XPost: rec.arts.drwho 
 From: doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca 
  
 In article , 
 Ian Salsbury  wrote: 
 > 
 >"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 !@#$ 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. 
 > 
 > 
 > 
  
 And FP is inconsistent. 
 -- 
 Member - Liberal International  
 This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca 
 God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising! 
 nk.ca started 1 June 1995 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)