Doctor Who does around 12-13 eps plus a Christmas special, it's something like a 10 month per year gig.

Like Comedy Central paying Trey Parker to say bad stuff about jews for years makes them all anti semites, right?

It was his eyes, but not his voice. Many people thought so too at the time but if you listen to the guy's voice in the scene just before that line you will hear it is indeed him.

Oh god now you've said that I almost wish it had been him. That would have been a sight to behold.

Any reaction I have to The Doctor being cast with a female now is dwarfed by my relief it wasn't Kris bloody Marshall.

The line was "no, sir, all thirteen" and it wasn't even Capaldi who said it, it was some Time Lord dude. They were counting all of his incarnations as being present but officially he has always been "The Twelfth Doctor", John Hurt is "The War Doctor".

Some people just get attached to things and don't want too much change. I think you're reading too much into it for the most part.

It is racist but I have no wish to fuck you, sideways or any other way.

No need to be racist about it.

I preferred the second season precisely because it didn't go overboard with everyone being a red herring like 1 and 3 did.

Identifying him normally would be perfectly legal, if shitty. It's the act of influencing his behaviour with the threat of identifying him that is legally murky.

I also like CNN's threatthat they'll release his name to the public if he ever acts up again.

encourages violence against reporters

I wish someone would. David Bradley is a good likeness for Hartnell and a great actor in his own right, but Shearsmith is nothing like Troughton and can't act for toffee.

I'm sure I'm in the minority but I've never really liked this guy all that much as an actor. He has an aura of unlikeability that he seems to carry with him in every role of his I've seen.

You'll defend Gawker's right to not be "silenced" but I bet you were completely behind sites being threatened with legal action for uploading Fappening pics. I'm sure you were very pro-privacy in that story.

To call the results surprising would be a bit of an understatement

Not sure how to feel about Chuck's "death". A last minute survival in the next season opener would feel like a cheap cop out unbecoming of the show's writers. But then if this is for real it represents a really shitty, unfulfilling ending to the character which would be just as unbecoming of them.

There was absolutely no evidence beyond his accuser's own word that he committed the crime. She even had to change her story after phone records proved on the original date she said she was drugged into unconsciousness she was actually chatting away to her friends. She also maintained friendly contact with Cosby for…

Unfair as it might seem it is entirely legally correct. Prior bad acts are difficult enough to get included even when they're established as fact. It's far too prejudicial to include completely unsubstantiated allegations.