Ephelyon

Okay, so for some reason that user can't write to the Desktop.ini file that's in that folder... Is the 'execute in user security context' option on for the Preference setting?

Probably - so I'd guess it's a question of where it's trying to write to. Is the equivalent path for %HomeShare% also where users' My Documents redirects to, for example?

%HomeShare% should resolve to the home folder attribute in AD.

Is the %HomeShare%\desktop.ini path valid for your environment?

Bear in mind that this is a user GPO setting, so it applies on logon. Your users will have to log on at least once (sometimes it seems to take a couple of times) before the change is in place for their folder. I'd maybe test it with a couple and then leave it a week or so, and see how it looks then...

What that GPP preference is doing is not renaming anything, but essentially deleting a property out of the desktop.ini file so that Explorer's behaviour of giving the folders a different name is not triggered.

Have you replicated the solution in my original post?

Just had this e-mail through from Microsoft. First time anyone's told me what BETT actually stands for... (Even if it does contain a typo!)

I remember saying that a while ago. Specifically, that it felt as though the developmental level being targeted by this series had been reduced from about 12 to about 9.

… all 10 seconds of the actual trailer!

I enjoyed this one too. Particularly, at the end, I thought: "now that was a Doctor's exit!"

Yes, this one was definitely better. Excellent stuff on grief from Bradley Walsh. We finally had the "companions arguing with the Doctor" moment, and she got to convey a bit of wisdom for the first time too, so this is good stuff. There were a few moments when I definitely believed this was The Doctor, which hadn't happened for me before in this series. If the second series is consistently much more like this, then I think they'll finally have found their groove. That said... I echo what's been said above about the talking frog. It's like... someone who'd read about children but had never met one was asked what they thought might appeal to them... I mean, it's a kids' show (in some ways) so I can definitely forgive a talking frog. I can totally forgive it. But only if you can give me a damn good explanation as to why there's a talking frog. And there just kinda wasn't one... :/

https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/11/quarter-people-executed-witchcraft-were-men-and-other-surprising-facts Gendercide Watch: European Witch-Hunts https://www.purplemotes.net/2015/11/08/witch-hunt-gender/ All concur that around 1 in 4 of the victims were male. The third is a long read but it does note that "about three times more women than men were executed as witches", putting the men at about a quarter. I said that the victims were predominantly female, which at 3 in 4 is true, although 1 in 4 males I would argue is also "plenty" given the total numbers we're talking about. I also said there was no inclination to discriminate as to gender when bringing a trial, of which what happened in Salem in 1692 would be a very good example.

Actually, they didn't bother discriminating on gender when it came to witchcraft. The victims were predominantly female, but there were also plenty of males.

Rumour and speculation video:

Well, this was... different. There's been a lot of commentary linking these themes to Amazon, although of course we also have a direct reference to "Sports Di-" ... which is another example of NuWho being far too blatant, I think. There were some good bits in this. That said, I did find the "reveal" with both Slade and Charlie to be too rapid and lacking in drama. We'd spent a good portion of the episode building up the latter's humanity, only to see it ripped away over 30 seconds or so. And with the former, we obviously weren't supposed to like him, but then he gives about two sentences in defence and the Doctor basically says "oh okay, you're good then". Doctor Who is a children's show, yes, but even for children, that's not how understanding real life or real people works... I must say, I found that Charlie's character towards the end reminded me at times of Adric, and of "The Boy That Time Forgot".

That could be a good idea! Although... some of the argument among the wider fan base has been around not so much individual episodes, but this series as a whole and how frequently political elements with a particular agenda are seen by some to have been appearing. Perhaps, then, we should wait until the end of this series and then compare the whole thing to a former series? That said, we could do a single-episode comparison in the meantime. I don't have any suggestions at the moment though, but I'll go and think about it... =]

What was demonstrated was why it was bad, and how things had got that way when they didn't start out that way, i.e. it was a much more complex analysis than NuWho seems to be capable of (at this stage).

Nice to know you, erm, hold us all in such high esteem... But I do completely agree that there have always been shows like that, or which specifically did it in that sort of way. I'm just saying that Who wasn't necessarily that way, in terms of the way it was done, but it now seems much more like that.

Well, I wasn't around at the time of broadcast for some of them... I think the best response I could give is that, if we are indeed more conscious of what the production team are going for these days, that's because they want us to be. And that's what some of us don't like - many things now are better than they were in the 60s and 70s (and before), but one thing that isn't is that we seem to have lost our understanding of subtlety. Sometimes people can hear things quietly that they can't hear loudly. TNG was well-known for talking about moral issues, yes. But that show - mostly - had the wisdom to allow the moral aspects to fall into the backdrop somewhat, so that you had the room to think about them independently. Being "in the backdrop" doesn't necessarily mean they weren't front-and-centre to the plot; they often were. But moral development is taught by exposing people to an ambiguity and then encouraging them to resolve that ambiguity within themselves. It does not arise from people being told what to think, because it's portrayed as "obvious". Indeed, the characters were often seen to struggle with moral issues before eventually drawing a conclusion, and that's critical. Morality was presented as crucial, but not an externally-defined absolute, and understanding that is a big part of developing empathy. I'm not really seeing much grasp of this concept in NuWho. The TNG episode "The Drumhead" would be a good example of the way that show taught about morals, but without being preachy. Indeed, the figure in that story who is preachy gets shot down in flames at the end, and quite right too. Although actually, at the end of that story, she falls on her own sword, having finally realised that she had gone too far herself, so we can respect her at least a little for that in the closing moments. Difficult to imagine any of today's SJWs doing anything like that... :/

This is clearly a very well-researched list, and brings back some good memories! That said, I fear it misses the point. Doctor Who has always commented on social and cultural issues, yes, in much the same way as Star Trek has. It mainly used metaphor and allegory to allude to both past and present affairs in the real world. When it did so - albeit with varying degrees of success down the years, as with many shows - it encouraged people to think for themselves. This new formula does not do that. When I have watched older episodes of Doctor Who in the past, or Star Trek for that matter (particularly TNG), I have felt as though I'm being presented with something to consider and then being encouraged to consider it. The narrative presents those perspectives, but then it gets out of the way a bit and leaves me with room to explore what I think about that. But when I watch this new Doctor Who, I just don't feel that way. I feel as though I'm being led inexorably towards a conclusion that I'm obliged to draw, and which in many cases I could have told you in ten seconds flat after seeing the pre-broadcast teaser. There is no space for me to formulate my own view, because the conclusion was always "obvious". That is not how you teach anyone anything. And as for pouring scorn over those who are unhappy with this? Well... the saying goes that a poor workman blames his tools. Perhaps a poor teacher blames their students.

They certainly can. But it works less well when it's not so much a lesson as a force-feeding, and that has felt very apparent in this series at times. Tonight's episode was well done in parts, particularly towards the end, although I felt the early dialogue was quite stilted. There were important messages about family, about shared history and culture, and - very significantly - unity through choice, although it also felt as though the writers had particular thoughts in the backs of their minds when they conceived how they would represent the foe element. That said, I found the timing around this episode's airing particularly disheartening. Today, we marked 100 years since the end of a period in which millions of people, Brits as well as many others from what we would now call the Commonwealth, gave their lives in the cause of freedom. That freedom does, I suppose, extend to screening an episode of a much-loved British institution that very directly criticises the country and - surely to the minds of many who died - the Empire that those people fought to defend and protect. There is certainly a time and a place for scrutinising and indeed criticising Britain's past, as well as that of many other countries. But perhaps it was not today.

Another thing I didn't like was that Astos gets one over on the Doctor quite early on about "being selfish", which just isn't very Who. It's widely acknowledged throughout the series that the Doctor does have faults, but she's not supposed to get out-moralled by a random side-character in about 30 seconds flat. Anyone else feel that?

Same feeling here. I'll still watch it though; there have been other Who episodes that were panned midway through a series but as a whole it turned out alright. That said, I will come out and say I don't think they're using Whittaker to her best at this point. Then again, that's been said about other Doctors at the same stage in their run too (Capaldi being a good example).

Agreed. I don't feel like it ever used to do that, no, but the worry is that it might be starting to. The initial signs are usually quite small. And the other trouble is - and this is what makes me think "SJW" sometimes - is that actually no, there is no such thing as something we "all universally agree on". In a truly liberal society, there cannot be. There must be laws of course, yes, and people must be protected from harm, but liberalism means that literally no subject is untouchable, no philosophy or moral is absolute, and no opinions should ever be shouted down. The instant you rip up that unwritten rule, for any topic or any reason whatsoever, the decline has begun. SJWs do not understand that, and the way they get their claws in is quite insidious at first. The initial signs tend to look something like this: ... and the worry for some people, I think, is: on its own it's nothing, and not something to start ranting about, but... is it a sign that we're going to have more of it? Well, that's when the cynicism kicks in for some people, I guess. I mean, I understand what they're getting at, but it doesn't really bother me. Then again, that's always going to be subjective depending on one's past experiences.