I think the point was - if you don't want Gallifrey to be a presence anymore, destroying it is shooting yourself in the foot.
i certainly agree with that, although i'm still not sure if that's what that particular commenter was trying to say (i think someone else in the thread said something like this though). and i know i personally don't think that the absence of the time lords is sufficiently explored, either for the doctor or the universe -- it's mentioned sometimes, but not actually as often as you'd expect given its importance, and so we're left wondering, well, why did RTD destroy it at all, then? well, the obvious reason is so the new show can have a kind of clean slate in certain respects -- or more accurately, a clear demarcation of now and before. it's the same show but there is quite a gap between 1989 and 2005, and how will this be represented in the show? because going back to the exact same storyline and format isn't going to cut it.
but anyway, my only true puzzlement comes from "moreso even than rose was". i can't understand a meaning where that doesn't imply either that gallifrey's absence should be brought up less often than rose's absence, or that bringing up rose is annoying but so is bringing up gallifrey. which i can understand if they're frustrated that they're not doing anything very thematically interesting with gallifrey's destruction, but surely there's no way to do *anything* interesting with it if it's never brought up at all?
And we can entirely ignore the Time Lord culture of Deadly Assassin
sexy poet shirt: yes. pathetic bureaucratic bumbling reminiscent of the bbc: no.
if you've listened to the gallifrey audios, i think there are some nice things in those, with the general atmosphere of pettiness, backstabbing, stagnation and arrogance, although the actual mechanics of government are bit... um. but points for effort, yes!
no subject
i certainly agree with that, although i'm still not sure if that's what that particular commenter was trying to say (i think someone else in the thread said something like this though). and i know i personally don't think that the absence of the time lords is sufficiently explored, either for the doctor or the universe -- it's mentioned sometimes, but not actually as often as you'd expect given its importance, and so we're left wondering, well, why did RTD destroy it at all, then? well, the obvious reason is so the new show can have a kind of clean slate in certain respects -- or more accurately, a clear demarcation of now and before. it's the same show but there is quite a gap between 1989 and 2005, and how will this be represented in the show? because going back to the exact same storyline and format isn't going to cut it.
but anyway, my only true puzzlement comes from "moreso even than rose was". i can't understand a meaning where that doesn't imply either that gallifrey's absence should be brought up less often than rose's absence, or that bringing up rose is annoying but so is bringing up gallifrey. which i can understand if they're frustrated that they're not doing anything very thematically interesting with gallifrey's destruction, but surely there's no way to do *anything* interesting with it if it's never brought up at all?
And we can entirely ignore the Time Lord culture of Deadly Assassin
sexy poet shirt: yes. pathetic bureaucratic bumbling reminiscent of the bbc: no.
if you've listened to the gallifrey audios, i think there are some nice things in those, with the general atmosphere of pettiness, backstabbing, stagnation and arrogance, although the actual mechanics of government are bit... um. but points for effort, yes!