XPost: rec.arts.drwho
From: doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
In article <42b8570b$0$295$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>,
FairPlay wrote:
>
>"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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
So people need to get a grab on subliminal messages.
--
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)
|
