XPost: rec.arts.drwho 
 From: doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca 
  
 In article , 
 Ian Salsbury  wrote: 
 > 
 >"The Doctor"  wrote in message 
 >news:d9bloj$a9o$17@gallifrey.nk.ca... 
 >> In article <42b94be3$0$295$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, 
 >> FairPlay  wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>>"The Doctor"  wrote in message 
 >>>news:d9acmd$hv3$10@gallifrey.nk.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. 
 >>> 
 >>> 
 >>>No I'm not. 
 >>> 
 >>> 
 >> 
 >> Afraid so.  You tolerate swearing but not innuendo.  To me, RTD would be 
 >> just 
 >> as good as a producer forthe Jerry Springer opera. 
 > 
 >Bollocks, I`m going to have to stick up for FP here! He said he tolerated 
 >swearing in a programme intended for adults but does not like homosexuality 
 >shown in a children`s ( eg.Dr Who ) programme. If the homosexuality shown in 
 >Who had been overtly done I`d agree, but just having a bisexual character 
 >and showing him to be otherwise a nice and normal chap is not a problem in 
 >my eyes. And that kiss, as has been  mentioned, was hardly a sexual one. If 
 >Jack had ripped the Doctor`s trousers down and prompty buggered him over the 
 >TARDIS console I`d be up in arms alongside FP, but there has been nothing of 
 >the sort. As for that Jerry Springer business, get over it Dave. It was only 
 >offensive to small minded fools, you even said yourself you`d never seen it. 
 >It was shown way past the watershed and came with warnings that those easily 
 >offended may not like what they see. RTD has done nothing IMO that should 
 >cause offence within this series, and judging by the lack of any sort of 
 >outcry from the media it seems the public agree. 
 > 
 > 
 > 
  
 Sorry mate, but FP is on a double standard.  One for Children, one for 
 adult. 
  
 -- 
 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)