XPost: rec.arts.drwho 
 From: not@home.com 
  
 "Ian Salsbury"  wrote in message 
 news:d99tm6$3lu$1@newsg4.svr.pol.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! 
  
 Well thats why I didn't want to get into it. Heard of section 28 where 
 *promotion* of homosexuality was banned in schools until very recently? 
  
 Doesn't mean to say that now homosexuality is presented as the new big 
 thing. Anyway........ 
  
  
 > 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. 
  
 See above. 
  
 > 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 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)