinary home, living an ordinary life, like everyone else.

Why? In any case, this is pretty much what we are told about her, apart
from the oddity of how she was left and the goblins’ interest in her -
which is the cause of the Doctor’s interest in her.

>> Then
>> her life changes from the ordinary when she meets the Doctor,

Which is what she does.

>> not a
>> child grooming pervert

What “child grooming pervert”? This imaginary character Aggie keeps
bringing up is seriously interfering with his ability to make a genuine
argument.

>> and after undergoing new struggles and through a
>> heroic journey she learns new lessons and aspires to become someone
>> better than before.

Maybe she will. Who knows? We’ve only seen her introductory meet-cute with
the Doctor.

>> Gibson and Gatwa have shown us nothing about
>> learning, heroism, and wisdom. It's all nothing more than mind numbing
>> soap opera, bigoted left-wing lecturing, attempts to sexually groom
>> children, cartoon logic and magic instead of science, reason, and using
>> you mind to overcome adversity.

I see Aggie has already written his “review” of eight episodes he hasn’t
seen yet (as well as the one he has seen but utterly failed to understand).

>>> So - no retcon. RTD is basically going to ignore the Timeless Child per se,
>>> but play on the idea of the Doctor being originally a foundling adopted by
>>> the Time Lords. So it’s still there - but just as background motivation.
>>>
>>> I can live with that.
>>
>> Only if you condone systematic child abuse and murder.

Being OK with moving on from a story that hasn’t even been told is
absolutely not the same as condoning the abuse that was done to the
Timeless Child.

For all we know, Tecteun was arraigned by the Time Lords and imprisoned for
a million years, the Doctor was counselled and allowed to live a new life
in reparation, and other events we have seen have not been explained.

But as it was all so badly done, I’d rather move on than revisit any of it.

> Spot on AGA!

Dave, look again. The only spot Aggie is on is the worn spot in the carpet
in the dunce’s corner of the slow learners’ class.

--
“The timelines and … canon … are rupturing” - the Doctor

On 05/05/2024 20:19, The Last Doctor wrote:
> The Spammer <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>> In article <v18grd$1vts5$1@dont-email.me>,
>> The Loon<agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>> On 04/05/2024 18:26, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>> At the premiere cinema showing of the opening of the new season, RTD had
>>>> this to say:
>>>>
>>>> "I think The Timeless Child doesn’t mean anything to anyone, to a lot of
>>>> viewers. Genuinely, to a few outside the show – what does that mean? But
>>>> what it does mean is the Doctor’s an orphan, he was abandoned, he was
>>>> adopted by the Time Lords, so you play that for the emotions.
>>>
>>> Oh yes, a child from another culture that was abducted, neglected, left
>>> to die, experimented on, repeatedly murdered,
>
> Yep, there was definitely some pure evil done to that child by Tecteun. Of
> course, we have no idea what anyone other than Tecteun actually knew about
> that.
>
>>> and turned into an agent
>>> of evil, a mass murdering genocidal maniac.
>
> This, however, is just lunatic invention from Aggie. There is a narrative
> in the show suggesting that the Doctor worked for a “Black Ops” Division of
> Time Lord security. But no indication that the Doctor did anything
> personally evil and absolutely not one word about the Doctor committing
> even one murder, let alone being a genocidal maniac.
>

Wrong! The child murdering bitch planned to destroy the entire universe
and exterminate all life in both that and the other universe she planned
to concur along with the Timeless Child. It is clearly signposted that
Timeless Child monster Ruth fled the Division after she grew a
conscience and realized the immensity of her crimes. There is every
indication that the Timeless Child monster colluded in murder and
genocide even it it didn't carry it out itself, just like the Nazi
concentration camp guards knew that crimes that were being carried out
there but did nothing. The Timeless Child monster knew full well of the
crimes of the Division that it willingly assisted by being part of it,
which is why it fled.

>>>
>>>> "I don't want to hang things off science fiction words, that simply won't
>>>> mean anything around the breakfast table. But, if you're talking about a
>>>> family with a world in which people adopt children, or foster children, or
>>>> abandoned children, then suddenly it begins to register with you. So that's
>>>> our take on that.
>>>> "And that's going to have a lot of ammunition and fuel going forward.
>>>> Because it goes Millie as Ruby Sunday, she was abandoned as a family on the
>>>> church doorstep. So you have the Doctor and companion suddenly chiming with
>>>> their lives connecting."
>>>
>>> I don't give a fuck about her or the child grooming pervert.
>
> Aggie is on some serious insane kick. Who is this “child grooming pervert”
> he’s going on about? What evidence does he have that whoever this is, is a
> “child grooming pervert”? Apart from those voices in his head?
>

We have every indiction from his manner of dress and behaviour that
Gatwa is a child grooming pervert. What other kind of person would
appear in a show called 'Sex Education'? Who does he think he is going
to attract by dressing provocatively like a woman, because it isn't
heterosexual adults. The only people this manner of dress could attract,
appeal to or entice is children. Even gay men wouldn't find it
attractive because gay men don't fancy women at all.

>>> There's
>>> nothing for the majority of people to identify with or aspire two in
>>> either of those characters.
>
> Nothing positive about the Doctor? Nothing positive about an adopted child
> who seems to have grown up into a healthy, happy young woman? Aggie doesn’t

Gatwa is an effeminate child grooming pervert. There is nothing positive
about that in any way.

Why does the audience need to be told Gibson was adopted? All it does is
exclude everyone who isn't from using her as a role model, because
that's all that she stands from. She doesn't have any personal
attributes defining who she is, it's all about what she is instead. This
is how retards and bigots think. What you are, what race you are, what
gender you are, what sexuality you are, not who you are, your
intelligence, your demonstration of an ability or skill, your strength,
and how you acquired these attributes and how you use them, why and what
for.

> seem to have a clue who he thinks he’s talking about, and certainly knows
> nothing about “the majority of people”. He’s barely an expert on lunatic
> racist middle aged incels who live in basement flats in Northampton, and
> there’s no evidence that there’s more than ONE of them, let alone that they
> are representative of “the majority of people”.
>

You are a totally deranged bigot and a retard.

>>> Ruby should have been an ordinary person,
>>> from an ordinary home, living an ordinary life, like everyone else.
>
> Why? In any case, this is pretty much what we are told about her, apart
> from the oddity of how she was left and the goblins’ interest in her -
> which is the cause of the Doctor’s interest in her.
>

All examples of bad writing where the female protagonist does nothing on
her own merit. She's nothing more than a Mary Sue which is how woke
retards write all female characters.

>>> Then
>>> her life changes from the ordinary when she meets the Doctor,
>
> Which is what she does.
>

She a Mary Sue so nothing changes for her. She's already perfect.

>>> not a
>>> child grooming pervert
>
> What “child grooming pervert”? This imaginary character Aggie keeps
> bringing up is seriously interfering with his ability to make a genuine
> argument.

Gatwa. See above.

>
>>> and after undergoing new struggles and through a
>>> heroic journey she learns new lessons and aspires to become someone
>>> better than before.
>
> Maybe she will. Who knows? We’ve only seen her introductory meet-cute with
> the Doctor.

The child grooming pervert RTD doesn't know how to write a heroic
journey. He's not even writing for men but for women. Everything that
attracted men to watch shows like Doctor Who has been removed by woke
bigots like Chibnall and Davies. He's a degenerate woke soap opera
writer. He wouldn't know a hero even if one shoved their cock up his
arse, which of course a real hero would never do. If he does understand
the principles of good writing he'd understand that the Timeless Child
totally destroys and annihilates the heroic nature of the Doctor and
turns him into a monster.

>
>>> Gibson and Gatwa have shown us nothing about
>>> learning, heroism, and wisdom. It's all nothing more than mind numbing
>>> soap opera, bigoted left-wing lecturing, attempts to sexually groom
>>> children, cartoon logic and magic instead of science, reason, and using
>>> you mind to overcome adversity.
>
> I see Aggie has already written his “review” of eight episodes he hasn’t
> seen yet (as well as the one he has seen but utterly failed to understand).

They're all going to be absolute crap given Davies's new and existing
retarded comments.

https://boundingintocomics.com/2024/05/01/doctor-who-showrunner-confirms-upcoming-season-to-feature-heavy-focus-on-progressive-messaging-if-youre-not-writing-that-in-2024-what-on-earth-are-you-doing/

>
>>>> So - no retcon. RTD is basically going to ignore the Timeless Child per se,
>>>> but play on the idea of the Doctor being originally a foundling adopted by
>>>> the Time Lords. So it’s still there - but just as background motivation.
>>>>
>>>> I can live with that.
>>>
>>> Only if you condone systematic child abuse and murder.
>
> Being OK with moving on from a story that hasn’t even been told is
> absolutely not the same as condoning the abuse that was done to the
> Timeless Child.

Yes it is. The pervert RTD thinks it's fine to abuse children, murder,
and experiment on them because that's how the fake Doctor was created
and that's what he stands for.

>
> For all we know, Tecteun was arraigned by the Time Lords and imprisoned for
> a million years, the Doctor was counselled and allowed to live a new life
> in reparation, and other events we have seen have not been explained.
>

From Flux we know she wasn't. All the Time Lords colluded with her. Not
only did Chibnall destroy the character of the Doctor, he destroyed the
character of the Time Lords as well.

In article <v18m3m$2149e$1@dont-email.me>,
The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>The Spammer <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>> In article <v18grd$1vts5$1@dont-email.me>,
>> The Loon<agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>> On 04/05/2024 18:26, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>> At the premiere cinema showing of the opening of the new season, RTD had
>>>> this to say:
>>>>
>>>> "I think The Timeless Child doesn’t mean anything to anyone, to a lot of
>>>> viewers. Genuinely, to a few outside the show – what does that mean? But
>>>> what it does mean is the Doctor’s an orphan, he was abandoned, he was
>>>> adopted by the Time Lords, so you play that for the emotions.
>>>
>>> Oh yes, a child from another culture that was abducted, neglected, left
>>> to die, experimented on, repeatedly murdered,
>
>Yep, there was definitely some pure evil done to that child by Tecteun. Of
>course, we have no idea what anyone other than Tecteun actually knew about
>that.
>
>>> and turned into an agent
>>> of evil, a mass murdering genocidal maniac.
>
>This, however, is just lunatic invention from Aggie. There is a narrative
>in the show suggesting that the Doctor worked for a “Black Ops” Division of
>Time Lord security. But no indication that the Doctor did anything
>personally evil and absolutely not one word about the Doctor committing
>even one murder, let alone being a genocidal maniac.
>
>>>
>>>> "I don't want to hang things off science fiction words, that simply won't
>>>> mean anything around the breakfast table. But, if you're talking about a
>>>> family with a world in which people adopt children, or foster children, or
>>>> abandoned children, then suddenly it begins to register with you. So that's
>>>> our take on that.
>>>> "And that's going to have a lot of ammunition and fuel going forward.
>>>> Because it goes Millie as Ruby Sunday, she was abandoned as a family on the
>>>> church doorstep. So you have the Doctor and companion suddenly chiming with
>>>> their lives connecting."
>>>
>>> I don't give a fuck about her or the child grooming pervert.
>
>Aggie is on some serious insane kick. Who is this “child grooming pervert”
>he’s going on about? What evidence does he have that whoever this is, is a
>“child grooming pervert”? Apart from those voices in his head?
>
>>> There's
>>> nothing for the majority of people to identify with or aspire two in
>>> either of those characters.
>
>Nothing positive about the Doctor? Nothing positive about an adopted child
>who seems to have grown up into a healthy, happy young woman? Aggie doesn’t
>seem to have a clue who he thinks he’s talking about, and certainly knows
>nothing about “the majority of people”. He’s barely an expert on lunatic
>racist middle aged incels who live in basement flats in Northampton, and
>there’s no evidence that there’s more than ONE of them, let alone that they
>are representative of “the majority of people”.
>
>>> Ruby should have been an ordinary person,
>>> from an ordinary home, living an ordinary life, like everyone else.
>
>Why? In any case, this is pretty much what we are told about her, apart
>from the oddity of how she was left and the goblins’ interest in her -
>which is the cause of the Doctor’s interest in her.
>
>>> Then
>>> her life changes from the ordinary when she meets the Doctor,
>
>Which is what she does.
>
>>> not a
>>> child grooming pervert
>
>What “child grooming pervert”? This imaginary character Aggie keeps
>bringing up is seriously interfering with his ability to make a genuine
>argument.
>
>>> and after undergoing new struggles and through a
>>> heroic journey she learns new lessons and aspires to become someone
>>> better than before.
>
>Maybe she will. Who knows? We’ve only seen her introductory meet-cute with
>the Doctor.
>
>>> Gibson and Gatwa have shown us nothing about
>>> learning, heroism, and wisdom. It's all nothing more than mind numbing
>>> soap opera, bigoted left-wing lecturing, attempts to sexually groom
>>> children, cartoon logic and magic instead of science, reason, and using
>>> you mind to overcome adversity.
>
>I see Aggie has already written his “review” of eight episodes he hasn’t
>seen yet (as well as the one he has seen but utterly failed to understand).
>
>>>> So - no retcon. RTD is basically going to ignore the Timeless Child per se,
>>>> but play on the idea of the Doctor being originally a foundling adopted by
>>>> the Time Lords. So it’s still there - but just as background motivation.
>>>>
>>>> I can live with that.
>>>
>>> Only if you condone systematic child abuse and murder.
>
>Being OK with moving on from a story that hasn’t even been told is
>absolutely not the same as condoning the abuse that was done to the
>Timeless Child.
>
>For all we know, Tecteun was arraigned by the Time Lords and imprisoned for
>a million years, the Doctor was counselled and allowed to live a new life
>in reparation, and other events we have seen have not been explained.
>
>But as it was all so badly done, I’d rather move on than revisit any of it.
>
>> Spot on AGA!
>
>Dave, look again. The only spot Aggie is on is the worn spot in the carpet
>in the dunce’s corner of the slow learners’ class.
>

You are insane MM!

>--
>“The timelines and … canon … are rupturing” - the Doctor

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ;

In article <v18pds$21u7a$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>On 05/05/2024 20:19, The Last Doctor wrote:
>> The Spammer <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <v18grd$1vts5$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Loon<agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>>> On 04/05/2024 18:26, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>>> At the premiere cinema showing of the opening of the new season, RTD had
>>>>> this to say:
>>>>>
>>>>> "I think The Timeless Child doesn’t mean anything to anyone, to a lot of
>>>>> viewers. Genuinely, to a few outside the show – what does that mean? But
>>>>> what it does mean is the Doctor’s an orphan, he was abandoned, he was
>>>>> adopted by the Time Lords, so you play that for the emotions.
>>>>
>>>> Oh yes, a child from another culture that was abducted, neglected, left
>>>> to die, experimented on, repeatedly murdered,
>>
>> Yep, there was definitely some pure evil done to that child by Tecteun. Of
>> course, we have no idea what anyone other than Tecteun actually knew about
>> that.
>>
>>>> and turned into an agent
>>>> of evil, a mass murdering genocidal maniac.
>>
>> This, however, is just lunatic invention from Aggie. There is a narrative
>> in the show suggesting that the Doctor worked for a “Black Ops”
>Division of
>> Time Lord security. But no indication that the Doctor did anything
>> personally evil and absolutely not one word about the Doctor committing
>> even one murder, let alone being a genocidal maniac.
>>
>
>Wrong! The child murdering bitch planned to destroy the entire universe
>and exterminate all life in both that and the other universe she planned
>to concur along with the Timeless Child. It is clearly signposted that
>Timeless Child monster Ruth fled the Division after she grew a
>conscience and realized the immensity of her crimes. There is every
>indication that the Timeless Child monster colluded in murder and
>genocide even it it didn't carry it out itself, just like the Nazi
>concentration camp guards knew that crimes that were being carried out
>there but did nothing. The Timeless Child monster knew full well of the
>crimes of the Division that it willingly assisted by being part of it,
>which is why it fled.
>
>>>>
>>>>> "I don't want to hang things off science fiction words, that simply won't
>>>>> mean anything around the breakfast table. But, if you're talking about a
>>>>> family with a world in which people adopt children, or foster children, or
>>>>> abandoned children, then suddenly it begins to register with you. So that's
>>>>> our take on that.
>>>>> "And that's going to have a lot of ammunition and fuel going forward.
>>>>> Because it goes Millie as Ruby Sunday, she was abandoned as a family on the
>>>>> church doorstep. So you have the Doctor and companion suddenly chiming with
>>>>> their lives connecting."
>>>>
>>>> I don't give a fuck about her or the child grooming pervert.
>>
>> Aggie is on some serious insane kick. Who is this “child grooming pervert”
>> he’s going on about? What evidence does he have that whoever this is, is a
>> “child grooming pervert”? Apart from those voices in his head?
>>
>
>We have every indiction from his manner of dress and behaviour that
>Gatwa is a child grooming pervert. What other kind of person would
>appear in a show called 'Sex Education'? Who does he think he is going
>to attract by dressing provocatively like a woman, because it isn't
>heterosexual adults. The only people this manner of dress could attract,
>appeal to or entice is children. Even gay men wouldn't find it
>attractive because gay men don't fancy women at all.
>
>>>> There's
>>>> nothing for the majority of people to identify with or aspire two in
>>>> either of those characters.
>>
>> Nothing positive about the Doctor? Nothing positive about an adopted child
>> who seems to have grown up into a healthy, happy young woman? Aggie doesn’t
>
>Gatwa is an effeminate child grooming pervert. There is nothing positive
>about that in any way.
>
>Why does the audience need to be told Gibson was adopted? All it does is
>exclude everyone who isn't from using her as a role model, because
>that's all that she stands from. She doesn't have any personal
>attributes defining who she is, it's all about what she is instead. This
>is how retards and bigots think. What you are, what race you are, what
>gender you are, what sexuality you are, not who you are, your
>intelligence, your demonstration of an ability or skill, your strength,
>and how you acquired these attributes and how you use them, why and what
>for.
>
>> seem to have a clue who he thinks he’s talking about, and certainly knows
>> nothing about “the majority of people”. He’s barely an expert on lunatic
>> racist middle aged incels who live in basement flats in Northampton, and
>> there’s no evidence that there’s more than ONE of them, let alone
>that they
>> are representative of “the majority of people”.
>>
>
>You are a totally deranged bigot and a retard.
>
>>>> Ruby should have been an ordinary person,
>>>> from an ordinary home, living an ordinary life, like everyone else.
>>
>> Why? In any case, this is pretty much what we are told about her, apart
>> from the oddity of how she was left and the goblins’ interest in her -
>> which is the cause of the Doctor’s interest in her.
>>
>
>All examples of bad writing where the female protagonist does nothing on
>her own merit. She's nothing more than a Mary Sue which is how woke
>retards write all female characters.
>
>>>> Then
>>>> her life changes from the ordinary when she meets the Doctor,
>>
>> Which is what she does.
>>
>
>She a Mary Sue so nothing changes for her. She's already perfect.
>
>>>> not a
>>>> child grooming pervert
>>
>> What “child grooming pervert”? This imaginary character Aggie keeps
>> bringing up is seriously interfering with his ability to make a genuine
>> argument.
>
>Gatwa. See above.
>
>>
>>>> and after undergoing new struggles and through a
>>>> heroic journey she learns new lessons and aspires to become someone
>>>> better than before.
>>
>> Maybe she will. Who knows? We’ve only seen her introductory meet-cute with
>> the Doctor.
>
>The child grooming pervert RTD doesn't know how to write a heroic
>journey. He's not even writing for men but for women. Everything that
>attracted men to watch shows like Doctor Who has been removed by woke
>bigots like Chibnall and Davies. He's a degenerate woke soap opera
>writer. He wouldn't know a hero even if one shoved their cock up his
>arse, which of course a real hero would never do. If he does understand
>the principles of good writing he'd understand that the Timeless Child
>totally destroys and annihilates the heroic nature of the Doctor and
>turns him into a monster.
>
>>
>>>> Gibson and Gatwa have shown us nothing about
>>>> learning, heroism, and wisdom. It's all nothing more than mind numbing
>>>> soap opera, bigoted left-wing lecturing, attempts to sexually groom
>>>> children, cartoon logic and magic instead of science, reason, and using
>>>> you mind to overcome adversity.
>>
>> I see Aggie has already written his “review” of eight episodes he hasn’t
>> seen yet (as well as the one he has seen but utterly failed to understand).
>
>They're all going to be absolute crap given Davies's new and existing
>retarded comments.
>
>https://boundingintocomics.com/2024/05/01/doctor-who-showrunner-confirms-upcoming-season-to-feature-heavy-focus-on-progressive-messaging-if-youre-not-writing-that-in-2024-what-on-earth-are-you-doing/
>
>>
>>>>> So - no retcon. RTD is basically going to ignore the Timeless Child per se,
>>>>> but play on the idea of the Doctor being originally a foundling adopted by
>>>>> the Time Lords. So it’s still there - but just as background motivation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can live with that.
>>>>
>>>> Only if you condone systematic child abuse and murder.
>>
>> Being OK with moving on from a story that hasn’t even been told is
>> absolutely not the same as condoning the abuse that was done to the
>> Timeless Child.
>
>Yes it is. The pervert RTD thinks it's fine to abuse children, murder,
>and experiment on them because that's how the fake Doctor was created
>and that's what he stands for.
>
>>
>> For all we know, Tecteun was arraigned by the Time Lords and imprisoned for
>> a million years, the Doctor was counselled and allowed to live a new life
>> in reparation, and other events we have seen have not been explained.
>>
>
> From Flux we know she wasn't. All the Time Lords colluded with her. Not
>only did Chibnall destroy the character of the Doctor, he destroyed the
>character of the Time Lords as well.
>
>> But as it was all so badly done, I’d rather move on than revisit any of it.
>>
>
>It's impossible to move on until it is all erased, including all the
>bullshit about UNIT being created by a snake monster from an alien
>planet in the future, and the Cyber Lords bullshit, and now the Indian
>Isaac Newton and the Bi-generation crap.
>
>>> Spot on AGA!
>>
>> Dave, look again. The only spot Aggie is on is the worn spot in the carpet
>> in the dunce’s corner of the slow learners’ class.
>>
>
>Yet another expression of your insanity and conflict with reality.
>

The True Doctor wrote:

> On 05/05/2024 20:19, The Last Doctor wrote:
> >
> > I see Aggie has already written his “review” of eight
> > episodes he hasn’t seen yet (as well as the one he has seen
> > but utterly failed to understand).
>
> They're all going to be absolute crap given Davies's new and
> existing retarded comments.

But you will still sit down and watch them anyway! <face palm>

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <v18pds$21u7a$2@dont-email.me>,
> The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> > On 05/05/2024 20:19, The Last Doctor wrote:
> >> The Spammer <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>> Spot on AGA!
> >>
> >> Dave, look again. The only spot Aggie is on is the worn
> >> spot in the carpet in the dunce’s corner of the slow
> >> learners’ class.
> >
> > Yet another expression of your insanity and conflict with
> > reality.
>
> Thank you for the accurate analysis!

Or, thank you for your bigoted rants about a show that you say
finished but still can't wait to sit down and watch every week
to get your jollies...

I reckon Agamemnon has a thing for Ncuti and sexual grooming as
it's pretty much all he goes on about these days. (When he's not
throwing around insults.)

If we got a quid for every time he'll mention perversion, sexual
grooming, anal sex and woke garbage in his forthcoming reviews
of the new episodes, we'll be rich! (It must a Greek thing to be
so obsessed with that sort of stuff?!)

The Last Doctor wrote:

> Blueshirt <blueshirt@eweka.news> wrote:
> > The True Doctor wrote:
> >
> >> On 05/05/2024 20:19, The Last Doctor wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I see Aggie has already written his “review” of eight
> >>> episodes he hasn’t seen yet (as well as the one he has seen
> >>> but utterly failed to understand).
> >>
> >> They're all going to be absolute crap given Davies's new and
> >> existing retarded comments.
> >
> > But you will still sit down and watch them anyway!
> > <face palm>
>
> But Aggie has always hated Doctor Who. Proof, using points
> Aggie has stated about what he believes is wrong with the
> show, with modern fiction, and indeed with the real world in
> general:

Poor Aggy, he does seem like a glass half-empty type of guy...

Maybe we should all send him a group hug to make him feel better?

Blueshirt <blueshirt@eweka.news> wrote:
> The Last Doctor wrote:
>
>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@eweka.news> wrote:
>>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/05/2024 20:19, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I see Aggie has already written his “review” of eight
>>>>> episodes he hasn’t seen yet (as well as the one he has seen
>>>>> but utterly failed to understand).
>>>>
>>>> They're all going to be absolute crap given Davies's new and
>>>> existing retarded comments.
>>>
>>> But you will still sit down and watch them anyway!
>>> <face palm>
>>
>> But Aggie has always hated Doctor Who. Proof, using points
>> Aggie has stated about what he believes is wrong with the
>> show, with modern fiction, and indeed with the real world in
>> general:
>
> Poor Aggy, he does seem like a glass half-empty type of guy...
>
> Maybe we should all send him a group hug to make him feel better?

I’m not hugging him. He’ll get subconsciously excited (as he does when
watching a man in a fustanella or similar garment) and then claim I’m
trying to sexually groom him.

--
“The timelines and … canon … are rupturing” - the Doctor

The Last Doctor wrote:

> Blueshirt <blueshirt@eweka.news> wrote:
> > The Last Doctor wrote:
> >> Blueshirt <blueshirt@eweka.news> wrote:
> >>> The True Doctor wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 05/05/2024 20:19, The Last Doctor wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I see Aggie has already written his “review” of eight
> >>>>> episodes he hasn’t seen yet (as well as the one he has
> >>>>> seen but utterly failed to understand).
> >>>>
> >>>> They're all going to be absolute crap given Davies's new
> >>>> and existing retarded comments.
> >>>
> >>> But you will still sit down and watch them anyway!
> >>> <face palm>
> >>
> >> But Aggie has always hated Doctor Who. Proof, using points
> >> Aggie has stated about what he believes is wrong with the
> >> show, with modern fiction, and indeed with the real world in
> >> general:
> >
> > Poor Aggy, he does seem like a glass half-empty type of
> > guy...
> >
> > Maybe we should all send him a group hug to make him feel
> > better?
>
> I’m not hugging him. He’ll get subconsciously excited (as he
> does when watching a man in a fustanella or similar garment)
> and then claim I’m trying to sexually groom him.

<VBG>

I did mean a virtual group hug though... ;-)

Blueshirt <blueshirt@eweka.news> wrote:
> The True Doctor wrote:
>
>> On 05/05/2024 20:19, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>
>>> I see Aggie has already written his “review” of eight
>>> episodes he hasn’t seen yet (as well as the one he has seen
>>> but utterly failed to understand).
>>
>> They're all going to be absolute crap given Davies's new and
>> existing retarded comments.
>
> But you will still sit down and watch them anyway! <face palm>
>

But Aggie has always hated Doctor Who. Proof, using points Aggie has stated
about what he believes is wrong with the show, with modern fiction, and
indeed with the real world in general:

- The Doctor becoming female - Doctor Who ended in December 2017.

- More generally, any Time Lord regenerating into another gender - Doctor
Who ended in May 2011.

- Positive homosexual role models - Doctor Who ended in May 2005. (or if
you count the evidence for Liz Shaw’s sexuality in the PROBE videos, Doctor
Who ended in January 1970).

- Definite fantasy, not science fiction, elements - Doctor Who ended in
April 1966.

- Strong independent women who aren’t subservient to manly men - oh dear.
For Aggie, Doctor Who ended on November 23, 1963, about 30 seconds into the
very first episode, when Barbara Wright was introduced.

--
“The timelines and … canon … are rupturing” - the Doctor

The Last Doctor let us know:

>
> But Aggie has always hated Doctor Who. Proof, using points Aggie has stated
> about what he believes is wrong with the show, with modern fiction, and
> indeed with the real world in general:
>
> - The Doctor becoming female - Doctor Who ended in December 2017.
>
> - More generally, any Time Lord regenerating into another gender - Doctor
> Who ended in May 2011.
>
> - Positive homosexual role models - Doctor Who ended in May 2005. (or if
> you count the evidence for Liz Shaw’s sexuality in the PROBE videos, Doctor
> Who ended in January 1970).
>
> - Definite fantasy, not science fiction, elements - Doctor Who ended in
> April 1966.

"The way you write Doctor Who properly is for the Doctor to
watch on and not pass judgement over others at all. He's there
to observe just like a scientist..." (Yes, those are Aggie’s exact
words) - Doctor Who ended in early 1964

>
> - Strong independent women who aren’t subservient to manly men - oh dear.
> For Aggie, Doctor Who ended on November 23, 1963, about 30 seconds into the
> very first episode, when Barbara Wright was introduced.
>

--
solar penguin

The idiot insisted:

>
> #savedoctorwho #retconthetimelesschild!
>

Hashtags don’t work in usenet. You should know that by now.

In article <xn0olhs9ib24954002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@eweka.news> wrote:
>The True Doctor wrote:
>
>> On 05/05/2024 20:19, The Last Doctor wrote:
>> >
>> > I see Aggie has already written his “review” of eight
>> > episodes he hasn’t seen yet (as well as the one he has seen
>> > but utterly failed to understand).
>>
>> They're all going to be absolute crap given Davies's new and
>> existing retarded comments.
>
>But you will still sit down and watch them anyway! <face palm>

And you get to debate his review.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ;

In article <xn0olhz7vbbgpkf001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@eweka.news> wrote:
>The Last Doctor wrote:
>
>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@eweka.news> wrote:
>> > The True Doctor wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 05/05/2024 20:19, The Last Doctor wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I see Aggie has already written his “review” of eight
>> >>> episodes he hasn’t seen yet (as well as the one he has seen
>> >>> but utterly failed to understand).
>> >>
>> >> They're all going to be absolute crap given Davies's new and
>> >> existing retarded comments.
>> >
>> > But you will still sit down and watch them anyway!
>> > <face palm>
>>
>> But Aggie has always hated Doctor Who. Proof, using points
>> Aggie has stated about what he believes is wrong with the
>> show, with modern fiction, and indeed with the real world in
>> general:
>
>Poor Aggy, he does seem like a glass half-empty type of guy...
>
>Maybe we should all send him a group hug to make him feel better?
>
>

In your face.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ;

In article <v1aabf$2gh6l$1@dont-email.me>,
solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The Last Doctor let us know:
>
>>
>> But Aggie has always hated Doctor Who. Proof, using points Aggie has stated
>> about what he believes is wrong with the show, with modern fiction, and
>> indeed with the real world in general:
>>
>> - The Doctor becoming female - Doctor Who ended in December 2017.
>>
>> - More generally, any Time Lord regenerating into another gender - Doctor
>> Who ended in May 2011.
>>
>> - Positive homosexual role models - Doctor Who ended in May 2005. (or if
>> you count the evidence for Liz Shaw’s sexuality in the PROBE videos, Doctor
>> Who ended in January 1970).
>>
>> - Definite fantasy, not science fiction, elements - Doctor Who ended in
>> April 1966.
>
>"The way you write Doctor Who properly is for the Doctor to
>watch on and not pass judgement over others at all. He's there
>to observe just like a scientist..." (Yes, those are Aggie’s exact
>words) - Doctor Who ended in early 1964
>
>>
>> - Strong independent women who aren’t subservient to manly men - oh dear.
>> For Aggie, Doctor Who ended on November 23, 1963, about 30 seconds into the
>> very first episode, when Barbara Wright was introduced.
>>
>

The flame wars of radw are back!

>--
>solar penguin

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ;