XPost: rec.arts.drwho 
 From: Ian@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk 
  
 "FairPlay"  wrote in message 
 news:42b8700b$0$292$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.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. 
  
  
 "to promote" - to contribute to the progress or growth of ; to urge the 
 adoption of. 
 "to publicise" - to call attention to 
  
 2 different meanings. If you`d used "publicise" from the beginning I 
 wouldn`t have had such an argument. Although I would still have disagreed! 
  
 I agree, he has publicised the existence of homosexuality and shown that it 
 isn`t something we should fear nor hate. I have no problem with that, be it 
 in a kids show or adult one. He hasn`t , by definition, promoted 
 homosexuality, which is the word you`ve been using. By showing a gay man on 
 TV, he has not contributed to the growth of homosexuality ( I can`t for one 
 minute believe that one straight man has turned gay after watching this 
 series! ) nor has he urged the viewers to adopt homosexuality. Except 
 perhaps the tolerance of homosexuality which is no bad thing. 
  
 > You don't consider it unsuitable for a childrens programme.  I do. 
  
 I would consider the promotion of homosexuality in a kids programme wrong, 
 certainly in a context that it is the best way to be etc. This is the word 
 you`ve been using. Promoting the tolerance of homsexuality is fine, as is 
 promoting the tolerance of anything that isn`t doing harm to others. To 
 publicise the existence of homosexuality in a positive way, I can`t see any 
 harm in it. If we still disagree on that then we`ll have to agree to 
 disagree. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)