XPost: rec.arts.drwho 
 From: not@home.com 
  
 "Ian Salsbury"  wrote in message 
 news:d99l88$iar$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk... 
 > 
 > "FairPlay"  wrote in message 
 > news:42b8570b$0$295$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... 
 > > 
 > > "Ian Salsbury"  wrote in message 
 > > news:d99i7h$lgm$1@news6.svr.pol.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. 
 > > 
 > > It really isn't - as I'm sure you know. He set his stall out very early. 
 > > To 
 > > start with the refuseniks told me I was paranoid or trolling or making 
 the 
 > > homosexual references up. 
 > > 
 > > Now we have this laughable defence that some characters "just happened" 
 to 
 > > be gay. 
 > > 
 > > Oh dear. 
 > 
 > I don`t see the problem with having a gay character in a TV show. Showing 
 a 
 > gay man in a children`s show acting in an otherwise perfectly normal 
 manner 
 > promotes tolerance and understanding if anything. There`s nothing in this 
 > series where RTD has suggested to young children that they should become 
 > like him and join him in an orgy of buggery. None of the other mild gay 
 > references were promotion either. You seem to be getting yourself worked 
 up 
 > over nothing. 
  
 I don't think you understand what "promotion" means - particularly in this 
 context. To avoid a pointless argument simply substitute the word publicise 
 for promotion. 
  
 *Any* references publicise. And that was his stated aim. 
  
 You don't consider it unsuitable for a childrens programme.  I do. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)