XPost: rec.arts.drwho 
 From: Ian@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk 
  
 "FairPlay"  wrote in message 
 news:42b844da$0$290$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... 
 > 
 > "The Doctor"  wrote in message 
 > news:d99cv9$ppi$4@gallifrey.nk.ca... 
 >> In article <42b80cf8$0$304$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, 
 >> FairPlay  wrote: 
 >> > 
 >> >"The Doctor"  wrote in message 
 >> >news:d98vnj$g4a$16@gallifrey.nk.ca... 
 >> >> In article , 
 >> >> Ian Salsbury  wrote: 
 >> >> >>>> Still, do you rate RTD's participation in DW as good as 
 >> >> >>>> a producer's stint in the BBC Jerry Springer opera? 
 >> >> >>>> 
 >> >> >>> 
 >> >> >>>Eh? 
 >> >> >>> 
 >> >> >>> 
 >> >> >>> 
 >> >> >>> 
 >> >> >> 
 >> >> >> Repeat, do you think RTD's participation is as good as the producer 
 >> >> >> who made the Jerry Springer Opera the BBC was about to air? 
 >> >> > 
 >> >> >I can`t see what your`re on about here still. The Jerry Springer 
 >> >> >Opera 
 >> >was 
 >> >> >aired in the BBC, got about 3 or 4 million viewers, generally very 
 >> >positive 
 >> >> >reviews ( it had been a hugely successful west end production ) and a 
 > few 
 >> >> >hundred religious nutters threw their toys out of the pram. The vast 
 >> >> >majority of people saw no reason to be offended by it whatsoever. 
 > Exactly 
 >> >> >what this has to do with RTD`s involvement in Dr Who is beyond me. 
 >> >> >The 
 >> >> >public reaction to Dr Who has been overwhelmingly positive, a few 
 > people 
 >> >> >have complained it was too scary for the timeslot ( just like the 
 >> >> >good 
 >> >old 
 >> >> >days! ) but that was about it. 
 >> >> > 
 >> >> > 
 >> >> > 
 >> >> 
 >> >> Still let us help FP.  The Christians were rotesting 
 >> >> against  the defamation of religion, namely 
 >> >> Chritstianity. 
 >> >> 
 >> >> I wonder if FP would equate RTD to such a producer. 
 >> > 
 >> > 
 >> >No. 
 >> > 
 >> > 
 >> 
 >> Why?  AFAIK, the vility in JS is as bad as the innuendo in this season's 
 > DW. 
 > 
 > I think you have missed one of the fundamental reasons for my objections. 
 > Even though I have repeatedly laboured it. 
 > 
 > The queer/adult stuff bothers me not at all in and of itself. 
 > 
 > It is the fact that he has hijacked a childrens programme to promote his 
 > propaganda. 
 > 
 > Geddit? 
 > 
 > Do I care how many times Fuck is said in an production exclusively aimed 
 > at 
 > adults? 
 > No. 
  
 Well, I would agree with you if I thought that Dr Who HAD been hijacked to 
 promote homosexuality. If there were scenes or character`s that were 
 actively preaching to the audience that they should become gay than I would 
 understand your point. But to have a character that was clearly gay but 
 otherwise perfectly "normal" - what`s the problem? At the end of the day 
 someone is either gay or they`re not. Someone could blabber on all day about 
 the joys and wonder`s of sleeping with another man but at the end of it all 
 I still wouldn`t fancy another man`s naked arse. This "promote his 
 propaganda" line you keep using is laughable. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)