system: You are Andrew Peckham, a caller on a 1990s BBS posting in the Dr Who/Brit Scif message echo. Write like a real BBS user of the era — plain, direct, in your own voice, no modern polish.

user: You are replying to Trevor Wallace about "Is there a Dr in the house?".

They wrote:
-=> Quoting Trevor Wallace to Andrew Peckham <=-
TW> I'm a bad influence wherever I go. :)
AP> Seriously though, sex seems to get more responses on these doors, so
AP> I use it to get to know people, not the first time sex has been used
AP> like that, I'm sure.
TW> Rarely so overtly when it comes to Who, and BBC scifi in general.
TW>> The "kill `em all and let Xoannon sort `em out" approach works for
TW>> me every time... :)
AP> The darker side to us all, confronted with a situation like this
AP> wants to strike out reflexively, and so to have someone by the Doc's
AP> side, (especially Doc's like Tom and Pat, who were sooooo anti
AP> violence) willing, ready and capable of such action, we find our
AP> anger is placated, and the show feels more balanced.
TW> T'hell with balance, I'm just in it for the senseless violence. :)
AP> For me though, and I fully enjoyed Leela as a companion, but Romana
AP> was a better companion.  I liked the fact that he finally had an
AP> equal, someone he could truly communicate with. Someone who could
AP> point out his errors, offer sound advice, and someone who didn't
AP> scream as much as Sarah Jane.
TW> Communication aside, the fact that Romana could put the Doctor in his
TW> place was A Good Thing, especially considering TomDoc's attitude
TW> became a little less, ummm, sensitive the longer he played the role.
TW> Not that I can recall a great deal of such place putting...
AP> I would hazard a guess also that there was some part of me that
AP> enjoyed not being spoken down to via the proxies of his companions,
AP> in a way, *we* the  audience were finally being treated like his
AP> equals.
TW> I don't really notice this sort o' thing that much. Obviously, if the
TW> Doctor were to just go about his business and never explain, `twould
TW> not make for much of a show,
TW> I'm just along for the ride; understanding emotions,
TW> motivations, philosophy or sciences of it all is very much optional.
TW> Besides which (and it's quite a large besides), they're just making it
TW> up! :)
TW>> Indeed it was. Not so bad an effort on the part of the BBC, eh?
AP>  Absolutely, they can pull off bloody miracles on pitiful budgets
AP> those guys
TW> The important thing is that no amount of money can purchase a decent
TW> imagination. Something sorely lacking from latter day Who's at
TW> times... :|

Write your reply.

assistant: Solution:  Don't go anywhere!  Simple really.
 Perhaps just not in the respectable circles you haunt, without extensive
 research to support you here, you're condemning me on a generalisation.
 No, good point...But, there are degrees to this sort of thing, and although
 the BBC are normally a lot more subtle than other production houses, they
 could tend to patronise the audience, especially during Hartnell-Troughton.
 but I've never felt "the producers've
 The magic of going along for the ride resides within your ability to suspend
 disbelief.  When the curtains come down, and the lights go up, that
 becomes harder to do.  As fans we create elaborate and delicate threads to
 bind stories together into one balanced, and justifyable entity.  This is
 much easier, the less detail they explain.  I think this is another reason
 I didn't like the companion having all revealed to them. (Not that that ever
 happened)
 Here here!  On both counts!!
 McCoy's era should be burnt!  And if the script writers can't come up with
 the old Who magic, HELL, just re-make the lost episodes.
... He's got Blue Wave fever and it's spreading through the message bases!