<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Church of Who?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/10/05/the-church-of-who/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/10/05/the-church-of-who/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:12:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt B.</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/10/05/the-church-of-who/#comment-342781</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt B.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:14:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=54679#comment-342781</guid>
		<description>I wish I could tell the guy in the first video that the plural of &quot;nemesis&quot; is &quot;nemeses&quot;, not &quot;nemesi&quot;. I don&#039;t know why people keep thinking that the plural of everything that ends with an &lt;i&gt;s&lt;/i&gt; is formed by getting rid of the &lt;i&gt;s&lt;/i&gt; and the preceding vowel, and then adding a long &lt;i&gt;i&lt;/i&gt;.

Here&#039;s how it works:
&lt;i&gt;-us&lt;/i&gt; changes to &lt;i&gt;-i&lt;/i&gt; (in most cases; there are other declensions of &lt;i&gt;-us&lt;/i&gt; nouns in Latin),
&lt;i&gt;-is&lt;/i&gt; changes to &lt;i&gt;-es&lt;/i&gt;,
&lt;i&gt;-es&lt;/i&gt; stays the same.
It&#039;s pretty simple.

And don&#039;t get me started on &quot;biases&quot; and &quot;processes&quot;.

In the second video, Karen Gillan looks so much like Ellie Kemper (Erin on &lt;i&gt;The Office&lt;/i&gt;), I wouldn&#039;t have known otherwise, but then I don&#039;t watch &lt;i&gt;Dr. Who&lt;/i&gt;. I would if I had the time and the channel, but what are you going to do?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wish I could tell the guy in the first video that the plural of &#8220;nemesis&#8221; is &#8220;nemeses&#8221;, not &#8220;nemesi&#8221;. I don&#8217;t know why people keep thinking that the plural of everything that ends with an <i>s</i> is formed by getting rid of the <i>s</i> and the preceding vowel, and then adding a long <i>i</i>.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s how it works:<br />
<i>-us</i> changes to <i>-i</i> (in most cases; there are other declensions of <i>-us</i> nouns in Latin),<br />
<i>-is</i> changes to <i>-es</i>,<br />
<i>-es</i> stays the same.<br />
It&#8217;s pretty simple.</p>
<p>And don&#8217;t get me started on &#8220;biases&#8221; and &#8220;processes&#8221;.</p>
<p>In the second video, Karen Gillan looks so much like Ellie Kemper (Erin on <i>The Office</i>), I wouldn&#8217;t have known otherwise, but then I don&#8217;t watch <i>Dr. Who</i>. I would if I had the time and the channel, but what are you going to do?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John W. Kennedy</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/10/05/the-church-of-who/#comment-342780</link>
		<dc:creator>John W. Kennedy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:05:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=54679#comment-342780</guid>
		<description>IW’s (#40) recollection of the original “Who” is—whatever is the opposite of “idealized”? I cannot seem to find one. Well, lay that aside. Consider the exits of companions like Romana II and Leela. Consider how the early male companions had to take on all the “hero” work. (Ever stop to think how much the original premise of “Doctor Who” resembles that of “Flash Gordon”?) Consider Liz Shaw and Romana I.

As to gay marriage, etc., that is no more to say that the first era of “Doctor Who” was in the 20th century and the new era is in the 21st.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IW’s (#40) recollection of the original “Who” is—whatever is the opposite of “idealized”? I cannot seem to find one. Well, lay that aside. Consider the exits of companions like Romana II and Leela. Consider how the early male companions had to take on all the “hero” work. (Ever stop to think how much the original premise of “Doctor Who” resembles that of “Flash Gordon”?) Consider Liz Shaw and Romana I.</p>
<p>As to gay marriage, etc., that is no more to say that the first era of “Doctor Who” was in the 20th century and the new era is in the 21st.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: IW</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/10/05/the-church-of-who/#comment-342779</link>
		<dc:creator>IW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:04:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=54679#comment-342779</guid>
		<description>Those of you who are obsessing on the doctor are forgetting what the reboot has brought with it, including some very up to date science, and including gender equality and much increased prominence given to gender preference issues.

River Song is every bit the doctor&#039;s equal.  She deserves her own series which would be an admirable replacement for the prematurely demised Sarah Jane Adventures.

And who missed Amy&#039;s recent acceptance of a wedding invitation, the wedding being that of a girlfriend of Amy&#039;s to her girlfriend?  There was (and indeed could not have been) any of that in the older series.

And how can you have missed how far out of a different closet his companions have come?

Science isn&#039;t the only issue, nor is education rightly confined to history alone.  It used to be, in the antiquated series some are championing here, that the companion was merely fluff employed for the sole purpose of getting into trouble so that the doctor could rescue her.  Indeed, one companion in the old series quit the show precisely because that was all she was allowed to be.

If you haven&#039;t noticed how much the doctor&#039;s three most recent companions (River, Amy, &amp; Rory) have been accomplishing, and what strong roles they&#039;ve played, then you haven&#039;&#039;t been paying close enough attention.

Alas Amy &amp; Rory are now gone, but River continues and furthermore, this winter of our discontent is about to be made glorious summer by a daughter of Lancashire.

Onward and upwards, I say.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Those of you who are obsessing on the doctor are forgetting what the reboot has brought with it, including some very up to date science, and including gender equality and much increased prominence given to gender preference issues.</p>
<p>River Song is every bit the doctor&#8217;s equal.  She deserves her own series which would be an admirable replacement for the prematurely demised Sarah Jane Adventures.</p>
<p>And who missed Amy&#8217;s recent acceptance of a wedding invitation, the wedding being that of a girlfriend of Amy&#8217;s to her girlfriend?  There was (and indeed could not have been) any of that in the older series.</p>
<p>And how can you have missed how far out of a different closet his companions have come?</p>
<p>Science isn&#8217;t the only issue, nor is education rightly confined to history alone.  It used to be, in the antiquated series some are championing here, that the companion was merely fluff employed for the sole purpose of getting into trouble so that the doctor could rescue her.  Indeed, one companion in the old series quit the show precisely because that was all she was allowed to be.</p>
<p>If you haven&#8217;t noticed how much the doctor&#8217;s three most recent companions (River, Amy, &amp; Rory) have been accomplishing, and what strong roles they&#8217;ve played, then you haven&#8221;t been paying close enough attention.</p>
<p>Alas Amy &amp; Rory are now gone, but River continues and furthermore, this winter of our discontent is about to be made glorious summer by a daughter of Lancashire.</p>
<p>Onward and upwards, I say.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John W. Kennedy</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/10/05/the-church-of-who/#comment-342778</link>
		<dc:creator>John W. Kennedy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:03:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=54679#comment-342778</guid>
		<description>A) I first heard about flat screens from “My Weekly Reader”, some time in the late 50s. (They were supposed to be arriving “real soon now”.

B) Tipler’s rotating-cylinder idea is, from an engineering viewpoint, on a par with building a complete solar system starting with only a sufficient mass of hydrogen, and it can’t take you back to a time before the machine was turned on. It is also generally believed that the resulting time travel would work as in “Babylon 5” or “Harry Potter”—you can only change the past the way you always changed it; however, this is less certain.

C) Yes, the Sonic Screwdriver can be overused. It was overused before, which is why it was written out back in 1982. But, honestly, it’s no more overused than any TV cowboy’s six-shooter. It solves many of the Doctor’s difficulties, but it doesn’t solve his problems.

“The true reader reads every work seriously in the sense that he reads it whole-heartedly, makes himself as receptive as he can. But for that very reason he cannot possibly read every work solemly or gravely. For he will read ‘in the same spirit that the author writ.’... He will never commit the error of trying to munch whipped cream as if it were venison.” 
― C.S. Lewis, “An Experiment in Criticism”</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A) I first heard about flat screens from “My Weekly Reader”, some time in the late 50s. (They were supposed to be arriving “real soon now”.</p>
<p>B) Tipler’s rotating-cylinder idea is, from an engineering viewpoint, on a par with building a complete solar system starting with only a sufficient mass of hydrogen, and it can’t take you back to a time before the machine was turned on. It is also generally believed that the resulting time travel would work as in “Babylon 5” or “Harry Potter”—you can only change the past the way you always changed it; however, this is less certain.</p>
<p>C) Yes, the Sonic Screwdriver can be overused. It was overused before, which is why it was written out back in 1982. But, honestly, it’s no more overused than any TV cowboy’s six-shooter. It solves many of the Doctor’s difficulties, but it doesn’t solve his problems.</p>
<p>“The true reader reads every work seriously in the sense that he reads it whole-heartedly, makes himself as receptive as he can. But for that very reason he cannot possibly read every work solemly or gravely. For he will read ‘in the same spirit that the author writ.’&#8230; He will never commit the error of trying to munch whipped cream as if it were venison.”<br />
― C.S. Lewis, “An Experiment in Criticism”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fizz</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/10/05/the-church-of-who/#comment-342777</link>
		<dc:creator>Fizz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Oct 2012 15:06:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=54679#comment-342777</guid>
		<description>@33 Trebuchet-
Welcome to the club Trebuchet.  FYI, if you want the full story of River Song, you&#039;ll need to go back to series 4 (with David Tennant as the 10th Doctor) and see the episodes &quot;Silence in the Library&quot; and &quot;Forest of the Dead&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@33 Trebuchet-<br />
Welcome to the club Trebuchet.  FYI, if you want the full story of River Song, you&#8217;ll need to go back to series 4 (with David Tennant as the 10th Doctor) and see the episodes &#8220;Silence in the Library&#8221; and &#8220;Forest of the Dead&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kalex&#039;s Tome &#38;raquo Church of Who? &#124; Kalex&#039;s Tome</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/10/05/the-church-of-who/#comment-342775</link>
		<dc:creator>Kalex&#039;s Tome &#38;raquo Church of Who? &#124; Kalex&#039;s Tome</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Oct 2012 11:10:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=54679#comment-342775</guid>
		<description>[...] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/10/05/the-church-of-who/ [...] </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/10/05/the-church-of-who/" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/10/05/the-church-of-who/</a> [...] </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kalex&#039;s Tome &#38;raquo Church of Who? &#124; Kalex&#039;s Tome</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/10/05/the-church-of-who/#comment-342776</link>
		<dc:creator>Kalex&#039;s Tome &#38;raquo Church of Who? &#124; Kalex&#039;s Tome</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Oct 2012 11:10:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=54679#comment-342776</guid>
		<description>[...] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/10/05/the-church-of-who/ [...] </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/10/05/the-church-of-who/" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/10/05/the-church-of-who/</a> [...] </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marc</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/10/05/the-church-of-who/#comment-342774</link>
		<dc:creator>Marc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Oct 2012 10:33:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=54679#comment-342774</guid>
		<description>I absolutely enjoyed watching Doctor Who, catching it every week when it&#039;s on BBC 1.  I watched the end of the series and have to say that it has been fantastic. Slight spoiler: I cried at the end.

I don&#039;t think it is a religion, but it can be something that one obsesses about.  I have to say that I think Amy is way more beautiful than River Song.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I absolutely enjoyed watching Doctor Who, catching it every week when it&#8217;s on BBC 1.  I watched the end of the series and have to say that it has been fantastic. Slight spoiler: I cried at the end.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think it is a religion, but it can be something that one obsesses about.  I have to say that I think Amy is way more beautiful than River Song.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clay Sanders</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/10/05/the-church-of-who/#comment-342773</link>
		<dc:creator>Clay Sanders</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Oct 2012 08:34:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=54679#comment-342773</guid>
		<description>John W. Kennedy #11 wrote &quot;The present-day science is usually OK, but the future science is even more nonsensical than that of “Star Trek&quot; - not sure if you are aware of this but many of todays innovations started out as fanciful star trek devices.  But really who would believe that you would ever be able to read a book or check out data on a flat touch screen type pad or that you would talk to a computer to get information out of it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John W. Kennedy #11 wrote &#8220;The present-day science is usually OK, but the future science is even more nonsensical than that of “Star Trek&#8221; &#8211; not sure if you are aware of this but many of todays innovations started out as fanciful star trek devices.  But really who would believe that you would ever be able to read a book or check out data on a flat touch screen type pad or that you would talk to a computer to get information out of it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Trebuchet</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/10/05/the-church-of-who/#comment-342772</link>
		<dc:creator>Trebuchet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Oct 2012 00:15:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=54679#comment-342772</guid>
		<description>At the risk of losing whatever nerd cred I may have had....I only just started whatching Who, with the current Doctor, about two weeks ago.  Amy is cute, I guess, but I&#039;m IN LOVE with River Song.

At least I hurl pumpkins.  How many other nerds can say that?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At the risk of losing whatever nerd cred I may have had&#8230;.I only just started whatching Who, with the current Doctor, about two weeks ago.  Amy is cute, I guess, but I&#8217;m IN LOVE with River Song.</p>
<p>At least I hurl pumpkins.  How many other nerds can say that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: basic

Served from: blogs.discovermagazine.com @ 2013-06-18 20:22:30 -->