This weeks Dr who Gay reference
FairPlay
gunner apparantly.
steeler
"FairPlay" <n...@here.com> wrote in message
news:425927d1$0$293$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> None were obvious (to me) though this episode wasn't writen by the rear
> gunner apparantly.
>
>
Homophobia aside - it was written by Mark Gatiss (or League of Gentlemen
fame). Also the author of a number of Who books.
JB
"John L" <jo...@zahidorTOOLATETOSTOPITjohn.plus.com> wrote in message
news:2shi51pjio050poud...@4ax.com...
>
Regardless of his sexuality, it's a bit stupid to assume there will be a gay
reference but then "Fairplay" is beginning to strike me as a wannabe troll.
John L
FairPlay
"John L" <jo...@zahidorTOOLATETOSTOPITjohn.plus.com> wrote in message
news:2shi51pjio050poud...@4ax.com...
Aha!!!!!
FairPlay
"JB" <flaxton_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:111314744...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
Troll? Don't be silly.
Either
1. a bit of fun
or
2. Highlighting the PC mind control of the BBC.
How is it a "troll"?
If you think so, just ignore. I'm happy your happy - means we are both happy
together - steady though, not happy in *that* way.
Dom Robinson
flaxton_...@yahoo.co.uk says...
A wannabe gay, really. Fairplay's just in denial.
--
Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor), http://LeilaniWeb.co.uk (editor)
/* 1046 DVDs, 305 games, 145 CDs, 92 cinema films, 33 videos, concerts & news
/* alienVpredator, kung fu hustle, doctor who, constantine, churchillhollywood
Fight back against "PRESS RED": http://dvdfever.co.uk/pressrel/pressred.shtml
DVDfever.co.uk on BBC News 24's Click Online! - http://tinyurl.com/2mqj4
Fred X
> In article <111314744...@demeter.uk.clara.net>,
> flaxton_...@yahoo.co.uk says...
>>
>> "John L" <jo...@zahidorTOOLATETOSTOPITjohn.plus.com> wrote in message
>> news:2shi51pjio050poud...@4ax.com...
>> > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 15:51:04 +0100, "steeler" <nos...@nomail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"FairPlay" <n...@here.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:425927d1$0$293$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>> >>> None were obvious (to me) though this episode wasn't writen by the rear
>> >>> gunner apparantly.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Homophobia aside - it was written by Mark Gatiss (or League of Gentlemen
>> >>fame). Also the author of a number of Who books.
>> >
>> > And gay also.
>> >
>>
>> Regardless of his sexuality, it's a bit stupid to assume there will be a gay
>> reference but then "Fairplay" is beginning to strike me as a wannabe troll.
>
> A wannabe gay, really. Fairplay's just in denial.
And Denial sure has a tight arse, doesn't he Fairplay? :)
Fred X
FairPlay
"steeler" <nos...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:42593d59$0$305$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
Apparently he is queer also.
FairPlay
"Fred X" <alex...@himki.net> wrote in message
news:opso06xk...@81-86-183-16.dsl.pipex.com...
Any port in a storm :)
FuzzWolf
Is this a problem?
FairPlay
"FuzzWolf" <fuzzwolfh...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:9Pf6e.218$bc2...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
It is for his dad who refuses to believe it.
John L
It's hardly a secret.
John L
Nick Cooper
Okay, we'll just file you under "Boringly Predictable Cunt," then.
--
Nick Cooper
[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk
Lost in France (& Belgium) - Two weeks in Normandy, the Somme &
Flanders; Simon the Cat of 'HMS Amethyst':
http://www.nickcooper.org.uk
Lee@DVDDebate
>None were obvious (to me) though this episode wasn't writen by the rear
>gunner apparantly.
>
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Is there something you want
to tell us? I'm sure no-one here will think any worse of you. Assuming
that were possible.
Lee.
--
Founder, DVD Debate
http://www.dvddebate.com
lee at dvddebate dot com
Cogito ergo sum rectus et vos es non
Rob Mammone
"FairPlay" <n...@here.com> wrote in message
news:425927d1$0$293$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
Lee@DVDDebate
>> >None were obvious (to me) though this episode wasn't writen by the rear
>> >gunner apparantly.
>> >
>> Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Is there something you want
>> to tell us? I'm sure no-one here will think any worse of you. Assuming
>> that were possible.
>
>Please add me to your killfile, there a good lad.
>
Whatever you say, old man.
Doesn't it bother you that society has moved on and that your bigoted
viewpoints ostracize you more and more the older you get? Rather than
stay stuck in the past, why not just move on with the rest of us and
accept the fact that people are not the same as you? What difference
does it make to you if some men find other men attractive? They aren't
hurting you, leave them be.
Or is this a god thing? If so, there's no helping you.
Lee.
--
Founder, DVD Debate
http://www.dvddebate.com
lee at dvddebate dot com
If you told a joke and someone died laughing, could you be found guilty of a mans laughter?
FairPlay
"Rob Mammone" <lin...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:425a1fde$1...@news.alphalink.com.au...
> You are a disgusting, obscene specimen of humanity. Die.
1. Don't top post.
2. Is the term "rear gunner" so offensive to you that you need to come out
with such vitriol?
Would you have preferred "Shit Stabber" or perhaps "Pillow Biter" or even
"Fudge Packer"?
Please let me know.
TIA
FairPlay
Also I note you are posting from, Oz,. I suppose the gay capital of the
universe Sydney.
Do you talk with a Priscilla Queen of the Desert sort of voice?
FairPlay
"Lee@DVDDebate" <L...@nospam.DVDDebate.com> wrote in message
news:pvcj515ol4qv1kp8r...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 14:19:13 +0100, "FairPlay" <n...@here.com> wrote:
>
> >None were obvious (to me) though this episode wasn't writen by the rear
> >gunner apparantly.
> >
> Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Is there something you want
> to tell us? I'm sure no-one here will think any worse of you. Assuming
> that were possible.
Please add me to your killfile, there a good lad.
FairPlay
"Lee@DVDDebate" <l...@nospamdvddebate.com> wrote in message
news:bmqk51t300k9igv30...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:44:41 +0100, "FairPlay" <n...@here.com> wrote:
>
> >> >None were obvious (to me) though this episode wasn't writen by the
rear
> >> >gunner apparantly.
> >> >
> >> Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Is there something you want
> >> to tell us? I'm sure no-one here will think any worse of you. Assuming
> >> that were possible.
> >
> >Please add me to your killfile, there a good lad.
> >
> Whatever you say, old man.
>
> Doesn't it bother you that society has moved on and that your bigoted
> viewpoints ostracize you more and more the older you get? Rather than
> stay stuck in the past, why not just move on with the rest of us and
> accept the fact that people are not the same as you? What difference
> does it make to you if some men find other men attractive? They aren't
> hurting you, leave them be.
>
> Or is this a god thing? If so, there's no helping you.
What has anything I have said lead you to believe that I have anything
against gays?
What is bigoted about my views?
It looks like, because I used a humourous colloquial phrase for arse bandit,
you have let your bigoted prejudice take centre stage.
What is it about my comments that are "stuck in the past"?
I am quite happy if you have chosen to be a shirt lifter - makes no odds to
me.
But I see no reason why I should be scared off by turd burglars such as
yourself, from pointing out when gay references have been "slipped into" Dr
Who - by their noted "sausage jockey" scriptwriter(s).
Geddit??
PS I have asked you to "ostracize" - pleasde comply. Ta very much.
The Doctor
Easy on!!
--
Member - Liberal International
This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
UK as 5 May 2005 approaches, vote LDem!!
FairPlay
"evileniusabroad" <evilgeni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c39a8a76.05041...@posting.google.com...
> > 2. Highlighting the PC mind control of the BBC.
>
>
> Just because you cant have your prejudices reflected back at you
> doesnt mean the world has gone maaaaaaad.
>
> Fuck off.
This whole gay thing, certainly is revealing. It's brought those with a
"vested interest" out of the closet.
No doubt the homosexual references the scriptwriters have managed to get
into, what is ostensibly a childrens programme, are heartily approved of in
some quarters.
As Corp Jones would say "They don't like it up 'em" - but then again they
do!!
FairPlay
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:53:32 +0100, "FairPlay" <n...@here.com> wrote:
>
> >> > 2. Highlighting the PC mind control of the BBC.
> >>
> >> It's called modern....
> >>
> >> Just because you cant have your prejudices reflected back at you
> >> doesnt mean the world has gone maaaaaaad.
> >>
> >> Fuck off.
> >
> >This whole gay thing, certainly is revealing. It's brought those with a
> >"vested interest" out of the closet.
> >
Come on Lee, take a long hard look in the mirror.
evileniusabroad
It's called modern....
Lee@DVDDebate
>> > 2. Highlighting the PC mind control of the BBC.
>>
>> It's called modern....
>>
>> Just because you cant have your prejudices reflected back at you
>> doesnt mean the world has gone maaaaaaad.
>>
>> Fuck off.
>
>This whole gay thing, certainly is revealing. It's brought those with a
>"vested interest" out of the closet.
>
What makes you think that everyone who is not anti-gay is gay? You're
deluding yourself.
FairPlay
>
> >> > 2. Highlighting the PC mind control of the BBC.
> >>
> >> It's called modern....
> >>
> >> Just because you cant have your prejudices reflected back at you
> >> doesnt mean the world has gone maaaaaaad.
> >>
> >> Fuck off.
> >
> >This whole gay thing, certainly is revealing. It's brought those with a
> >"vested interest" out of the closet.
> >
> What makes you think that everyone who is not anti-gay is gay?
BTW there has been nothing "anti-gay" in any of my posts.
It is simply you and the other pork munchers conveying your bigoted
prejudice onto my opinions.
Lee@DVDDebate
>> >> > 2. Highlighting the PC mind control of the BBC.
>> >>
>> >> It's called modern....
>> >>
>> >> Just because you cant have your prejudices reflected back at you
>> >> doesnt mean the world has gone maaaaaaad.
>> >>
>> >> Fuck off.
>> >
>> >This whole gay thing, certainly is revealing. It's brought those with a
>> >"vested interest" out of the closet.
>> >
>> What makes you think that everyone who is not anti-gay is gay?
>
>BTW there has been nothing "anti-gay" in any of my posts.
>It is simply you and the other pork munchers conveying your bigoted
>prejudice onto my opinions.
>
LOL, I'll be sure to let my wife know there's a homophobe on the
internet that thinks I'm gay.
Lee.
--
Founder, DVD Debate
http://www.dvddebate.com
lee at dvddebate dot com
Cogito ergo sum rectus et vos es non
Dom Robinson
says...> news:6mdl5199pt4iviavr...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:12:16 +0100, "FairPlay" <n...@here.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> >> > 2. Highlighting the PC mind control of the BBC.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> It's called modern....
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Just because you cant have your prejudices reflected back at you
> > >> >> doesnt mean the world has gone maaaaaaad.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Fuck off.
> > >> >
> > >> >This whole gay thing, certainly is revealing. It's brought those with
> a
> > >> >"vested interest" out of the closet.
> > >> >
> > >> What makes you think that everyone who is not anti-gay is gay?
> > >
> > >BTW there has been nothing "anti-gay" in any of my posts.
> > >It is simply you and the other pork munchers conveying your bigoted
> > >prejudice onto my opinions.
> > >
> > LOL, I'll be sure to let my wife know there's a homophobe on the
> > internet that thinks I'm gay.
>
No, you're thinking of David Bowie :)
JB
"Dom Robinson" <Usethe...@inthesig.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cc4dc537...@nntp.dsl.pipex.com...
> In article <425a7523$0$302$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com>,
> n...@here.com
> says...
>> It looks like, because I used a humourous colloquial phrase for arse
>> bandit,
>> you have let your bigoted prejudice take centre stage.
>> What is it about my comments that are "stuck in the past"?
>>
> --
Depends on if he works at BNP headquarters.
Dom Robinson
says...
Do you know him personally?
JB
>
>
> BTW there has been nothing "anti-gay" in any of my posts.
> It is simply you and the other pork munchers conveying your bigoted
> prejudice onto my opinions.
>
>
You ARE a wannabe troll, but you're quite funny with it.
Dom Robinson
> you have let your bigoted prejudice take centre stage.
> What is it about my comments that are "stuck in the past"?
>
Dom Robinson
says...
> Do you talk with a Priscilla Queen of the Desert sort of voice?
>
FairPlay
>
> >> >> > 2. Highlighting the PC mind control of the BBC.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's called modern....
> >> >>
> >> >> Just because you cant have your prejudices reflected back at you
> >> >> doesnt mean the world has gone maaaaaaad.
> >> >>
> >> >> Fuck off.
> >> >
> >> >This whole gay thing, certainly is revealing. It's brought those with
a
> >> >"vested interest" out of the closet.
> >> >
> >> What makes you think that everyone who is not anti-gay is gay?
> >
> >BTW there has been nothing "anti-gay" in any of my posts.
> >It is simply you and the other pork munchers conveying your bigoted
> >prejudice onto my opinions.
> >
> LOL, I'll be sure to let my wife know there's a homophobe on the
> internet that thinks I'm gay.
Is your wife really a man?
Halmyre
> In article <425ac628$0$292$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, n...@here.com
> says...
>
>>"Lee@DVDDebate" <L...@nospam.DVDDebate.com> wrote in message
>>news:6mdl5199pt4iviavr...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:12:16 +0100, "FairPlay" <n...@here.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>2. Highlighting the PC mind control of the BBC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's called modern....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just because you cant have your prejudices reflected back at you
>>>>>>>doesnt mean the world has gone maaaaaaad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Fuck off.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This whole gay thing, certainly is revealing. It's brought those with
>>
>>a
>>
>>>>>>"vested interest" out of the closet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What makes you think that everyone who is not anti-gay is gay?
>>>>
>>>>BTW there has been nothing "anti-gay" in any of my posts.
>>>>It is simply you and the other pork munchers conveying your bigoted
>>>>prejudice onto my opinions.
>>>>
>>>
>>>LOL, I'll be sure to let my wife know there's a homophobe on the
>>>internet that thinks I'm gay.
>>
>>Is your wife really a man?
>
>
> No, you're thinking of David Bowie :)
David Bowie's a man?
Halmyre
Dom Robinson
jo...@zahidorTOOLATETOSTOPITjohn.plus.com says...
> >> >Homophobia aside - it was written by Mark Gatiss (or League of Gentlemen
> >> >fame). Also the author of a number of Who books.
> >>
> >> And gay also.
> >
> >Aha!!!!!
>
> It's hardly a secret.
>
>
FairPlay
Don't see it myself. I call a spade a spade and a sword swallower a sword
swallower.
The insidious think is how the cheek chompers are trying to "turn" our young
with subliminal promotion of fudge packing.
FairPlay
> In article <425a5bd0$0$289$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com>,
n...@here.com
> says...
> > Do you talk with a Priscilla Queen of the Desert sort of voice?
> >
> 'Fuck off you silly queers, he's gettin' out of here...' :)
Actually, I've never seen the film.
JB
>
>
> The insidious think is how the cheek chompers are trying to "turn" our
> young
> with subliminal promotion of fudge packing.
>
Would you care to cite a source that purports to be a homosexual campaign
aiming at "turning our young" into homosexuals? Or is it just nonsense
you're pumping out?
Dom Robinson
says...
Dom Robinson
flaxton_...@yahoo.co.uk says...
Comedian/writer Tony Burgess made a good pisstake of the BNP at the Comedy
Store when he had the misfortune to speak to a BNP representative.
BNP man (whinging): Look at all these blacks coming over here, taking our
jobs...
Tony: What is it you do?
BNP man (smug): I leaflet for the BNP!
Tony: I think your job's pretty safe then, mate(!)
FairPlay
>
> "FairPlay" <n...@here.com> wrote in message
> news:425ad740$0$288$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> >
>
>
> >
> > The insidious think is how the cheek chompers are trying to "turn" our
> > young
> > with subliminal promotion of fudge packing.
> >
>
> Would you care to cite a source that purports to be a homosexual campaign
> aiming at "turning our young" into homosexuals?
I'm the source. Plus the homosexual references in the first two weeks of Dr
Who which I have cited.
>Or is it just nonsense you're pumping out?
Ooooeer!!
JB
>
> "JB" <flaxton_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:111325142...@despina.uk.clara.net...
>>
>> "FairPlay" <n...@here.com> wrote in message
>> news:425ad740$0$288$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>> >
>>
>>
>> >
>> > The insidious think is how the cheek chompers are trying to "turn" our
>> > young
>> > with subliminal promotion of fudge packing.
>> >
>>
>> Would you care to cite a source that purports to be a homosexual campaign
>> aiming at "turning our young" into homosexuals?
>
> I'm the source.
I think the good readers here will give your testimony the weight it
deserves. Thanks for the honesty.
Lee@DVDDebate
>> >BTW there has been nothing "anti-gay" in any of my posts.
>> >It is simply you and the other pork munchers conveying your bigoted
>> >prejudice onto my opinions.
>> >
>> LOL, I'll be sure to let my wife know there's a homophobe on the
>> internet that thinks I'm gay.
>
>Is your wife really a man?
>
LOL. Yep, you've definitely got some latent tendancies there.
The Cardboard Voord
FairPlay said:
>Troll? Don't be silly.
>
>Either
>
>1. a bit of fun
>or
>2. Highlighting the PC mind control of the BBC.
I prefer: 3. Cunt
Simon Brooke
('n...@here.com') wrote:
Have finished your treatment for delusions and paranoia, or are you
still having to go to the sessions every week?
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
[ This .sig intentionally left blank ]
FairPlay
"Simon Brooke" <si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
news:l8bsi2-...@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
> in message <425aea8e$0$295$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, FairPlay
> ('n...@here.com') wrote:
>
> >
> > "JB" <flaxton_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:111325142...@despina.uk.clara.net...
> >>
> >> "FairPlay" <n...@here.com> wrote in message
> >> news:425ad740$0$288$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> >> >
> >> > The insidious think is how the cheek chompers are trying to "turn"
> >> > our young
> >> > with subliminal promotion of fudge packing.
> >>
> >> Would you care to cite a source that purports to be a homosexual
> >> campaign aiming at "turning our young" into homosexuals?
> >
> > I'm the source. Plus the homosexual references in the first two weeks
> > of Dr Who which I have cited.
>
> Have finished your treatment for delusions and paranoia, or are you
> still having to go to the sessions every week?
Not paranoid at all. Knowing Mr Davies CV, I had a bet with myself before
the first episode that their would be at least one homosexual reference. It
took five minutes for the Doctor to pick Heat magazine and refer to an
actors sexuality as "gay" and that he would be unable to have a relationship
with a woman.
In Episode 2 we have the Gay anthem Tainted Love, sung by his bender pal.
Episode 3 was not written by him.
Simon Brooke
('n...@here.com') wrote:
> "Simon Brooke" <si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:l8bsi2-...@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
>> in message <425aea8e$0$295$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com>,
>> FairPlay ('n...@here.com') wrote:
>>
>> Have finished your treatment for delusions and paranoia, or are you
>> still having to go to the sessions every week?
>
> Not paranoid at all. Knowing Mr Davies CV, I had a bet with myself
> before the first episode that their would be at least one homosexual
> reference. It took five minutes for the Doctor to pick Heat magazine
> and refer to an actors sexuality as "gay" and that he would be unable
> to have a relationship with a woman.
>
> In Episode 2 we have the Gay anthem Tainted Love, sung by his bender
> pal.
Do you realise there have also been references (and not so tenuous,
either) to London, to trees, and to Shakespeare in every episode so far
(to name only a few things at random). In episode two, Rose suggests
the Doctor should pollinate a tree. So what? Are we to assume Mr Davies
is a closet arboriculturalist?
The interesting thing is not that there are supposed gay references, but
that you notice them. And that says more about you than it does about
RTD.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
:: Wisdom is better than weapons of war ::
:: Ecclesiastes 9:18 ::
Mark A
>
> The interesting thing is not that there are supposed gay references,
> but that you notice them. And that says more about you than it does
> about RTD.
The really interesting thing is why anyone is bothering to respond to
such drivel. He's either an ignorant twat, or a trolling twat. Either
way he can be safely ignored.
Regards
Mark
FairPlay
> in message <425baec9$0$305$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, FairPlay
> ('n...@here.com') wrote:
>
> > "Simon Brooke" <si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
> > news:l8bsi2-...@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
> >> in message <425aea8e$0$295$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com>,
> >> FairPlay ('n...@here.com') wrote:
> >>
> >> Have finished your treatment for delusions and paranoia, or are you
> >> still having to go to the sessions every week?
> >
> > Not paranoid at all. Knowing Mr Davies CV, I had a bet with myself
> > before the first episode that their would be at least one homosexual
> > reference. It took five minutes for the Doctor to pick Heat magazine
> > and refer to an actors sexuality as "gay" and that he would be unable
> > to have a relationship with a woman.
> >
> > In Episode 2 we have the Gay anthem Tainted Love, sung by his bender
> > pal.
>
> Do you realise there have also been references (and not so tenuous,
> either) to London, to trees, and to Shakespeare in every episode so far
> (to name only a few things at random). In episode two, Rose suggests
> the Doctor should pollinate a tree. So what? Are we to assume Mr Davies
> is a closet arboriculturalist?
What a superb argument. Because subjects other than homosexuality were
covered in Dr Who, though not in the first five minutes or so of the first
episode, then it makes any type of analysis invalid.
Do you not think he had a bet with his savaloy sucking pals how long it
would take him to get a gay reference in?
You need a reality check.
Steve Roberts
<si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
> In episode two, Rose suggests the Doctor should pollinate a tree. So what? Are we to assume Mr Davies
>is a closet arboriculturalist?
LOL! Nice one, Centurion.
Steve
The Doctor Who Restoration Team Website
http://www.restoration-team.co.uk
FairPlay
"Mark A" <m.annett...@rbgkew.org.uk> wrote in message
news:425BD1...@rbgkew.org.uk...
Bollocks. My observation is totally valid. It took the homosexual
scriptwriter five minutes to get a homosexual reference into a childs TV
programme. Something I predicted in advance.
FACT.
Damian R
>
> Don't see it myself. I call a spade a spade and a sword swallower a sword
> swallower.
>
> The insidious think is how the cheek chompers are trying to "turn" our
young
> with subliminal promotion of fudge packing.
>
Yet all that not so subliminal promotion of heterosexuality hasn't managed
to turn everyone straight.
FairPlay
"The Cardboard Voord" <notmy...@address.com> wrote in message
news:jasm511sdoraia8ap...@4ax.com...
No you don't! Your animosity reveals you as an arse bandit with severe
heterophobia.
Shane Slightom
Who to find that out!!! have you ever danced???? if so are you gay??
"FairPlay" <n...@here.com> wrote in message
Mark Evans
Why bother, there are far more intersting conspiracy theories around.
Anyway if there was any truth in it why not just turn everyone into
bisexuals and be done with it.
> you're pumping out?
FuzzWolf
"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:d3e1r2$f24$6...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> In article <425a1fde$1...@news.alphalink.com.au>,
> Rob Mammone <lin...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>>You are a disgusting, obscene specimen of humanity. Die.
>>> None were obvious (to me) though this episode wasn't writen by the rear
>>> gunner apparantly.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
So where is your righteous indignation about all the slurs and vile
expressions "Fairplay" has been using recently, hmm?
Nick Cooper
Funny how you fixate on that, but fail to mention that he also says
the woman in question is an alien.
>In Episode 2 we have the Gay anthem Tainted Love, sung by his bender pal.
It also had Britney Spear's 'Toxic'. What do you think that
signified?
>Episode 3 was not written by him.
But written by another gay man, which kind of pisses on your who
arguement about a "gay mafia" conspiracy.
--
Nick Cooper
[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk
Lost in France (& Belgium) - Two weeks in Normandy, the Somme &
Flanders; Simon the Cat of 'HMS Amethyst':
http://www.nickcooper.org.uk
FairPlay
"FuzzWolf" <fuzzwolfh...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:2BC7e.2071$HK6...@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
Wot slurs?
FuzzWolf
>
>> So where is your righteous indignation about all the slurs and vile
>> expressions "Fairplay" has been using recently, hmm?
>
> Wot slurs?
Oh, don't play the fool. You know perfectly well what I'm talking about,
but since you'll no doubt keep up the innocent act anyway here's a few of
them:
rear gunner
pork munchers
arse bandit
turd burglars
sausage jockey
fudge packers
bender
Shit Stabber
You claim these are just "descriptive" phrases and not bigoted, homophobic
slurs but that's total bull and I suspect you're very well aware of that.
By that logic, that would mean you could call Cubans "wetbacks", blacks
"niggers" or "spear chuckers" and whites "crackers" or "honkeys" and it'd be
okay, it wouldn't be racist at all. I think the only people who would claim
that would be Klan members, a very highly regarded group of people to be
sure.
The writer's sexuality wasn't an issue as far as I can tell, until you made
it one. You're the one that brought this up. No, that doesn't mean I'm
implying you're gay. It means you're making a mountain out of a molehill
and have wasted all this space whinging on about something that's irrelevant
to the show. Yes, "Queer as Folk" fans will find it heartening that the
writer/creater is "one of them" so to speak, but we're not talking about
"Queer as Folk". Regarding discussions of the new "Doctor Who" it's
off-topic and it doesn't matter. You probably agree with the people who
think "Spongebob Squarepants" is evil and promoting homosexuality too. What
is it with people thinking there's some horrible gay agenda to take over the
world? I don't get the paranoia. I think most gay people will tell you
their only agenda is to be left the fuck alone by straight people!
To look at this from another angle, being a bigot of any kind of really out
of place in the "Doctor Who" fandom. Part of the Doctor's appeal to such a
wide diversity of people is that he is not a petty, bigoted person and is a
character who constantly fights for the downtrodden and marginalized in the
various societies he visits. If the Doctor were real, he wouldn't have any
time for your narrow point of view.
FairPlay
Nope, they are non descriptive derogatory terms. Although "spear chuckers"
may be seen to be valid if one was discussing, say Zulu's, as it is an
integral part of their culture, that is to chuck spears. Just as someone who
commits bugery can accurately be described as a shit stabber.
> The writer's sexuality wasn't an issue as far as I can tell, until you
made
> it one.
What makes an issue an issue until someone makes it one?
> You're the one that brought this up. No, that doesn't mean I'm
> implying you're gay. It means you're making a mountain out of a molehill
> and have wasted all this space whinging on about something that's
irrelevant
> to the show.
Not whining. Just pointing something out.
> Yes, "Queer as Folk" fans will find it heartening that the
> writer/creater is "one of them" so to speak, but we're not talking about
> "Queer as Folk".
No it appears it's a childs version of it with unsuitable adult themes and
references IMO
> Regarding discussions of the new "Doctor Who" it's
> off-topic and it doesn't matter. You probably agree with the people who
> think "Spongebob Squarepants" is evil and promoting homosexuality too.
Sorry. Don't understand.
> What
> is it with people thinking there's some horrible gay agenda to take over
the
> world? I don't get the paranoia. I think most gay people will tell you
> their only agenda is to be left the fuck alone by straight people!
Perhaps there is no agenda.
But equally, perhaps their subjective normaility in their atitides and
opinions is not shared by others - you assert below that it is a minority
one after all.
Perhaps he/they are doing it in all innocence - but I doubt it and it is
irrelevant anyway.
It is reasonable for those who do not share this subjective "minority" to
point it out when it impinges on Childrens TV programmes.
I have passed no judgement on homosexuality - just used graphic phrases to
describe it- and had some fun doing so.
You may see them as pejorative - but I don't.
> To look at this from another angle, being a bigot of any kind of really
out
> of place in the "Doctor Who" fandom. Part of the Doctor's appeal to such
a
> wide diversity of people is that he is not a petty, bigoted person and is
a
> character who constantly fights for the downtrodden and marginalized in
the
> various societies he visits. If the Doctor were real, he wouldn't have
any
> time for your narrow point of view.
I think you have an exceedingly narrow, bigotted point of view. Because I
haven't fallen hook line a sinker for the shite that has been broadcast (
excluding the first episode and perhaps the second) just because its Dr Who.
Or I don't feel the need to turn a blind eye to the unsuitable adult themes
which have found their way into the programme - as was *always* going to
happen with him in control of it - you imply I am a petty bigot.
It is not petty and bigoted for others not to agree with your view of what
is suitable and relate that on this forum - though admittedly in somewhat
graphic terms.
It *is* petty and bigoted to be shouted down and deny the obvious references
which are there for all to see, either A - just because its Dr Who or B.
Because it was written by someone of a "minority" community or C. You are
happy for sexual themes to be aired in such a way on an early evening
Saturday night BBC1 childrens programme.
To quote a phrase back at you:
FuzzWolf
>
> Nope, they are non descriptive derogatory terms. Although "spear chuckers"
> may be seen to be valid if one was discussing, say Zulu's, as it is an
> integral part of their culture, that is to chuck spears. Just as someone
> who
> commits bugery can accurately be described as a shit stabber.
Sorry, but you're just not going to convince anyone with half a brain that
describing someone as a shit stabber in leau of homosexual or gay is a valid
description rather than an obvious insult. And oh yes, I do realize this is
an obvious act on your part so I really don't expect any admittance that
you're a bigot.
>
>> The writer's sexuality wasn't an issue as far as I can tell, until you
> made
>> it one.
>
> What makes an issue an issue until someone makes it one?
So, how much of an issue was it that John Nathan-Turner was gay? Are you
scarred for life for having watched Doctor Who in the 80s because every
episode is rife with homosexuality?
> Not whining. Just pointing something out.
No, you've been whining. You've been practically foaming at the mouth about
those evil gays and their plot to turn Doctor Who into a vehicle for
promoting homosexuality. What exactly does that mean anyway? Is
acknowleding that gays exist really pushing anything on anyone?
> No it appears it's a childs version of it with unsuitable adult themes and
> references IMO
I don't think saying someone is gay in a show is any more adult than saying
someone is of a certain religion or ethnicity. What is, is. Yes, the
homophic always purport that they rail against any gay character or gay
reference in tv because it's "for the children". For the children seems to
be a catchall in these conservative times for excusing holding your thumb
down on things you don't like.
Let's consider Doctor Who a children's show for the sake of argument.
Compare it to other cartoons and kids shows over the years. How many
instances of more adult humour or inuendos can you find in those shows?
Watching older shows again as an adult, I find quite a bit. It's a long
tradition that the writers of such shows put in some humour for adults
that'll go right over most kids heads. Likely it amuses the writers to do
so, but it also keeps parents from going bonkers when watching cartoons with
their kids. Even Disney movies have something for the grownups and Doctor
Who is written in the same way. It's pretty clear it's not just written for
the 8 to 10 crowd and never has been.
>
>
> Perhaps there is no agenda.
> But equally, perhaps their subjective normaility in their atitides and
> opinions is not shared by others - you assert below that it is a minority
> one after all.
Well, it used to be a minority that thought slavery was wrong. The majority
is not always right. If TV in the states pandered only to the majority,
there would be no one other than white people on TV. There are lots of
minorities in the world and you can't cut out ever reference to their very
existance. I'm afraid you'll just have to learn to live with the fact that
all TV doesn't revolve solely around people exactly like you.
> Perhaps he/they are doing it in all innocence - but I doubt it and it is
> irrelevant anyway.
> It is reasonable for those who do not share this subjective "minority" to
> point it out when it impinges on Childrens TV programmes.
I address this same point further up. I don't see how they're impinging on
anything.
>
> I have passed no judgement on homosexuality - just used graphic phrases to
> describe it- and had some fun doing so.
Yes and used a bunch of graphic phrases like that because you're fine with
gay people. Why don't I believe that? It's pretty clear what your opinions
are on the matter.
>
> I think you have an exceedingly narrow, bigotted point of view. Because I
> haven't fallen hook line a sinker for the shite that has been broadcast (
> excluding the first episode and perhaps the second) just because its Dr
> Who.
> Or I don't feel the need to turn a blind eye to the unsuitable adult
> themes
> which have found their way into the programme - as was *always* going to
> happen with him in control of it - you imply I am a petty bigot.
I'm not implying anything. I am flat out telling you that you're a petty
bigot. :-D
>
> It is not petty and bigoted for others not to agree with your view of what
> is suitable and relate that on this forum - though admittedly in somewhat
> graphic terms.
>
> It *is* petty and bigoted to be shouted down and deny the obvious
> references
> which are there for all to see, either A - just because its Dr Who or B.
> Because it was written by someone of a "minority" community or C. You are
> happy for sexual themes to be aired in such a way on an early evening
> Saturday night BBC1 childrens programme.
First off, I'm not denying they are there. I'm just disputing your claim
that this fact is important, worth getting all worked up over or any more
"upsetting" than a straight reference is.
RE: point A: I don't automatically love everything just because it's Doctor
Who. Most fans don't if those Pertwee vs McCoy flame wars a few years back
were any indication.
RE: point B: Just out of curiosity, would be this upset at these references
if they were not written by a gay man? I don't know the sexuality of every
writer in television or even on this one show, but I'd hazard a guess that
more than one straight writer has put in sexual references in the background
of an all-ages show, either about his own orientation or another.
RE: point C: What sexual themes?? Saying someone is gay is not any more of
a sexual theme than saying someone is straight. Remember what Mickey said
to Rose in episode 1: "Any excuse to get in the bedroom." Oh dear me,
that's an implied reference to straight sex isn't it? Oh holy hell no!!
And yet, you've not mentioned and you're not making a fuss of it. Why?
Following your logic to it's natural conclusion, everyone in the show would
be asexual. If you can't say someone is gay, then you can't say they're
straight either if you are upset at sexual references and that you're not
just a bigot regarding homosexuality. To do that, would just be nuts, which
is what I consider your opinion on this.
>
> To quote a phrase back at you:
> If the Doctor were real, he wouldn't have any time for your narrow point
> of
> view.
I see, so cutting and pasting what I wrote someone makes you right and me
wrong? Try again.
Mark Evans
>
> "FairPlay" <n...@here.com> wrote in message
> news:42629355$0$297$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> >
> > Nope, they are non descriptive derogatory terms. Although "spear chuckers"
> > may be seen to be valid if one was discussing, say Zulu's, as it is an
> > integral part of their culture, that is to chuck spears. Just as someone
> > who
> > commits bugery can accurately be described as a shit stabber.
>
> Sorry, but you're just not going to convince anyone with half a brain that
> describing someone as a shit stabber in leau of homosexual or gay is a valid
> description rather than an obvious insult. And oh yes, I do realize this is
Especially since it's a very crude reference refering to sex act which
is enguaged in by plenty of heterosexuals.
> an obvious act on your part so I really don't expect any admittance that
> you're a bigot.
>
>
> > Not whining. Just pointing something out.
>
> No, you've been whining. You've been practically foaming at the mouth about
> those evil gays and their plot to turn Doctor Who into a vehicle for
> promoting homosexuality. What exactly does that mean anyway? Is
Some really daft conspiracy theory. There's probably more actually
evidence to claim that politicans are under the control of aliens :)
> acknowleding that gays exist really pushing anything on anyone?
>
> > No it appears it's a childs version of it with unsuitable adult themes and
> > references IMO
>
> I don't think saying someone is gay in a show is any more adult than saying
> someone is of a certain religion or ethnicity. What is, is. Yes, the
> homophic always purport that they rail against any gay character or gay
> reference in tv because it's "for the children". For the children seems to
> be a catchall in these conservative times for excusing holding your thumb
It's a rallying call used by those of all political persuasians.
> down on things you don't like.
>
> Let's consider Doctor Who a children's show for the sake of argument.
> Compare it to other cartoons and kids shows over the years. How many
> instances of more adult humour or inuendos can you find in those shows?
If there isn't people might even make it up, e.g. "Captain Pugwash".
> Watching older shows again as an adult, I find quite a bit. It's a long
> tradition that the writers of such shows put in some humour for adults
Possibly not confined to just the writers either.
> that'll go right over most kids heads. Likely it amuses the writers to do
> so, but it also keeps parents from going bonkers when watching cartoons with
The actors probably need to keep their sanity too.
FairPlay
>
> "FairPlay" <n...@here.com> wrote in message
> news:42629355$0$297$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> >
> > Nope, they are non descriptive derogatory terms. Although "spear
chuckers"
> > may be seen to be valid if one was discussing, say Zulu's, as it is an
> > integral part of their culture, that is to chuck spears. Just as someone
> > who
> > commits bugery can accurately be described as a shit stabber.
>
> Sorry, but you're just not going to convince anyone with half a brain that
> describing someone as a shit stabber in leau of homosexual or gay is a
valid
> description rather than an obvious insult. And oh yes, I do realize this
is
> an obvious act on your part so I really don't expect any admittance that
> you're a bigot.
Even if it is an *insult* doesn't follow that I am a bigot.
I use slang terms for everyone and everything. So what?
Because my sensibilies dont cut the mustard with you means nothing.
> >
> >> The writer's sexuality wasn't an issue as far as I can tell, until you
> > made
> >> it one.
> >
> > What makes an issue an issue until someone makes it one?
>
> So, how much of an issue was it that John Nathan-Turner was gay? Are you
> scarred for life for having watched Doctor Who in the 80s because every
> episode is rife with homosexuality?
Uhm. I think you'll find I have kept myself to discussing dialoge.
Totally irrelevant issue.
> > Not whining. Just pointing something out.
>
> No, you've been whining. You've been practically foaming at the mouth
about
> those evil gays and their plot to turn Doctor Who into a vehicle for
> promoting homosexuality.
Who says I've been foaming at the mouth? You need a reality check.
> What exactly does that mean anyway? Is
> acknowleding that gays exist really pushing anything on anyone?
I think you are going off on a tangent. Stick to the point.
> > No it appears it's a childs version of it with unsuitable adult themes
and
> > references IMO
>
> I don't think saying someone is gay in a show is any more adult than
saying
> someone is of a certain religion or ethnicity. What is, is. Yes, the
> homophic always purport that they rail against any gay character or gay
> reference in tv because it's "for the children". For the children seems
to
> be a catchall in these conservative times for excusing holding your thumb
> down on things you don't like.
Hold on. WHY should such issues be raised in the programme? How you can call
these times "Conservative is beyond me. You are having a laugh.
It is totally reasonable for me to raise the issue that RTD is using DW to
"promote" homosexuality. Why should I not raise it?
I consider it unsuitable.
Why should I not say it?
I object to the exploitation and "commercialisation" in the broadest sense
of Dr Who - it being used as a vehicle for RTD's own agenda above others.
WHy can we *not* have a programme that is not soiled in such a way?
It is exploitation to have no self control or censorship, to promote his own
agenda regardless of the sensibilities of others.
> Let's consider Doctor Who a children's show for the sake of argument.
> Compare it to other cartoons and kids shows over the years. How many
> instances of more adult humour or inuendos can you find in those shows?
> Watching older shows again as an adult, I find quite a bit. It's a long
> tradition that the writers of such shows put in some humour for adults
> that'll go right over most kids heads. Likely it amuses the writers to do
> so, but it also keeps parents from going bonkers when watching cartoons
with
> their kids. Even Disney movies have something for the grownups and Doctor
> Who is written in the same way. It's pretty clear it's not just written
for
> the 8 to 10 crowd and never has been.
Unless you can provide examples........
> >
> > Perhaps there is no agenda.
> > But equally, perhaps their subjective normaility in their atitides and
> > opinions is not shared by others - you assert below that it is a
minority
> > one after all.
>
> Well, it used to be a minority that thought slavery was wrong. The
majority
> is not always right.
Absurd analogy.
> If TV in the states pandered only to the majority,
> there would be no one other than white people on TV.
The fact is the homosexual minority runs the media, which is why we are
force fed the inane Graham Norton and continual cum swallowing jokes. Is
that humour?
> There are lots of
> minorities in the world and you can't cut out ever reference to their very
> existance. I'm afraid you'll just have to learn to live with the fact
that
> all TV doesn't revolve solely around people exactly like you.
Thats so rich. Unbelievably arrogant and patronising.
Perhaps it doesn't revolve around *you* or your sensibilities either.
Perhaps *you* are a bigot.
Ever thought of that?
> > Perhaps he/they are doing it in all innocence - but I doubt it and it is
> > irrelevant anyway.
> > It is reasonable for those who do not share this subjective "minority"
to
> > point it out when it impinges on Childrens TV programmes.
>
> I address this same point further up. I don't see how they're impinging
on
> anything.
>
> >
> > I have passed no judgement on homosexuality - just used graphic phrases
to
> > describe it- and had some fun doing so.
>
> Yes and used a bunch of graphic phrases like that because you're fine with
> gay people. Why don't I believe that? It's pretty clear what your
opinions
> are on the matter.
I really dont care what you think. I will "insult" anyone and everyone - I
favour none.
> >
> > I think you have an exceedingly narrow, bigotted point of view. Because
I
> > haven't fallen hook line a sinker for the shite that has been broadcast
(
> > excluding the first episode and perhaps the second) just because its Dr
> > Who.
> > Or I don't feel the need to turn a blind eye to the unsuitable adult
> > themes
> > which have found their way into the programme - as was *always* going to
> > happen with him in control of it - you imply I am a petty bigot.
>
> I'm not implying anything. I am flat out telling you that you're a petty
> bigot. :-D
As are you. But you hold the arrogant PC attitude that your derivation of
society is "correct" anyone who disagrees is wrong and so in my case a
bigot.
The argument is easily turned on its head. Your justifications above for the
homosexual references are just that you think its Ok.
Well why can't mine just be that I dont?
>
> > It is not petty and bigoted for others not to agree with your view of
what
> > is suitable and relate that on this forum - though admittedly in
somewhat
> > graphic terms.
> >
> > It *is* petty and bigoted to be shouted down and deny the obvious
> > references
> > which are there for all to see, either A - just because its Dr Who or B.
> > Because it was written by someone of a "minority" community or C. You
are
> > happy for sexual themes to be aired in such a way on an early evening
> > Saturday night BBC1 childrens programme.
>
> First off, I'm not denying they are there. I'm just disputing your claim
> that this fact is important, worth getting all worked up over or any more
> "upsetting" than a straight reference is.
It's a sign of the times.
> RE: point A: I don't automatically love everything just because it's
Doctor
> Who. Most fans don't if those Pertwee vs McCoy flame wars a few years
back
> were any indication.
> RE: point B: Just out of curiosity, would be this upset at these
references
> if they were not written by a gay man?
I think you'll find , that the whole thrust of my argument IS THAT THEY
WOULDN't HAVE BEEN!!!!!
> RE: point C: What sexual themes?? Saying someone is gay is not any more
of
> a sexual theme than saying someone is straight.
In my opinion it is. Because in the context of Dr Who it is totally
unecessary and gratuitous.
He's doing it because he can - for his own motives.
>Remember what Mickey said
> to Rose in episode 1: "Any excuse to get in the bedroom." Oh dear me,
> that's an implied reference to straight sex isn't it? Oh holy hell no!!
> And yet, you've not mentioned and you're not making a fuss of it.
Wrong.
I've made a "fuss" of the crass adult themes in general. I have *not*
restricted myself to the homosexual references.
> Why?
> Following your logic to it's natural conclusion, everyone in the show
would
> be asexual.
I think you deliberately fail to understand.
> >
> > To quote a phrase back at you:
> > If the Doctor were real, he wouldn't have any time for your narrow point
> > of
> > view.
>
> I see, so cutting and pasting what I wrote someone makes you right and me
> wrong? Try again.
I don't need to. *All* your exposition can be quoted straight back at you.
The fact is a subtext has been *added* that need not have been in the
Series, for obviously ulterior motives.