• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Who should become the next Doctor after Whittaker?

Ok, having slightly raised an eyebrow at this, I'd like you to explain to me how revealing any more potentially revealing information to a total stranger with whom my interactions thus far have been antagonistic would in any way help this thread. This question becomes even more cogent when placed in the context of the actual thrust of my argument that exactly such presenting of real world credentials is by and large a meaningless exercise on a discussion board where one is based on the quality of their local input.

There are, in fact, several people in these forums who are verifiably aware of my real world identity (and vica versa) but that level of disclosure is in each case based on trust established over time and repeated interactions. I have several reasons not to wish that information publicly shared. If you can make a convincing case that this would be constructive beyond some anatomical measuring contest I will consider sharing more information about the nature of my work in private but please note I will not humour any attempts to personally identify me, I simply don't know you anywhere near well enough.

It was never about measuring anything, if you're going to insinuate I am espousing falsehoods, then I'd like the opportunity to provide my credentials, and since you mentioned yours, it was incumbent upon me to take that and examine if your credentials were also real. If so, we could then dispell charges of lying, and continue with our debate. However, as you said your conversations with me are antagonistic. I suppose there's no real reason except the one above that would warrant such reveals of each other. To your point, it doesn't matter to what we are discussing in this forum.


Our main disagreement is that of human nature. Role models and the scientific studies that support hypothesises of how boys and girls react to gender models on Tv.

My supposition is there is a natural draw to want to see yourself in a role model similar to ones self and as a child growing up, the figures and role models you are attracted to are part of the process developing the ego, and role as a person.

As for my intelligence comment, in the context above, I was relating what was a motivator in the choices of protagonist I sought as a child. Not playing a victim as has been said. So, it is nice to see ones words not be twisted against one's self.

But that's not what this forum is about..
I see why it's difficult to get a word in dissent without mob tactics being employed to those who don't think like the PC police. it's definitely ideology over rational debate, and that's unfortunate.

If your credentials are as you say. Then you of all people should know and see the difference, whether you agree with a poster or not.
 
Forget Idris Alba, Colin Salmon is a very compelling actor. He's Zod on Krypton, but damn, he's such a good actor.
 
Boy, it's been weird reading the last few pages of this discussion. I've got "Show Ignored Content" at the bottom of every page, a lot of people responding to stuff I don't see, and yet it's clear I'm not missing anything.
 
So was Peter Davison. And David Tennant. And Jodie Whitaker. And Jon Pertwee.

Maybe Whitaker but the other ones I wouldn't say would remind me of a Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise or a George Clooney. Even Whitaker seems to have that more accesble good looks to her instead of the greek Gods or super models you sometimes see with actors. Granted this is all subjective.

Jason
 
It was never about measuring anything, if you're going to insinuate I am espousing falsehoods, then I'd like the opportunity to provide my credentials, and since you mentioned yours, it was incumbent upon me to take that and examine if your credentials were also real.

Not at all, not on either point. I did not insinuate you were lying, nor do I (or likely anyone else) care about your IQ. Nor is it incumbent on me to do anything, not that giving you a set of temporal parameters would do that anyway without giving the identifying information you claim you wouldn't want.

The irony of you asking for that information to back up my claim is the whole point of that claim was to point out that in such a forum as this such credentials are, for the most part, meaningless. One is judged on the merits (or lack thereof) demonstrated in one's posts, not those claimed. That you oh so convincingly couched your IQ in terms of an introspective personal reveal does not for one second obfuscate the laughably clear intent to establish authority. That several posters have drawn attention to this should be telling.

To your point, it doesn't matter to what we are discussing in this forum.

No, but you brought it up.

My supposition is there is a natural draw to want to see yourself in a role model similar to ones self and as a child growing up, the figures and role models you are attracted to are part of the process developing the ego, and role as a person.

I'm assuming we aren't using the anachronistic Freudian sense of the word "ego" here as opposed to a broader one approximating sense of self or self identity. If you believe the process of drawing one's ethical perspective from role models requires an equivalent gender I have no idea what to say to you except that your reputation for sexism is seemingly better justified than you youself believe. That you refer to tribalism as being an important driving dynamic in the interaction between genders is, interesting.

On the contrary it is one very specific area of human behaviour which isn't historically defined by direct tribalism and the reasons for that should be obvious in that within the adaptive environment intersexual interactions would primarily (and by extension crucially to the adaptive process) be internal to the tribe. The (very real) conflict which does occur is thus more complex and nuanced than that which define the other hangovers which we now collectively call bigotry, being characterised more by the power dynamics of mutual interdependence and defining social structures than straightforward competition for resources.

Tribalism is, however, reflected in the religious and philosophical divides between groups and can reasonably be said to play a part in identity politics, but not in the simplistic sense of a dividing line drawn between the sexes. Rather it is reflected in the political groupings which represent the attitudes and philosophies surrounding those issues.

I see why it's difficult to get a word in dissent without mob tactics being employed to those who don't think like the PC police. it's definitely ideology over rational debate, and that's unfortunate.

What rational debate have you employed?
 
Last edited:
You know the actors and actresses from Harry Potter in my opinion would fit so organically within Doctor Who. I guess it's ethnocentric and all but I think man or woman, the Doctor suits coming from the U.K.

Maybe, although in her case in particular I think she pulls off "otherworldly" well.
 
Maybe Whitaker but the other ones I wouldn't say would remind me of a Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise or a George Clooney. Even Whitaker seems to have that more accesble good looks to her instead of the greek Gods or super models you sometimes see with actors. Granted this is all subjective.

Jason

If you don't think Peter Davison and Davide Tennant aren't considered handsome, I don't know what to tell you.
I didn't realize the measuring stick was Either You Are Pitt Handsome or You Are Not Handsome At All.

I would guess that by most people's standards Davison and Tennant, and Pertwee in his day, were considered very handsome men. Movie star handsome? Probably not. But, handsome enough to be successful leading men? Yes.
 
If you don't think Peter Davison and Davide Tennant aren't considered handsome, I don't know what to tell you.
I didn't realize the measuring stick was Either You Are Pitt Handsome or You Are Not Handsome At All.

I would guess that by most people's standards Davison and Tennant, and Pertwee in his day, were considered very handsome men. Movie star handsome? Probably not. But, handsome enough to be successful leading men? Yes.

To be honest I got the impression Tennant was very much considered a heart throb, but I'm no judge :shrug:
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top