Login

Username

Password



Not a rebel yet?
CLICK HERE to register.

Forgotten your password?
Request a new one from Orac HERE.

Current User Info

· Lurkers Lurking: 7

· Rebels Active: 0

· Total Rebels: 918
· Newest Rebel: CarolinaJones

Login Help

If you are having problems logging in, please bear in mind that if you originally registered at the site before 8th January 2014 and you haven't re-registered since that date your old login details will no longer work. If this is the case, please re-register, preferably with your former username. If you are having trouble with the registration process itself, try looking HERE and HERE for help and advice. If you need further assistance, please do CONTACT us.

Current Poll

Who is your Favourite Guest Rebel?

Avalon - (Project Avalon)
Avalon - (Project Avalon)
18% [17 Votes]

Selma - (Horizon)
Selma - (Horizon)
5% [5 Votes]

Tyce - (Bounty)
Tyce - (Bounty)
15% [14 Votes]

Norm One - (Redemption)
Norm One - (Redemption)
2% [2 Votes]

Bek - (Shadow)
Bek - (Shadow)
6% [6 Votes]

Kasabi - (Pressure Point)
Kasabi - (Pressure Point)
19% [18 Votes]

Hal Mellanby - (Aftermath)
Hal Mellanby - (Aftermath)
14% [13 Votes]

Hunda - (Traitor)
Hunda - (Traitor)
5% [5 Votes]

Deva - (Blake)
Deva - (Blake)
9% [9 Votes]

Other
Other
6% [6 Votes]

Votes: 95
Login to vote.
Started: 09 July 2016

Polls Archive

Forum Activity

Newest Articles

B7 Images

+ Cookies +

The Horizon website uses cookies to allow user log-in and navigation. The site does not host advertising that requires the use of third-party cookies. Registering as a member of this site implies your consent to the use of cookies.

View Thread

 Print Thread
Doctor Who Is Dead
JustBrad
Zenrac wrote:


Oh, and as an aside, I went over to one of the Who forums (reading only, I am not a member) just for a little information, and my God, it is rabid over there. Not particularly well moderated for sure. People are killing each other over opinion.


That's the most troubling aspect of this for me. DW fandom has always been a tad divisive, but it used to be that you could disagree and still find middle ground. On the issue of the new Doctor, it seems that to many you are either on board 100 % or you are suddenly the enemy. Not sure if that's anything to do with DW or just a reflection of society as a whole these days, but it is all rather sad.
 
President Solvite
Tis a current sign of the times IMO. Personally I blame social media which tends to lump people into like minded cliques who then demonise people on the other side of the fence. So many examples where this happened on both sides of the water.. Recent elections, some referendum which I will not go into and Who but I am sure many others could be added to this list.

Nothing wrong being on a particular side of the divide as long as one doesn't involve firing volleys onto the other side. Whilst some things do indeed matter, Who is just a TV show, and its not worth getting too excited by it one way or the other with that particular topic. Just glad that people here are more mature and reasonable than elsewhere on the wibbly wobbly web. Long may it continue. Smile
 
http://nothingsforgotten.freeforums.net/
President Solvite
The Doctor's ability to regenerate always seems to have been a haphazard and random affair. Whereas the Master and Romana seemed to be more skilled at it. With Romana being able to tweak her regeneration much to the Doctor's exasperation in Destiny of the Daleks.

So a possible reason in 'becoming female' is that something unexpected happens, which might mitigate the situation somewhat for me. Like many things the devil is in the detail! Smile
 
http://nothingsforgotten.freeforums.net/
Blakesheaven
Rainesz wrote:

This just feels forced rather than being an intelligent casting decision.


Again, I would kindly like to disagree. The role has been established early on to be gender-fluid. Sydney Newman, the original creator of the show in the Hartnell era, had wanted Colin Baker's replacement to be either Patrick Troughton again, or a woman. The creator of the show, Newman, had predicted a woman would play the Doctor, and it only took about 54 more years to get there.

(For the record, I'll be a 54 year old woman this year. Again, I was born the same week the first Doctor Who episode aired in the UK, so I am over-the-moon that the Doctor is finally getting a female turn. The little girl in me who watched Jon Pertwee would have been ecstatic.)

Even Patrick Troughton, the very first Doctor to replace an established actor in the role, said in an an interview that there was no limit to the race or the gender of the Doctor because he/she was an alien who was able to change his entire body. (I linked this interview in an earlier post in this thread. http://raineszram...f-go#notes) And after 54 years and 14 white men, when will it ever be the right time to cast a woman or a non-white actor? How about now?

And one more thing and I'll shut up: Wink

Has anyone considered that she was the right person for the role at the right time, out of everyone auditioned, because she had the correct Doctor-ish qualities that we all wanted (needed) to see?And that she was the intelligent casting decision?

Don’t ever shut up you are the voice of reason!
I’m totally baffled by so many people moaning about this. It’s 2017, also as you point out it’s established fact that one of the shows creators stated that the role could be played by either sex! I’ve no been here long but seems I may be in the wrong place?
 
BradPaula
I'm actually a bit apprehensive to attend TARDIS con this year because of the fact I may be asked to give my opinion of the new female Doctor. I have ignored all conversations on the various Doctor Who social media sites I frequent just because I don't want an earful about how I am horribly wrong if I were to spout my opinion of it all. I've even left one group because they piled on me when I did give an opinion. So- I'll have to play this one question carefully while I'm at the con and grin and keep my mouth shut most of the time. The proof is in the putting as they say- and I cannot really spout opinions until I've seen new new Doctor. That's only fair.
Zil: Oneness must resist the Host.
 
BradPaula
President Solvite wrote:

The Doctor's ability to regenerate always seems to have been a haphazard and random affair. Whereas the Master and Romana seemed to be more skilled at it. With Romana being able to tweak her regeneration much to the Doctor's exasperation in Destiny of the Daleks.

So a possible reason in 'becoming female' is that something unexpected happens, which might mitigate the situation somewhat for me. Like many things the devil is in the detail! Smile


You bring up an excellent point, PS. Perhaps the Doctor is bad at regenerating and cannot 'steer' it to his liking, hence the hodge-podge of different bodies and personalities. He always seemed to be mildly surprised at the new regeneration outcome- either liking it or not. I do look for a sort of thread with the new Doctor and the old ones. Some quirk or something to tie them all together with his previous incarnations. It will be interesting...
Zil: Oneness must resist the Host.
 
trevor travis
JustBrad wrote:

Zenrac wrote:

JustBrad wrote:

The one thing I want in the new series is an explanation of why, now, after thirteen incarnations (fourteen counting the Valyard), the Doctor chose to be female for this incarnation.

I assume either choice or fantastical luck is involved. After all, the odds of flipping a coin and having it come up Male fourteen times in a row are rather daunting. So presumably this time around the Doctor needed to be female. Tell me why, make it good, make me believe it, and I will be on board.


This. Great post.

Just one question - In terms of TV canon, was it ever established that the Doctor can choose gender upon regeneration? I may have missed it. I am not the grand poobah (The Mikado) of Doctor Who history?


Trevor Travis is the resident expert.

To my limited knowledge gender choice is never mentioned in the classic series. In the new series, it may be implied with the Gallifreyan guard who regenerates and switches gender, but I am not sure.

To whit, in Classic Who, when Romana I regenerated into Romana II, she went through five 'trial bodies' before settling on a look alike of Princess Astra. This implies that she had some control over her appearance, but not necessarily gender, as all five were female.
This is backed up in Capaldi's regeneration as he asks himself, 'Why this face? As if I'm trying to remind myself of something.'


In the original series, there are no sex changes. It's Time Lords and Time Ladies.

In fact, the Doctor's original companion was his own granddaughter, suggesting that people of his race (they weren't revealed as Time Lords until 1969) have families, in the same way as humans.

This continues into the Russell T Davies era. In fact, if anything he increased the family aspect. In "Fear Her", the Doctor reveals he was once a father, plus RTD hinted more than once than that female character in "The End Of Time" is the Doctor's mother.

It's Moffat who introduced sex-changing Time Lords. The first was Missy, although as mentioned the Master has been seen to have the ability to both steal bodies OR regenerate normally. Maybe Missy was a stolen body - we don't know either way for sure.

We then actually saw a sex-change regeneration in "Hell Bent".
 
Coser
Endless Midnight.

I bow to your superior knowledge of 'Nu-Who' and concede the point on the Master in the recent times since Chris Eccleston took over.

However, I still don't like or understand why they have had to do it in this show. Gender fluidity was never shown in 'classic' doctor Who and it is this, not an interview with the creator. If it's not been on screen, it's not 'Canon'.

I have real problems with the way he series is being run these days, and it seems to me that "Hell Bent" is the crux of the matter.

Why did we have to see a sex change regeneration in the first place? Apart from that fact, the character is a completely throw-away character. Never seen before, probably not going to be seen again.

So my question is this. [Would you like some toast?] Why was the character not a female in the first place? If you want more strong female characters, wouldn't having a woman in charge of the entire Galifreyan Military have been strong enough? A sign that a woman can get to the top in a physically demanding, generally male-orientated role despite the competition wasn't enough? You actually weaken the character because it now looks like she had to regenerate into a male body to get there, and now thinks she can relax back into a female body and still have the benefits of the position?

I want MORE strong female characters, not just in Doctor Who, but in other TV shows. I don't want them as replacements for strong MALE characters that I have grown up with.

Reverse the situation for a minute. Back in Tom Baker's time in the role, he picked up a warrior of the Sevateem called "Leela". She was a strong, female character, somewhat bloodthirsty at the start. The reason for bringing her into the show, was it to bring in a strong female character, or was it to have a good looking woman appear in a leather leotard in a program right after the football scores?

Now there was a character that, with a strong female lead [Romana or a new Time Lady] would have made more sense being male. Males are generally the warriors, and a good looking man perpetually stripped to the waist would be a bit of eye candy for the ladies. However, I would not be comfortable if that male character was called "Leela". That name has already been used for a female character in the show.

TLDR:

I'd rather have NEW, strong female characters in the show, than have a strong male character turn into a strong female one.
"Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics, and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-Tzu, and Einstein, and Morobuto, and Buddy Holly, and Aristophanes…then all of this…all of this…was for nothing. Unless we go to the stars." Commander sinclair, Babylon 5.
 
Angry Angel
Coser wrote:

So my question is this. [Would you like some toast?] Why was the character not a female in the first place? If you want more strong female characters, wouldn't having a woman in charge of the entire Galifreyan Military have been strong enough? A sign that a woman can get to the top in a physically demanding, generally male-orientated role despite the competition wasn't enough? You actually weaken the character because it now looks like she had to regenerate into a male body to get there, and now thinks she can relax back into a female body and still have the benefits of the position?


The character mentions that she's glad to be a woman again, possibly implying that most of her regenerations have been female, and also possibly implying that she got the job when she was a woman (I assume Time Lords often stay in the same role throughout their regenerations).

Another Time Lord who is mentioned to have had female regerations as well as male is the Corsair, referenced in the 11th Doctor story, The Doctor's Wife.
 
http://lucyravenscar.blogspot.com/
Coser
Angry Angel wrote:

The character mentions that she's glad to be a woman again, possibly implying that most of her regenerations have been female, and also possibly implying that she got the job when she was a woman (I assume Time Lords often stay in the same role throughout their regenerations).

Another Time Lord who is mentioned to have had female regerations as well as male is the Corsair, referenced in the 11th Doctor story, The Doctor's Wife.


Yes, but my question was why not just have a FEMALE character there. Includes a strong female character as head of the military, just drops all the Gender-fluidity stuff - and in my opinion, makes a stronger female character because of it. I would have been all behind that. If being killed and regenerating was necessary, then do so, but have the female regenerate into another female.

Also, I don't make that assumption. If a Time Lord is enough of a go-getter, it would be quite possible to become President on your first incarnation. Going by the Doctor's proclaimed age - which he always drops a goodly number of years off, - that could mean it is possible to be president for a couple of millennia. Or what about a General who is killed and finds his/her regeneration has absolutely no interest or skill in commanding troops? You could have both a useless General wasting lives of the troops under his command, and be wasting the best engineer for eons!
"Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics, and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-Tzu, and Einstein, and Morobuto, and Buddy Holly, and Aristophanes…then all of this…all of this…was for nothing. Unless we go to the stars." Commander sinclair, Babylon 5.
 
President Solvite
Which brings us back to Moffat again with that recent story. Not really a firm foundation for the pro 'Doc with a frock' argument.

Whilst I suppose we could argue ad infinitum whether it could or couldn't be done is really pointless as they have now written this in the framework as much as the Doctor claiming to be human elements in the TV movie (or Colin's lousy costume, or Mel etc.) . Like I said before it depends on how 'it' happens. We all know that the Doctor is hardly renowned for his regeneration skill! So I will see what plot point causes it to happen (if any). History will tell if they have scuppered Who or is this chapter just a minor storm in a teacup event. One lump or two?

To quote Basil Fawlty, maybe I'm dreaming... *BANGS HEAD ON DESK* Nope! Looks like we're stuck with it! Grin

Moving on to toasted bread products, since I have mentioned tea. No toast please but some bagels with some soft cheese and perhaps some smoked salmon with a drizzle of lemon juice would be nice Grin

Some warmed chocolate brownies to follow as afters would be great too.

Time to check out the bar in my hotel, maybe a beer will be a source of inspiration. Oops
 
http://nothingsforgotten.freeforums.net/
Angry Angel
To anyone who asks why the Doctor should regenerate into a woman when he never has before, the answer is obvious, but it's not an in-world answer, it's a real world one.

Each time the actor has changed, it's been the decision of a very small number of people (really one person, the producer or showrunner at the time) as to who takes over the part. Out of those people, they either never thought of casting a woman, really didn't want to, or liked the idea but felt the public at the time wouldn't like it.

Russell T Davies has stated that he never thought of it (http://www.radiot...fashioned/), it seems that Steven Moffat liked the idea enough to build up to it with references to and actual regenerations from male to female, and obviously Chris Chibnall liked the idea enough that he went for it.
 
http://lucyravenscar.blogspot.com/
Coser
I'm sorry the both of you, but you are wrong.

Obviously any producer of a show [or whomever is actually bankrolling it] can choose whomever they want to play whatever part they want.

The real question being debated here is not "Could they?" but "Should they?". The answer to "Could they?" is blindingly obvious - they have! They have not only decided to do it, they have cast the role, and started filming already.

Whether they could have before or not is rather a moot point. Moffat started this off with the intention of going through with it and if nothing else he deserves respect for carrying it through to the end. And let's face it, if the Doctor's second incarnation had been female, there wouldn't be this debate now.

"Should they?" is down to personal preference, but I'm afraid that a lot of the older appreciators like myself would probably answer "no." I know the real life situation, and I know that attitudes have changed a huge amount since 1963, but I'm afraid that Doctor Who has lost a certain something over the years. The early days had historicals that people could learn something from, and the more SF episodes were what good SF SHOULD be. They showed more of the human condition, explored more "What if.....?" than the stories these days.

So I think I'd rather watch Torchwood's "Children of Earth" than next season of doctor Who.

Babylon 5 is back on Pick, that'll keep me entertained. [Until I can bring my B7 DVD's up to the digs, anyway.]
"Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics, and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-Tzu, and Einstein, and Morobuto, and Buddy Holly, and Aristophanes…then all of this…all of this…was for nothing. Unless we go to the stars." Commander sinclair, Babylon 5.
 
President Solvite
Oh, P.S. to my previous post - and this one.

These are my thoughts on the matter. They are no more 'correct' than anyone else's, and no more 'wrong' than anyone else's. Please feel free to disagree with anything I said. If you can disprove anything, I am open to persuasion, but if you can't prove anything, I'm going to stick to my guns.


Wrong? No one is wrong on this! Well, no more wrong that anyone else! You are of course free to disagree with anything that I or anyone else posts as long as its polite of course! That doesn't make you wrong either Smile We have people on both sides of the fence on this. Some are off in the distance (*waves*) and some are a bit closer who may 'flip' depending on what transpires. Some might be rooted to the spot in the yes/no camp and that's fine too.

If am wrong on some technicality of Who fact then feel free to point out your issue. But maybe you misread or inferred something incorrectly?

Whether you (personally, and also to the general readership of this thread) are for, or against a female Doctor you have your personal reasons for or against this event. It's down a lot to personal preference which is a difficult thing to argue as a lot of it is down to the personal canon we have developed over the past 40+ or some cases 50+ years. Who has moved its 'lines' many times over the years.

We have yet to witness the circumstances of this next regeneration and until I do, despite me personally disliking the idea of a female gender doctor (and suspecting the motives behind it) I will make my own decision based on what I see at that time.

This does not make me or anyone else wrong if they have their own ideas of how they're going to approach this. Indeed if you reject the idea completely that's fine too. Same point if you are fully on board with this.

If anyone has a detailed plot synopsis of this upcoming episode I can understand using that as a framework for discussion for and against. Provided appropriate spoilers tags and precautions are taken of course. That would probably be best taken to another thread though.

I could reiterate what I posted before but nothing has changed to date in my view apart from increasing desire to set my own mind fully after the episode. Time will tell. Although the cynical amongst us (and that probably includes me!) are not comforted by Nu Who's past performance. However, despite that I will make an effort to look with a clean clear vision and will try give an impartial opinion this Xmas.

Although Jodie does have my sympathy in that Xmas episodes IMO are usually duds so I will make some allowances for that too!

EDIT

Not sure what makes one old but FWIW am 47 (1/2) Grin
If that makes me a young enthusiast, thanks very much. Although these days I feel more like a grumpy old man.
 
http://nothingsforgotten.freeforums.net/
Joe Dredd
Orac: "Fascinating. Fascinating!"

What if you are a Time Lord married to a Time Lady and one of you regenerates into the other gender? I assume if we accept this happens then presumably Gallifreyan society already has ways of accepting/dealing with this.

[Side thought: Presumably there's some kind of biological override that ensures a pregnant Time Lady can't regenerate into a Time Lord.]

What if, however, you are a Time Lord who is married to a non-Gallifreyan lady, and you regenerate into a woman? Perhaps it doesn't matter so much if your wife is River Song but it wouldn't always be a case of true love overcoming all obstacles. Perhaps the Time Lords in general consider it an unfair, barbaric act to marry some one who couldn't gender shift too (along with the unequal life span issue), so perhaps the Doctor's marriage is another reason for the low opinion many Time Lords seem to have of him.
 
JustBrad
@Joe Dredd

Yes, exactly. This raises some fascinating hard core sci fi 'what if' questions. Serious sci fi is all about 'What If.'

There is a tremendous opportunity here for the new show runners. They have asked the question, but will they explore its implications?
 
Coser
Brad, great question. I just have the feeling the answer will be "no." Weeping Angels, failed Kastrian defence force or what? No idea. They were brought into the show, kicked it up a notch and were used several times to great effect, but no reference to the classic series, not even an idea where they came from [IIRC].

For me, the greatest Science Fiction achievement from the BBC since the start of Nu-Who was Torchwood: Children of Earth.. Hard hitting, gritty, and thought provoking. It was wonderful. If only Torchwood could have continued in that vein, it would still be going now, that series showed what an 'adult version of Dr Who could really be.

Joe.

It's a nasty thought that there might not be that override. a pregnant time lady dies, and the new life force inside her is also absorbed to power the transformation. What are the consequences of this? Does the new time lord also now carry the memories of the baby in the womb? Does the extra energy mean the time lord will have become essentially 'younger' than they would have done otherwise?

However, I don't really think there would ever be an issue with a time lord/lady being really interested in a non-time lord. Genetics would mean that it would be practically impossible without serious technological aid to have children, and there is every possibility that other races don't have the correct pheromones to attract a time lord in any way that would end with marriage
"Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics, and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-Tzu, and Einstein, and Morobuto, and Buddy Holly, and Aristophanes…then all of this…all of this…was for nothing. Unless we go to the stars." Commander sinclair, Babylon 5.
 
Rainesz

Don’t ever shut up you are the voice of reason!
I’m totally baffled by so many people moaning about this. It’s 2017, also as you point out it’s established fact that one of the shows creators stated that the role could be played by either sex! I’ve no been here long but seems I may be in the wrong place?


Blakesheaven: Please don't give up on everyone here! We're happy to have you. This seems to be a polarizing topic with a lot of us, and I'm happy to have you agree with me! (I need you, lol! Grin) This is a Blake's 7 forum first and foremost, so please stick with us. Doctor Who has a long, long history and has always been a show about change—and change can be hard for everyone. For instance, I adore Peter Capaldi and will be heartbroken at Christmas when he regenerates. (But getting Jodie Whittaker in return will be a wonderful holiday present!)

Angry Angel: Thank you for being so eloquent and thoughtful with your side of the argument. Well-expressed as always. And I agree with you 100%.
 
Zenrac
So when the regeneration happens, will the Doctor become a time-lady and no longer a time-lord, or does gender fluidity now disregard the titles from having any meaning?

If so, why in TV canon at least was it ever set up that there were time-lords and time-ladies if gender fluidity was always going to be there to negate that?

If Romana comes back (for instance) and she regenerates into a man, I take it she will no longer be a time-lady, but a time-lord, to balance out the genders for the sake of equality - as that is why we are now getting a female time-lord/lady because of the cries of society. So why not just leave the Doctor as a time-lord and have a strong, originally written female character with him, as it has worked for decades, including Romana?

We are getting this change because society is screaming for it (well, parts of society who are crying foul) but time-lord/lady society is supposed to be advanced, one of the most advanced in the universe, so why has it taken so long in terms of canon on Gallifrey for this to be spoken of, with just the character of the Doctor not yet deciding/choosing/having it forced on him/her?

Your answer may well be, "Because society was skewed towards male roles for lead characters previously so it took the writers many years to break out of their sexist cages before we could have gender fluidity."

But that doesn't explain it away in my opinion. You can't suddenly claim that a race of people who have always been superior and advanced have suddenly just remembered that gender is interchangeable, but it was never once spoken of by the TV canon characters, especially the lead!!

You are rewriting the canon to fit. Therefore, it is no longer canon, it means the 2005 re-boot was in fact a complete re-boot and not an extension of classic Who, something that should have been made clear. Or is this simply a mistake to try and please everyone?

These are some of the reasons this change makes no sense. It is completely forced to fit a narrative, and in doing so, asking classic Who fans to accept another timeline, or in fact, to completely forget previous canon in order to appease the banner wavers leading it to make no sense to some of us.

That doesn't make the few of us here who are questioning this move 'moaners', it simply makes us intelligent beings with questions, and, a different viewpoint. I do not like being labelled a 'moaner' because I dare to hold a dissenting viewpoint, forced on me by the popular vote. Even a single dissenting viewpoint should be respected and not labelled as 'moaning'. That just smacks of intolerance for anyone that dare not tow the line.

Nothing sexist here, not from me, just a jumble of application that I am struggling to make sense of.
 
Coser
Interesting thoughts Zenrac., and I can't fault your logic in the main post. It DOES seem weird that they have, apparently, remembered that, if you are skilled enough, you can choose the gender of your regeneration.

However, the time lord/lady aspect is a non-starter for me. It is quicker and easier to say 'man' than 'homo-sapiens'

"This is a small step for a man, a giant leap for mankind" is not leaving the ladies out of the quote, and I see "Time Lord" as more of a quicker name than whatever the scientific name for their species is, as well as being a gender specific name for a male of the species. "Time Lady" would be a gender specific title, so for example Romana was both a Time Lord and specifically a Time Lady.
"Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics, and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-Tzu, and Einstein, and Morobuto, and Buddy Holly, and Aristophanes…then all of this…all of this…was for nothing. Unless we go to the stars." Commander sinclair, Babylon 5.
 
Jump to Forum:
Orac rendered this page in 0.47 seconds
9,497,797 unique visits since 8th January 2014