Riker claimed in “Lonely Among Us” that humans ”no longer enslave animals for food purposes.”
There are so many other purposes.
Riker claimed in “Lonely Among Us” that humans ”no longer enslave animals for food purposes.”
There are so many other purposes.
policies and legislation that undermine competitiveness, delay project development and disproportionately harm specific provinces and territories without any quantifiable benefits to the natural environment
What.
Faint praise, but this one's a lot better than the first part of the story. The "farting" aspect of the farting aliens is significantly downplayed in favour of things that are actually interesting.
The emotional core of the story is the Doctor and Rose each coming to terms with how dangerous life with the Doctor is, and the effects it can have. I'd forgotten that Harriet Jones, MP for Flydale North comments on how flippant Rose is about death, even at this early stage (too early?) of the series.
There are plot contrivances all over the place - the UK's nuclear codes are controlled by the UN! You can hack the Royal Navy's submarines and launch missiles from your home PC! But I'm pretty forgiving of stuff like that, as long as the emotional core of the episode is solid.
I understand the frustration, but at this point, getting it done in 2025 likely isn't realistic - certainly not getting it done by the end of cycling season.
It's a big one - I was feeling ambitious.
"I basically pitched the Doctor too quick but I did it in my very first episode and I've regretted it ever since!"
I...don't disagree. Even by Doctor Who standards, Thirteen's dialogue tended to fly by pretty quickly.
I'm not 100% certain, but the new season might show up on Crave, as well.
Which is also something you have to pay for, of course, but at least there are options?
Metric math.
I'm not completely against the ads - sure, they're crass, but we live in a society, y'know?
But at least make them seamless.
I think half the fanbase takes the Bombers for granted because they've been CFL mainstays, half wrote them off because they're getting old, and the third half just wants to talk about Toronto.
I've started and stopped trying to put together a reply to this several times, and I'm not really any closer to anything coherent.
The bottom line is that I have historically liked Fontaine as an MLA. I think her concern - obstructed sightlines from the stage - is understandable.
But I can't fathom expressing those frustrations in that manner. There's really no excuse. Whether that's worth a resignation...I don't know. I wouldn't be mad if she stepped down, but I'm also not necessarily mad that she hasn't. I guess time will tell whether she learned anything.