XPost: rec.arts.drwho 
 From: not@home.com 
  
 "The Doctor"  wrote in message 
 news:d98vjn$g4a$14@gallifrey.nk.ca... 
 > In article <42b7ccca$0$290$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, 
 > FairPlay  wrote: 
 > > 
 > >"The Doctor"  wrote in message 
 > >news:d97jaj$47c$14@gallifrey.nk.ca... 
 > >> In article <42b6e7bf$0$292$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, 
 > >> FairPlay  wrote: 
 > >> > 
 > >> >"The Doctor"  wrote in message 
 > >> >news:d96j8o$bar$20@gallifrey.nk.ca... 
 > >> >> In article <42b6ba17$0$289$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, 
 > >> >> FairPlay  wrote: 
 > >> >> > 
 > >> >> >"The Doctor"  wrote in message 
 > >> >> >news:d94lsn$sqg$37@gallifrey.nk.ca... 
 > >> 
 > >> >> >The gay/unsuitable references, the commercial placements and the 
 > >> >plagiarisms 
 > >> >> >were there for all to see. 
 > >> >> 
 > >> >> Noted. 
 > >> > 
 > >> >Thanks. 
 > >> > 
 > >> 
 > >> You are welcome 
 > >> 
 > >> > 
 > >> >> > 
 > >> >> >First we had the outraged denials, the accusations that I was 
 > >trolling. 
 > >> >Then 
 > >> >> >episode after episode as the evidence built up we had the 
 > >somersaulting 
 > >> >> >denials - then the absurd justifications. 
 > >> >> 
 > >> >> Some people buy into the politically correct agenda. 
 > >> > 
 > >> >Indeed. 
 > >> 
 > >> Such is the current world. 
 > >> 
 > >> > 
 > >> >> > 
 > >> >> >It really was dumbed down dross. If he wasn't trying to insert his 
 > >> >political 
 > >> >> >propaganda it would have just been another BBC production of dumbed 
 > >down 
 > >> >> >dross. 
 > >> >> 
 > >> >> Are you saying the BBC has been infiltrated by the Politically 
 correct? 
 > >> > 
 > >> >Uhm. I think I've said it about 4,000 times. 
 > >> 
 > >> Yes would do. 
 > >> 
 > >> > 
 > >> >> > 
 > >> >> >As it was it was much more insidious than that and quite worrying 
 that 
 > >he 
 > >> >> >could get away with it so easily. 
 > >> >> > 
 > >> >> 
 > >> >> Write to the BBC and complain. 
 > >> > 
 > >> >Why? What good would it do? The BBC is a self-satisfied corporation 
 > >> >seemingly answerable to no one but itself. It is in the vanguard of 
 > >> >producing dumbed down TV. Others in positions of influence have 
 > >complained 
 > >> >repeatedly over time. Seems to have had no effect on the decay. 
 > >> > 
 > >> 
 > >> 1) Powell was a bully. 
 > >> 
 > >> 2) Yentob tried but the Yanks would not play 
 > >> 
 > >> 3) Lorraine got  it back, and now is the time for feedback. 
 > >> 
 > >> > 
 > >> > 
 > >> >> >The "gay" stuff was trailed as were teh kisses and the big brotehr 
 > >stuff. 
 > >> >> >RTD knew exactly what he was doing - exploiting the morons and he 
 got 
 > >> >> >exactly the effect he wanted. Cheap publicity. 
 > >> >> 
 > >> >> Again bring this up with the BBC. 
 > >> > 
 > >> >Why? What good would it do? 
 > >> > 
 > >> 
 > >> Explain how offended you fell and see if change would happen. 
 > >> 
 > >> >> > 
 > >> >> >It's no surpise the gays/fanboys here lapped it up. 
 > >> >> > 
 > >> >> 
 > >> >> Such as it is. 
 > >> >> 
 > >> >> >And in a way no surprise the BBC got good ratings ( relatively). 
 They 
 > >> >hyped 
 > >> >> >it mercilesly and the public have a lot of goodwill towards the DW 
 > >> >> >franchise. 
 > >> >> > 
 > >> >> 
 > >> >> DW is a success, even when Powell thought it was passe. 
 > >> > 
 > >> >I can't deny that it has received *relatively* good viewing figures. 
 > >Doesn't 
 > >> >make it a success in my book. 
 > >> > 
 > >> 
 > >> The fans make the show a success. 
 > >> 
 > >> > 
 > >> > 
 > >> >> >The public have been starved of meaningful, involving storylines in 
 > >much 
 > >> >> >mainstream TV so why should DW be different and why would they 
 employ 
 > >a 
 > >> >> >critical eye given the above? 
 > >> >> > 
 > >> >> 
 > >> >> Critical critique is what it is about. 
 > >> >> 
 > >> >> >The whole Bad Wolfe thing? WHat a load of !@#$e. It was nothing 
 really 
 > >> >was 
 > >> >> >it! A superficial attempt at some sort of deeper storyline - but 
 > >anyone 
 > >> >> >could have though that up on the back of a !@# packet. 
 > >> >> 
 > >> >> Well the destruction of Gallifrey? 
 > >> >> 
 > >> >> > 
 > >> >> >The BW references were not integral to the earlier storylines were 
 > >they? 
 > >> >> >Just tacked on to give some sort of counterfeit depth and 
 > >sophistication. 
 > >> >> >!@#$%^&*. 
 > >> >> 
 > >> >> I have yet to see BW/TPotW 
 > >> > 
 > >> >Judge by the earlier episodes. 
 > >> 
 > >> I prefer to see for myself. 
 > >> 
 > >> > 
 > >> > 
 > >> >> > 
 > >> >> >Without the exploitative offal he wallowed in, I would have said 
 the 
 > >> >series 
 > >> >> >was simply par for the course average production for the under 14s 
 > >which 
 > >> >> >reflects the here and now. It will have absolutely no staying power 
 > >and 
 > >> >will 
 > >> >> >become extremely dated very quickly. 
 > >> >> 
 > >> >> Timefor RTD to go on that note. 
 > >> >> 
 > >> >> > 
 > >> >> >Anyone over about 14 who actually got something out of it - execpt 
 for 
 > >a 
 > >> >> >cheap and nasty SF fix - I would suggest is either mentally 
 retarded 
 > >or 
 > >> >> >queer. 
 > >> >> > 
 > >> >> 
 > >> >> You are entitled to your opinion. 
 > >> >> 
 > >> >> As for my summary, in 9 to 10 days time. 
 > >> >> 
 > >> >> 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? 
 > > 
 > >Nope - still dont get it. BTW JP was aired in the UK 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > 
 > JP?? 
 > 
 > Still then you are not familiar with the Springer Opera that was suppose 
 > to air on the BBC. 
  
  
 typo JS. 
  
 Look JS aired on UK tv can't remember the channel. 
  
 But if you wish me to address an issue you will have to be more explicit as 
 I haven't a clue what you are talking about. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)