Now this is just slightly weird and kind of cool at the same time.:
http://us.imdb.com/news/ns0000002/
QuoteDr Who Dating Daughter?
5 June 2008 9:05 AM, PDT
Doctor Who star David Tennant has sparked rumours he is dating his on-screen daughter Georgia Moffett - after they were spotted leaving his London home together on Saturday.
Moffett is the real life daughter of former Time Lord Peter Davison and stars alongside Tennant in the latest series of the hit sci-fi show.
The blonde beauty, 23, was photographed leaving the 37-year-old actor's North London home after reportedly spending the night there.
Tennant was then spotted arriving at Moffett's West London property later that day and did not leave until Sunday morning - prompting speculation the pair is dating.
The Scottish star recently split from his girlfriend of four months, Bethan Britton, who he met while working on the BBC production in Cardiff, Wales.
Moffett has a six-year-old son, Tyler, from a previous relationship
That character doesn't even show up in the USA airings of
Dr. Who until tomorrow night on Sci-Fi Channel.
- Ed C.
She's a hottie!
EDIT:
(http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/5987/drdaughteryi9.jpg)
Kid at 17.
Nice.
Quote from: WerekoalaKid at 17.
Nice.
Guest starring in Doctor Who at 24.
Even better!
Quote from: DrewGuest starring in Doctor Who at 24.
Even better!
Sleeping with the guy who is playing the current incarnation of the part that your Father played:
Priceless.
Quote from: James J SkachSleeping with the guy who is playing the current incarnation of the part that your Father played:
Priceless.
And who's playing your father on the show, at that! Methinks little miss Moffett has daddy issues.
RPGPundit
Quote from: James J SkachSleeping with the guy who is playing the current incarnation of the part that your Father played:
Priceless.
So her being spotted leaving Tennant's house proves they're shagging?
It's a cynical age we live in. A sexy, cynical age.
Quote from: DrewSo her being spotted leaving Tennant's house proves they're shagging?
It's a cynical age we live in. A sexy, cynical age.
Proof? We don't need no stinking proof...
I'm just along for the ride, boys....
Quote from: James J SkachSleeping with the guy who is playing the current incarnation of the part that your Father played:
Priceless.
:win:
Quote from: KoltarMoffett has a six-year-old son, Tyler, from a previous relationship
Gays are fighting to get married while heterosexuals seem to be losing all interest in it.
Thank goodness for that.
RPGPundit
Quote from: John MorrowGays are fighting to get married while heterosexuals seem to be losing all interest in it.
Good to see some folk still believe in the sanctity of marriage though, eh?
Personally I strongly support gay marriage, I fail to see how an institution is brought into disrepute by people wanting to enter into it.
That said, most straight people still get married and marriage is still portrayed in our culture as the natural destination of a lifetime relationship commitment (and most people still want such a commitment), so I think the show's not over for it yet.
Oh please, marriage as it was originally conceived was a brilliant institution: your family essentially arranged it for you, for political reasons; you got to have sex with your wife as much as you liked, but didn't have to spend very much time with her apart from that. Once she gave you a male heir, she was free to spend time with her ladies-in-waiting and the kids, and you were free to fuck whoever you liked.
Marriage as conceived of in the late 19th and 20th centuries, on the other hand, is a bizzare and absurd institution inspired by a puritan-victorian fairytale.
And in the 21st century, the age of the no-fault divorce, its even more ridiculous: marriage has gotten to the point that all it represents is either a way to tell your girlfriend that you like her "extra much" and want to be together with her for at least a couple of years longer, or a "sacred institution" that helps people show off how much they hate gays.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditOh please, marriage as it was originally conceived was a brilliant institution: your family essentially arranged it for you, for political reasons; you got to have sex with your wife as much as you liked, but didn't have to spend very much time with her apart from that. Once she gave you a male heir, she was free to spend time with her ladies-in-waiting and the kids, and you were free to fuck whoever you liked.
Marriage as conceived of in the late 19th and 20th centuries, on the other hand, is a bizzare and absurd institution inspired by a puritan-victorian fairytale.
And in the 21st century, the age of the no-fault divorce, its even more ridiculous: marriage has gotten to the point that all it represents is either a way to tell your girlfriend that you like her "extra much" and want to be together with her for at least a couple of years longer, or a "sacred institution" that helps people show off how much they hate gays.
RPGPundit
You know Pundy, roughly 52% of people answering to "you" are in fact female.
Your analysis ignores that 52%, almost as if you didn't consider them real people.
I think you'll also find that historically most women didn't actually have ladies in waiting, indeed in societies that had that role the position of lady in waiting was itself beyond the most ambitious dreams of most women.
Yes, but the only people who MATTERED had ladies-in-waiting. Kinda like today.
Quote from: John MorrowGays are fighting to get married while heterosexuals seem to be losing all interest in it.
Weren't you bitching about the "fallacy of the excluded middle" over in the "It's Obama's Party Now" thread? Besides, try these on for size:
- Want to make heterosexuals more interested in the institution of marriage? Forbid them from getting married at all.
- Want to make marriage less appealing to homosexuals? Make it so that society expects them all to get married.
- What the hell does this really have to do with David Tennant dating Georgia Moffett?
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaWeren't you bitching about the "fallacy of the excluded middle" over in the "It's Obama's Party Now" thread?
It was a semi-serious observation.
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaWhat the hell does this really have to do with David Tennant dating Georgia Moffett?
I thought that was pretty clear. The article mentioned that she had a son from a previous "relationship" which suggests that she was not only not married but had the child at 17. Not too long ago, that would have been considered a scandalous revelation and now it is casually mentioned as an aside.
Hypothetically: She might really have loved that guy when she was 17, thought he was going to marry her( and all that stuff).
Then he turns out to be a jerk or not responsible enough and she decides to have the kid and raise the child anyway .
Yay Georgia!!
I just post the thread start because I thought it was mildly amusing a: A "Doctor" dating the daughter of another , previous "Doictor". The Time Lord is one of the few characters on TV that could happen with .
(Unless Zachary Quinto winds up dating either Nimoy or Shatner's daughter)
for the record : I'm all in favor of marriages, Gay and Lesbian marriages included. Why the hell not ? If they want the big silly parties and the additional stresses and headaches and love each other enough to go through all that stuff - then Cool!!
More power to them!!
I like DOCTOR WHO shows in general - the other reason I posted that . (Some of you also seem to like DOCTOR WHO stories it appears...)
- Ed C.
Quote from: BalbinusYou know Pundy, roughly 52% of people answering to "you" are in fact female.
Your analysis ignores that 52%, almost as if you didn't consider them real people.
Frankly, I'm not entirely sure that the current system does anything better for that 52% of people either. I sure as hell know that it doesn't do fuck all of good for the poor bastards that make up the 48% side of the equation.
Really, the whole system is set up to create absurdly false hopes and impossible expectations all around. That's why its such a joke these days.
QuoteI think you'll also find that historically most women didn't actually have ladies in waiting, indeed in societies that had that role the position of lady in waiting was itself beyond the most ambitious dreams of most women.
Yeah, I know, but I was speaking from the position of personal family history... if you like, replace "ladies in waiting" with "the other women of the village".
RPGPundit
Quote from: KoltarI just post the thread start because I thought it was mildly amusing a: A "Doctor" dating the daughter of another , previous "Doictor". The Time Lord is one of the few characters on TV that could happen with .
(Unless Zachary Quinto winds up dating either Nimoy or Shatner's daughter)
Or Timothy Dalton started dating Pierce Brosnan's son.
RPGPundit
Quote from: John MorrowQuote from: Ian AbsentiaWhat the hell does this really have to do with David Tennant dating Georgia Moffett?
I thought that was pretty clear. The article mentioned that she had a son from a previous "relationship" which suggests that she was not only not married but had the child at 17. Not too long ago, that would have been considered a scandalous revelation and now it is casually mentioned as an aside.
And you conveniently neglect to clarify your implied disdain for gay marriage as well.
Get a fucking blog, John.
!i!
Quote from: RPGPunditOr Timothy Dalton started dating Pierce Brosnan's son.
RPGPundit
...somehow that must lead to puns involving bondage...
- Ed C.
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAnd you conveniently neglect to clarify your implied disdain for gay marriage as well.
Actually, I'm not particularly opposed to gay marriage. I simply find it ironic.
(If you want to know my priorities, I'd happily support gay marriage in exchange for criminal anti-adultery laws and an end to no-fault divorce. I also unequivocally support civil unions.)
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaGet a fucking blog, John.
Whatever, Kyle.
So! What'd you guys think of the episode?
I thought it was pretty OK, but I wanted to know more about the fish-dudes.
Quote from: Dr Rotwang!So! What'd you guys think of the episode?
I thought it was pretty OK, but I wanted to know more about the fish-dudes.
They were good, and I get the feeling they have to make a return appraeance - if for no other reason than it looks like the makeup and costume people had fun making that design.
The Daughter character, Jenny was an interesting idea.....and they set her up for a return. The Doctor's confession about his past family to Donna was good....and does explain why we don't hear him refer to Susan at all.
- Ed C.
Quote from: John MorrowIf you want to know my priorities, I'd happily support gay marriage in exchange for criminal anti-adultery laws and an end to no-fault divorce.
You're a laugh-riot, John. You know that legislating morality has never worked, right? No, wait. You clearly don't. Makes you feel good about yourself when the microscope isn't trained on you, though, right?
Quote from: Dr Rotwang!...I wanted to know more about the fish-dudes.
Were they the Sea Devils?
!i!
Naah, kept callin' 'em "Hath", somethin'.
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYou're a laugh-riot, John. You know that legislating morality has never worked, right? No, wait. You clearly don't. Makes you feel good about yourself when the microscope isn't trained on you, though, right?
All laws are legislated morality. Makes you feel superior about yourself imagining that you are somehow above mere morality, doesn't it?
And what's wrong with treating marriage as an actual monogamy contract? Don't want monogamy, don't get married.
John Morrow!,
Did you even watch the new DOCTOR WHO episode?
Do you tend to watch the show at all??
Or did you just want to argue over one detail that was mentioned in relation ms. Georgia Moffat??
Zheesh!!!
I can see why Tennant would be attracted to her
- Ed C.
Quote from: John MorrowAll laws are legislated morality. Makes you feel superior about yourself imagining that you are somehow above mere morality, doesn't it?
Yes, yes, I'm beyond good and evil, John. Or maybe I'm not arrogant enough to take satisfaction in seeing others punished for not conducting their personal affairs according to my personal standards.
You're really beginning to squirm now that your pet and his toadies are on their way out now, aren't you?
!i!
(P.S.
All laws are legislated morality? You really are a laugh riot. I'll remember that the next time I stop at a red light. That's an
awfully long stretch of the concept of "morality".)
Wow, criminal anti-adultery laws! Better build a lot of new prisons.
Quote from: droogWow, criminal anti-adultery laws! Better build a lot of new prisons.
Maybe they can double-bunk with all the pot smokers already there.
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaOr maybe I'm not arrogant enough to take satisfaction in seeing others punished for not conducting their personal affairs according to my personal standards.
Maybe this will make you feel better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyRQljpkf34&feature=related
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David RMaybe this will make you feel better.
Sadly, I am not an avenging angel of God. I am, however, beginning to suspect that John is.
!i!
Quote from: droogWow, criminal anti-adultery laws! Better build a lot of new prisons.
Sent to prison because of adultery, become someone's bitch and then commit adultery again. It's a vicious cycle, I tell ya.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: John MorrowAll laws are legislated morality. Makes you feel superior about yourself imagining that you are somehow above mere morality, doesn't it?
And what's wrong with treating marriage as an actual monogamy contract? Don't want monogamy, don't get married.
That doesn't seem very different from the existing situation, as far as I understand it. If a business relation breaks a contract, the other side can sue them in civil court, where the terms of the contract are held as grounds against them -- though other factors are also considered. If the other party does not sue over breach of contract, nothing is done. If the breach doesn't involve any monetary harm, then the suit is unlikely to result in much penalty.
If a person cheats and their partner divorces them, the adultery is generally held against them -- i.e. the court will favor against them in judging splits such as custody of children and division of shared assets. In neither case would the charge go to criminal court, though. If someone wants to insist on specific penalties for adultery, they can include those in a pre-nuptial agreement.
Quote from: David RSent to prison because of adultery, become someone's bitch and then commit adultery again. It's a vicious cycle, I tell ya.
Oh of course the liberals are going to scream that prisons are just a training ground for adulterers...
Duplicate
Quote from: KoltarDo you tend to watch the show at all??
Yes, I watch the show. The episode was good and she's not really a daughter -- more of a variant clone.
I made a comment in passing which was actually about a comment in the article.
Quote from: KoltarI can see why Tennant would be attracted to her
Yeah, why think about her child or anything else about the article when I could make superficial comments about her appearance.
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYes, yes, I'm beyond good and evil, John. Or maybe I'm not arrogant enough to take satisfaction in seeing others punished for not conducting their personal affairs according to my personal standards.
If marriage were simply a matter of "personal affairs", there would be little reason for gays and lesbians to fight for it.
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYou're really beginning to squirm now that your pet and his toadies are on their way out now, aren't you?
You mistake me for someone who thinks Obama is going to win the election or that the Democrats, if they gain power, will hold on to it for more than a few years.
Quote from: Ian Absentia(P.S. All laws are legislated morality? You really are a laugh riot. I'll remember that the next time I stop at a red light. That's an awfully long stretch of the concept of "morality".)
Yes, putting in a red light and demanding that I stop at it is legislated morality. Why should I be obliged to stop at a red light even if there is clearly no traffic coming, for example? If stopping at red lights were some sort of law of nature or unchallengeable necessity of life, why do we need punitive laws requiring people to stop at them? Wouldn't they just do so willingly? Of course given the large number of people who still drive through red lights in certain circumstances (very common for "No Turn on Red" intersections but also common, for example, at long lights late at night) shouldn't we consider such laws failed attempts at legislating morality and simply repeal them?
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaSadly, I am not an avenging angel of God. I am, however, beginning to suspect that John is.
It would seem that way to someone who is being good and evil and morality, I suppose. Please note that I never specified a punishment. My use of the term "criminal" was to specify that I was talking about penal law rather civil law, which does not necessarily require jail time or harsh punishment.
Quotes rearranged to make replying easier:
Quote from: jhkimThat doesn't seem very different from the existing situation, as far as I understand it. [...] If a person cheats and their partner divorces them, the adultery is generally held against them -- i.e. the court will favor against them in judging splits such as custody of children and division of shared assets.
Actually, that's not the case. I friend who lives not far from you (across the Bay) was served divorce papers by his wife and he was told that any evidence he might have of his wife having committed adultery was irrelevant to the division of assets and custody of the children. And I've heard plenty of other similar cases. In practice, many jurisdictions in the United States treat adultery, who filed for divorce, and why they are filing for divorce as irrelevant when it comes to assets, support, and child custody. The courts, like Ian, are apparently beyond good and evil and have no interest in legislating morality.
And yes, I'm fully aware that we can thank Ronald Reagan for California's no-fault divorce laws which he signed as governor.
Quote from: jhkimIf a business relation breaks a contract, the other side can sue them in civil court, where the terms of the contract are held as grounds against them -- though other factors are also considered. If the other party does not sue over breach of contract, nothing is done. If the breach doesn't involve any monetary harm, then the suit is unlikely to result in much penalty.
Correct. The problem is that marriage is often no longer legally considered a contract in any meaningful way and, in many cases, has become not only an agreement that either side can break with impunity but that the person breaking the agreement can use to their advantage punitively against their spouse.
Quote from: jhkimIn neither case would the charge go to criminal court, though. If someone wants to insist on specific penalties for adultery, they can include those in a pre-nuptial agreement.
Pre-nuptial agreements are not always binding in practice and can be overturnedin practice, especially for that sort of condition. I also think that an agreement to not commit adultery should be read into every marriage contract (just as the UCC is read into every business contract) automatically and if you want to change that, then write a pre-nuptial agreement saying so. And there are a few states experimenting with two tiers of marriage, one that's more binding and harder to get out of than the other.
I suppose I should also point out that as a monogamy contract rather than a partnership for the purpose of having children, gays and lesbians could make a strong moral case for marriage that would undermine on of the main "special nature of the marriage of a man and a woman" arguments against it.
Quote from: John MorrowYes, putting in a red light and demanding that I stop at it is legislated morality.
:haw: I just knew that if I handed you that example you'd stretch the definition of "morality" to near-breaking point. And you did not disappoint.
QuotePlease note that I never specified a punishment. My use of the term "criminal" was to specify that I was talking about penal law rather civil law, which does not necessarily require jail time or harsh punishment.
Emphasis in bold mine. But you are suggesting some kind of punishment. What a sad, sad joke you're making, John.
!i!
Quote from: Ian Absentia:haw: I just knew that if I handed you that example you'd stretch the definition of "morality" to near-breaking point.
And I was expecting an example like that, which doesn't prove your point. Other than driver inattention (e.g., not seeing the light) please tell me (A) why people blow through red lights (and I've seen and heard plenty of reasons, including a guy that I once worked with who had driven cabs in the Bronx and would blow through red lights with impunity because he didn't want to stop his cab in certain neighborhoods) and (B) why we need laws to tell people to stop at right lights.
ADDED: Here, let me help you out. To want to pass a law against any behavior, a person needs to assess that the behavior in question should be discouraged, that the force of law should be used to discourage it, that the cost of the discouragement and the problems caused by the behavior outweigh any possible benefit from the behavior and the benefits caused by it, and so on. All of those are personal moral assessments. You might find this article (http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,505246,00.html) and this article (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070318/26traffic.htm) interesting, about towns that have been removing traffic signs and regulations, including those at intersections, in order to
improve safety. But you are so morally sure of yourself, I presume you never considered advocating an idea like that was possible.
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAnd you did not disappoint.
Nor did you. But as usual, you don't really address the substance of the point. No wonder you like Obama. All style. No substance. You two are a good fit for each other.
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaEmphasis in bold mine. But you are suggesting some kind of punishment. What a sad, sad joke you're making, John.
Correct, but it's not a joke. Do you feel that adultery should play a role in the settlement from divorce proceedings and, if so, how?