XPost: rec.arts.drwho
From: Ian@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk
"The Doctor" wrote in message
news:d9cp6e$559$23@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> In article ,
> Ian Salsbury wrote:
>>
>>"The Doctor" wrote in message
>>news:d9bloj$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.
And what is wrong with that for gods sake?!? That`s like saying a group of
adults shouldn`t stop talking about blow jobs when a 7 year old child walks
into the room because it would be double standards to exclude him/her from
the conversation. Or should adults never discuss sexual matters between
themselves because it would be double standards to do so when they wouldn`t
around children?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
