I think you may not have understood the purpose of this exercise. Brad was pretty clear he thinks this "problem" of social issues hiding under book covers with spaceships on them emerged in the last 20 years. These are just a few examples showing that that very thing has been a big part of SF since the early '50s, with tongue-in-cheek commentary. (Sarcasm, I know, does not translate well to the written word.)

I'm not so convinced that that was the only solution to the problem of the Silence. The Doctor has always excelled at finding impossible solutions, and at defeating his enemies without killing them. Does this mean I didn't think it was an ingenious solution? No. Does this mean I didn't like the episode? Of course not. But I certainly don't think we're expected to conclude that it was the right thing to do just because the Doctor did it. We now know he has had to make rules to keep himself in line. I think we've started to see him breaking those rules... and I'm very interested to see where that leads.

@SMD: Thanks for the reference; Brotherton does seem to know more about the details of this case than anyone else writing about it. For those interested, it's well worth reading this: http://www.mikebrotherton.com/2010/12/14/follow-up-on-martin-gaskells-lawsuit-of-the-university-of-kentucky/ @Chris: Good point. Chasing a step beyond your link, it seems the relevant law is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_VII I'm not sure how that actually applies in terms of Gaskell vs. the mole people. Everything I know about lawsuits I learned from watching "The Practice," and is to therefore not to be trusted an inch beyond the distance I can throw Dylan McDermott.

Thank you, sir! NWfO was and is a great resource.