<?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/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for The Daily P.O.P.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dailypop.wordpress.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dailypop.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>Protecting Other People from wasting their leisure time</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:25:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Hawkeye and Mockingbird by Is Hawkeye the bowman headed for the big screen? &#171; The Daily P.O.P.</title>
		<link>http://dailypop.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/hawkeye-and-mockingbird/#comment-4120</link>
		<dc:creator>Is Hawkeye the bowman headed for the big screen? &#171; The Daily P.O.P.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:25:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dailypop.wordpress.com/?p=2345#comment-4120</guid>
		<description>[...] (Click here for more on Hawkeye) Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)The New AvengersTo Dream of The Mighty AvengersDark Reign: HawkeyeAnother vote for Hawkeye [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] (Click here for more on Hawkeye) Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)The New AvengersTo Dream of The Mighty AvengersDark Reign: HawkeyeAnother vote for Hawkeye [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The New Doctor Who (2010) by Raxacoricon</title>
		<link>http://dailypop.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/the-new-doctor-who-2010/#comment-4114</link>
		<dc:creator>Raxacoricon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:44:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dailypop.wordpress.com/?p=3037#comment-4114</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve never really liked the look of Matt Smith - though I&#039;ll have to hold my opinion until I&#039;ve seen him</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve never really liked the look of Matt Smith &#8211; though I&#8217;ll have to hold my opinion until I&#8217;ve seen him</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Buck Rogers- National Icon and Pulp Hero by Buck Rogers &#124; Rachna</title>
		<link>http://dailypop.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/buck-rogers/#comment-4110</link>
		<dc:creator>Buck Rogers &#124; Rachna</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:00:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dailypop.wordpress.com/?p=4313#comment-4110</guid>
		<description>[...] the rest here: Buck Rogers      Leave a [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the rest here: Buck Rogers      Leave a [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on HALO Legends DVD set for Feb 2010 release date by Mario Green</title>
		<link>http://dailypop.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/halo-legends-dvd-set-for-feb-2010-release-date/#comment-4109</link>
		<dc:creator>Mario Green</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:12:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dailypop.wordpress.com/?p=4215#comment-4109</guid>
		<description>Ive been reading your articles for a while now, this has to be by far the best. Keep up the good work. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xboxfaces.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;XBOX Live&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ive been reading your articles for a while now, this has to be by far the best. Keep up the good work. <a href="http://www.xboxfaces.com" rel="nofollow">XBOX Live</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Justice Society&#8217;s Hawkman tells all in Smallville interview by Wonder Woman</title>
		<link>http://dailypop.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/the-justice-societys-hawkman-tells-all-in-smallville-interview/#comment-4108</link>
		<dc:creator>Wonder Woman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:32:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dailypop.wordpress.com/?p=4289#comment-4108</guid>
		<description>[...] The Justice Society&#039;s Hawkman tells all in Smallville interview [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The Justice Society&#39;s Hawkman tells all in Smallville interview [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on What makes a Doctor (Who)? by Nick G.</title>
		<link>http://dailypop.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/what-makes-a-doctor-who/#comment-4107</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick G.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:01:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dailypop.wordpress.com/?p=1910#comment-4107</guid>
		<description>Oh, I&#039;ll completely agree that RTD should have left after series 2. Bring in Tennant, then hand Moffat the reigns. I won&#039;t argue that point at all. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, I&#8217;ll completely agree that RTD should have left after series 2. Bring in Tennant, then hand Moffat the reigns. I won&#8217;t argue that point at all. <img src='http://s.wordpress.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on What makes a Doctor (Who)? by dailypop</title>
		<link>http://dailypop.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/what-makes-a-doctor-who/#comment-4106</link>
		<dc:creator>dailypop</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:25:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dailypop.wordpress.com/?p=1910#comment-4106</guid>
		<description>Oh and cheers for the comment, Nick.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh and cheers for the comment, Nick.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on What makes a Doctor (Who)? by dailypop</title>
		<link>http://dailypop.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/what-makes-a-doctor-who/#comment-4105</link>
		<dc:creator>dailypop</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:21:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dailypop.wordpress.com/?p=1910#comment-4105</guid>
		<description>Nick is also the guy responsible for introducing me to Doctor Who. As I recall it he (somehow) transformed the entire program up until The Five Doctors into one narrative. Just stop for a moment and wrap your head around that. One phone call. I guess I cashed in that moment if he read not only the very long post here but also the comments below. Jeeze. That&#039;s dedication. 

I recognize that RTD is the guy who brought the series back (and even emailed him thanks for doing so), but his grasp is so tight that it prevents the series from the greatness it should exhibit. Every episode could easily be Empty Child or Impossible Planet for that case. I really like the first 2.5 years of the BSG reboot but unfortunately it is 4 seasons long. FOUR. Maybe that&#039;s related to my disdain for RTD. Sure he brought back Doctor Who, but it is a shadow of its former self, he should have left about after series 2.

And yes, David Tennant has enormous teeth... that he talks through.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nick is also the guy responsible for introducing me to Doctor Who. As I recall it he (somehow) transformed the entire program up until The Five Doctors into one narrative. Just stop for a moment and wrap your head around that. One phone call. I guess I cashed in that moment if he read not only the very long post here but also the comments below. Jeeze. That&#8217;s dedication. </p>
<p>I recognize that RTD is the guy who brought the series back (and even emailed him thanks for doing so), but his grasp is so tight that it prevents the series from the greatness it should exhibit. Every episode could easily be Empty Child or Impossible Planet for that case. I really like the first 2.5 years of the BSG reboot but unfortunately it is 4 seasons long. FOUR. Maybe that&#8217;s related to my disdain for RTD. Sure he brought back Doctor Who, but it is a shadow of its former self, he should have left about after series 2.</p>
<p>And yes, David Tennant has enormous teeth&#8230; that he talks through.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on What makes a Doctor (Who)? by Nick G.</title>
		<link>http://dailypop.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/what-makes-a-doctor-who/#comment-4104</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick G.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:09:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dailypop.wordpress.com/?p=1910#comment-4104</guid>
		<description>(For anyone else reading this: DailyPop and I have known each other for thirty years. :) )

I followed the Classic Series on public television up until Colin Baker, when it was unceremoniously yanked from the program lineup. It didn&#039;t hurt that I think Colin Baker, as the Doctor, was why animals eat their young. But for the first Five Doctors, I was a rabid fan, as DailyPop can attest to. 

&quot;But it has very little relationship to the classic series.&quot; 

I think your vitriol is misguided. Sure, the RTD stories aren&#039;t for everyone (I find some of them to be ... lacking), but the Moffat stories IMO more than make up for it. I&#039;ll agree that the new series might not be for everyone - just like some of the classic series might not be for everyone (I can&#039;t stand the Pertwee or Colin Baker years, for example). 

But you&#039;re missing the point - whether the RTD stories are good, or bad, or are a reboot of the Classic Series, or have little relation to the Classic Series (and I disagree with you on this point - the nice thing about being a Time Lord is that you can reboot the character yet still maintain ties to the original series, all you need is a TARDIS and a Sonic Screwdriver), the fact remains that if it weren&#039;t for RTD, we wouldn&#039;t have ANY new Doctor Who to speak about at all. 

Personally, I find the new series engaging, catchy, and ultimately one of the best shows on TV. It&#039;s far better than the reboot of BSG was, and while V shows promise, I&#039;m withholding judgement for the time being. 

And for the record - Tennant is a phenomenal actor. The dude has chops that most people don&#039;t realize. 

:)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(For anyone else reading this: DailyPop and I have known each other for thirty years. <img src='http://s.wordpress.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  )</p>
<p>I followed the Classic Series on public television up until Colin Baker, when it was unceremoniously yanked from the program lineup. It didn&#8217;t hurt that I think Colin Baker, as the Doctor, was why animals eat their young. But for the first Five Doctors, I was a rabid fan, as DailyPop can attest to. </p>
<p>&#8220;But it has very little relationship to the classic series.&#8221; </p>
<p>I think your vitriol is misguided. Sure, the RTD stories aren&#8217;t for everyone (I find some of them to be &#8230; lacking), but the Moffat stories IMO more than make up for it. I&#8217;ll agree that the new series might not be for everyone &#8211; just like some of the classic series might not be for everyone (I can&#8217;t stand the Pertwee or Colin Baker years, for example). </p>
<p>But you&#8217;re missing the point &#8211; whether the RTD stories are good, or bad, or are a reboot of the Classic Series, or have little relation to the Classic Series (and I disagree with you on this point &#8211; the nice thing about being a Time Lord is that you can reboot the character yet still maintain ties to the original series, all you need is a TARDIS and a Sonic Screwdriver), the fact remains that if it weren&#8217;t for RTD, we wouldn&#8217;t have ANY new Doctor Who to speak about at all. </p>
<p>Personally, I find the new series engaging, catchy, and ultimately one of the best shows on TV. It&#8217;s far better than the reboot of BSG was, and while V shows promise, I&#8217;m withholding judgement for the time being. </p>
<p>And for the record &#8211; Tennant is a phenomenal actor. The dude has chops that most people don&#8217;t realize. </p>
<p> <img src='http://s.wordpress.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on What makes a Doctor (Who)? by dailypop</title>
		<link>http://dailypop.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/what-makes-a-doctor-who/#comment-4103</link>
		<dc:creator>dailypop</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dailypop.wordpress.com/?p=1910#comment-4103</guid>
		<description>&quot;Why try to take the most destructive interpretation and thereby destroy the characterization for yorself? Obviously, if the series offers any concrete proof for my suggested interpretation being wrong, go ahead and bring it. I haven’t seen the old series, so I have to rely on you to do so.&quot;

I have no idea what you mean by a &#039;destructive interpretation.&#039; And no, it is not my responsibility to supply you with information on the classic series. I have written several blog posts on the subject that you can read but if you really want to know what you&#039;re talking about, you can investigate it yourself. I have already gone through the trouble of documenting the differences in character from the classic to the new series Doctor in the post above anyway. 

&quot;“Viewing the relationship between the Doctor and companion as necessarily a romantic one is absurd.”
I never said that. I just said I’m not surprised that it did happen. Why are you? &quot;

Because, as I have pointed out, it is not in character. 

&quot;May be happening, as in possible and not untrue until the show says otherwise. &quot;

So your interpretation of vague possibilities remains true until proven false. Again, there is a much easier truth with actual facts supporting it that this version of the character was created to serve the purpose of the program. To do so they made him obsessed with pop culture, lovelorn and magical. None of these qualities are from the original material and actually contradict the character as he was written.

&quot;Sure, you’ve got more facts to back it, but that only helps you out as long as there are any facts speaking against the interpretation of someone else.&quot;

No, it is a process in confirming a statement by supporting it with facts. What you have been doing is formulating reasons behind facts. When I show that they are empty you maintain that they are possible. 

I have already addressed that is possible by stating that &#039;one man&#039;s stout is another&#039;s lager.&#039; The new series works for you, you enjoy it. But it has very little relationship to the classic series. Unless you want to gather some information to support your argument by actually watching the original series I&#039;m not sure where you want to take this. Discussing vague possibilities is pointless unless you are discussing fan fiction.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Why try to take the most destructive interpretation and thereby destroy the characterization for yorself? Obviously, if the series offers any concrete proof for my suggested interpretation being wrong, go ahead and bring it. I haven’t seen the old series, so I have to rely on you to do so.&#8221;</p>
<p>I have no idea what you mean by a &#8216;destructive interpretation.&#8217; And no, it is not my responsibility to supply you with information on the classic series. I have written several blog posts on the subject that you can read but if you really want to know what you&#8217;re talking about, you can investigate it yourself. I have already gone through the trouble of documenting the differences in character from the classic to the new series Doctor in the post above anyway. </p>
<p>&#8220;“Viewing the relationship between the Doctor and companion as necessarily a romantic one is absurd.”<br />
I never said that. I just said I’m not surprised that it did happen. Why are you? &#8221;</p>
<p>Because, as I have pointed out, it is not in character. </p>
<p>&#8220;May be happening, as in possible and not untrue until the show says otherwise. &#8221;</p>
<p>So your interpretation of vague possibilities remains true until proven false. Again, there is a much easier truth with actual facts supporting it that this version of the character was created to serve the purpose of the program. To do so they made him obsessed with pop culture, lovelorn and magical. None of these qualities are from the original material and actually contradict the character as he was written.</p>
<p>&#8220;Sure, you’ve got more facts to back it, but that only helps you out as long as there are any facts speaking against the interpretation of someone else.&#8221;</p>
<p>No, it is a process in confirming a statement by supporting it with facts. What you have been doing is formulating reasons behind facts. When I show that they are empty you maintain that they are possible. </p>
<p>I have already addressed that is possible by stating that &#8216;one man&#8217;s stout is another&#8217;s lager.&#8217; The new series works for you, you enjoy it. But it has very little relationship to the classic series. Unless you want to gather some information to support your argument by actually watching the original series I&#8217;m not sure where you want to take this. Discussing vague possibilities is pointless unless you are discussing fan fiction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
