FlashForward, a No Go for me

[paulettejohnson]

After last night's episode on FlashForward, I will not be viewing it again!! I was really intrigued by the whole idea, until the gay theme was introduced. Why??? Can we as an audience, just enjoy a night of tv, without a gay relationship involved. I don't care what people do in their private life, but I do care what I watch on tv. So you lost me and my whole family. Too bad, I really like it!!

[Ltrain]

After last night's episode on FlashForward, I will not be viewing it again!! I was really intrigued by the whole idea, until the gay theme was introduced. Why??? Can we as an audience, just enjoy a night of tv, without a gay relationship involved. I don't care what people do in their private life, but I do care what I watch on tv. So you lost me and my whole family. Too bad, I really like it!!

:welcome:

Sorry u feel that way. I really don't see it as a big problem since they pretty much hinted at it once the show started. I rather think it adds to the show rather then retracts.

[Dew]

After last night's episode on FlashForward, I will not be viewing it again!! I was really intrigued by the whole idea, until the gay theme was introduced. Why??? Can we as an audience, just enjoy a night of tv, without a gay relationship involved. I don't care what people do in their private life, but I do care what I watch on tv. So you lost me and my whole family. Too bad, I really like it!!

You joined to say this??? I am sure you will not be missed Mrs. Johnson. May I suggest the Disney Channel or the Hallmark Channel. You will have no worries there. :Cheers:

[Ltrain]

You joined to say this??? I am sure you will not be missed Mrs. Johnson. May I suggest the Disney Channel or the Hallmark Channel. You will have no worries there. :Cheers:

Haha Dew tell us how u really feel. I guess this is why I like u :)

[RoseArienh]

Not news. Moving to FF GD.

[Master Xander]

I feel very, very sorry for you and your closed-mindedness.

[CalvinHobbesLocke]

And there's a black guy and an oriental guy and what appears to be a unwed mother!!!

Good lord what will they show on TV next?!?

[chaz]

Let me get this "straight", you joined to tell us you were going to stop viewing due to a female - female kiss scene. You were OK with the pilot? Unwed, teenagers having unprotected sex in someone else's home while a little kid, who could walk in any second, sleeps upstairs.
It is an important piece of the plot? She is gay and in her FF she is pregnant and happy. She must be going "WTF"?

[Ltrain]

Let me get this "straight", you joined to tell us you were going to stop viewing due to a female - female kiss scene. You were OK with the pilot? Unwed, teenagers having unprotected sex in someone else's home while a little kid, who could walk in any second, sleeps upstairs.
It is an important piece of the plot? She is gay and in her FF she is pregnant and happy. She must be going "WTF"?

This is blasphemy lol

[Sabarte]

I don't care what people do in their private life, but I do care what I watch on tv. So you lost me and my whole family.I'm afraid you and your family were already lost - and blind to the reality of the world you live in.

Some people are gay - get over it. And some writers are open enough to recognize this reality and include gay characters in their stories. Sometimes their sexuality may be an element of the story or sometimes it may just be a part of their effort to place their story in a realistically diverse setting, just like they include characters of differing races, or religions, etc


So go off to live in your paper doll world. And next time I see a show with a character who's a blatant bigot or homophobe, and I've seen lots, I'll go on watching, I'll be and wondering if you and your family are watching and enjoying that the story includes a character that lives in your world.

[Found in the Land of Lost]

Wow.


You were OK with the pilot? Unwed, teenagers having unprotected sex in someone else's home while a little kid, who could walk in any second, sleeps upstairs.

Exactly. It's the OP's right to watch or not watch, but to get on a soapbox about the horrors of seeing a gay kiss is pretty narrow. There are people doing "immoral" things depicted all over this show (teens having sex, people killing each other, adultery, etc...I think I may have even seen someone working on a Sunday :rolleyez:), so why are a couple of kisses what makes you so upset? Again, it's your right to not watch whatever you want, but I think that the selective application of disapproval is bull.

I can't really go much further without getting into a religious discussion, so I will leave it at that. :D

[LPU]

I wasn't going to keep watching UNTIL they introduced the gay theme.

[CalvinHobbesLocke]

I wasn't going to keep watching UNTIL they introduced the gay theme.

Right! Just like "Heroes"!

[LPU]

Not even gay Claire could save Heroes for me.

[ZIA]

..I think I may have even seen someone working on a Sunday :rolleyez:

That's it! I'm done watching it. :D

[AChristianShephard]

Did I just read that there are two girls kissing is this last episode?
2 girls?

Right, im gonna have to investigate this before I can give the OP the reply she richly deserve so i'm just gonna have to go watch.

With my family.
I mean, it'd be unfair to not include them, or give them a choice.

brb.

[mikro112]

After last night's episode on FlashForward, I will not be viewing it again!! I was really intrigued by the whole idea, until the gay theme was introduced. Why??? Can we as an audience, just enjoy a night of tv, without a gay relationship involved. I don't care what people do in their private life, but I do care what I watch on tv. So you lost me and my whole family. Too bad, I really like it!!

How can somebody be so ignorant in the times today? :rolleyez:

That kiss was an EPIC WIN though. Your post (you), however, was an epic FAIL!

http://i642.photobucket.com/albums/uu148/mikro112_2/FF105-new-1.gif

[*Saint*]

I found the storyline touching...and poses some great conversation pieces (why CAN'T a gay FBI agent come "out" to her co-workers? Why would this take away from the job she can do?) and will continue to watch regardless...

My only question? Why is it every time a woman is a lesbian on tv she has to be hot? Coming from the acting world (esp. growing up in musical theatre) I happen to have a lot of gay friends (male and female, alike) and not all of them are hot (no offense to any of them). I've had some gay friends even state they'd like to see just "average" folks on tv. But I guess the "hot lesbian female" factor attracts straight men ages 18-49. :p

[LPU]

All people on TV are more attractive than their real life counterparts. Not just the lesbians. :D

[*Saint*]

All people on TV are more attractive than their real life counterparts. Not just the lesbians. :D

Not all - but the lesbians are pretty damn hot (and I'm a straight female!)

[LPU]

Most. TV Land is just generally a more attractive place no matter what way you swing.

[Found in the Land of Lost]

My only question? Why is it every time a woman is a lesbian on tv she has to be hot?

You must not watch Heroes. ;)

The same could really be said of women in general. Any time a woman is on TV, and especially if she's ANYONE's love interest, she generally has to be "hot". 'Tis the way of the entertainment world.

[*Saint*]

Duh. I know. :) I'm an actress myself (nothing huge yet, but thankfully I'm told I'm not heinous) - I just don't get the whole gay thing. And it's not just me - Marie Claire talked about this in an article earlier this year...

...and I do watch Heroes. lol I don't know if I should comment on THAT kiss. lol lol

[Found in the Land of Lost]

Gretchen = so not hot, lol

[*Saint*]

Ahhh! Found it! :) I knew I wasn't dreaming it...

One minute Grey's Anatomy's socially awkward surgeon Erica Hahn (Brooke Smith) is exiting the closet ("I am gay. I am so, so, so gay!"); the next, she's off the show, and her erstwhile girlfriend (Sara Ramirez) is back to straight-sexing McSteamy in the bunk room. Seems Dr. Hahn didn't get the memo that if you're gay and you're on TV, you'd better be smokin' hot. And, preferably, bi.

Social change tends to ebb and flow. ABC broke ground in the late '70s with Soap, when Billy Crystal played TV's first recurring gay character. Dynasty's Steven Carrington, conflicted scion of Colorado oil, sexually flip-flopped his way through the '80s. By the '90s, it was a pile-on: L.A. Law featured the first lesbian kiss on network TV; Melrose Place's inner circle included out-gay Matt; Buffy the Vampire Slayer featured a lesbian couple; Ross's ex married her girlfriend on Friends; and on Will & Grace, it was the straight people who seemed a bit queer. But a decade after Ellen DeGeneres came out on her eponymous sitcom, prominent gay characters have all but disappeared from mainstream TV. Cashmere Mafia's hot-kissing lesbians didn't last a season, and with The L Word banished to cable and Hahn off Grey's, the tally of gay lead characters on network programming is exactly one: Brothers and Sisters' Kevin Walker. And lesbians are nowhere in sight.

"Hot and bi is the new gay," says Mary McNamara, TV critic for the L.A. Times. "On Grey's you had two midlife women whose main purpose was not to provide titillation to the straight audience — that was the plotline's undoing." Indeed, the show quickly "replaced" Smith's character with a toothy, nubile bombshell of a bisexual intern (Melissa George). On her heels comes Arizona Robbins (Jessica Capshaw), a babe-ish, sexually ambiguous visiting surgeon — hot sex as needed? With California voting to delegitimize gay marriage and the networks hedging their bets, we have to ask: Where's the will? Where's the grace?

THE NETWORKS' GAY DIASPORA
Lately, TVs have been strikingly straight:

8 The number of gay characters appearing regularly on network TV during the '06 - '07 season.

6 The number appearing regularly during the '07 - '08 season.

1 The number of gay lead characters on network TV this season.



:p

[*Saint*]

Gretchen = so not hot, lol

Aww, Madeline Zima is just awkward...that's all. But it was nice seeing someone who wouldn't be typed as "hot" in a scene like that (even if I felt it was horribly contrived.)

[AChristianShephard]

Poor you guys, im like totally and completely surrounded by hot lesbians all the time, like 24/7.

[*Saint*]

Poor you guys, im like totally and completely surrounded by hot lesbians all the time, like 24/7.

I'm not a guy. lol But woo hoo, rock on. More power to ya.

[Jinjur]

I haven't even watched it yet...it is still on my DVR. I think that you are either secretly jealous or feeling like it somehow makes your hubby exited...either way it shows your own lack of self esteem. Especially if you claim not to care what takes place in people's private lives.

Wake up and smell the Rainbow! It's magically delicious ;)

[snakey]

nothing like a dose of bigotry to bring us together, I guess they dont watch True Blood either, lol. Makes me wonder if this was a joke post, I can hope so, right?

[CalvinHobbesLocke]

Not all - but the lesbians are pretty damn hot (and I'm a straight female!)

Except for Claire's new squeeze. Ugh.

She looks like a horse. Claire should feed her sugar cubes.

[LPU]

Will you PLEASE STOP comparing this to The L Word!!!

[Found in the Land of Lost]

:D

[CalvinHobbesLocke]

I miss my weekly dose of angry man hating hot chicks. :(

I don't miss the chick (?) with the beard. Creepy.

[Brian]

In all my years posting on, and helping to run, this site, I don't believe I have ever seen such a colossal example of close-mindedness as the original post in this thread. There are a million other things you could pick apart on this show (just ask Homer, he'll be glad to help) and you chose a female/female kiss? In 2009? Seriously? That's just sad IMO. Farewell.

[soup]

I nominate this thread for next year's MyMedia Flushy Awards, worst FalshForward thread started by a noob. :rolleyez:

[Dew]

:lmao:

[TheWatcher]

You know what they say about those who protest the loudest.
Perhaps Mrs Johnson enjoyed that kiss more than she allowed her twisted mind to believe. Don't let the door hit you in the ...

[*Saint*]

I still don't understand how the scene was offensive. It wasn't gratuitous and the set up was sweet - I didn't even exclaim "OMG! Two women kissing!" I think I got over that after Ellen made the step back in the 90's...

[cyberpumpkin]

Unfortunately, I've seen this same response on three different FF forums, including the official ABC forum (Yes, I am obsessed with the show - LOL). It is sad really, that there are still people out there that get so freaked out by homosexuality.

I think having Janice be gay is a great plot point, since we know her FF involved her being pregnant, so it leads to all sorts of questions as to how she ends up preggers..... Is she raped after being shot? (I hope not!) Is she reevaluating life since her brush with death, and decides she wants a baby? So many interesting possibilities!

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for this forum, because you have really thoughtful posters who pose great discussion points, and I LOVE the screencaps! There are closed-minded people everywhere, and I was delighted to see so many people here who were appalled at the attitude of the original poster of this thread.

[Master Xander]

I got a similar comment on FFTV, and since comments are moderated, it's not up there at all.

I'm all for criticizing the show over its acting, writing, continuity, logic, or whatever. But to criticize it for showing a healthy human relationship? That's just not cool.

Apparently, lesbians kissing is more horrific and heinous than releasing a Nazi war criminal. Who knew?

[LPU]

Maybe she's just misunderstood. You could try and be a little nicer to her and try welcoming her on her profile.

[foxxie]

Unfortunately, I've seen this same response on three different FF forums, including the official ABC forum (Yes, I am obsessed with the show - LOL). It is sad really, that there are still people out there that get so freaked out by homosexuality.

I think having Janice be gay is a great plot point, since we know her FF involved her being pregnant, so it leads to all sorts of questions as to how she ends up preggers..... Is she raped after being shot? (I hope not!) Is she reevaluating life since her brush with death, and decides she wants a baby? So many interesting possibilities!

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for this forum, because you have really thoughtful posters who pose great discussion points, and I LOVE the screencaps! There are closed-minded people everywhere, and I was delighted to see so many people here who were appalled at the attitude of the original poster of this thread.

:Cheers: Welcome to the forum!

[cyberpumpkin]

Thank you! I'm having such fun reading all the posts! Wonderful to meet you!

[foxxie]

Yeah, we have a good group here, although I might be a little biased. :) Glad your enjoying it! We're happy to have you!

[Brian]

:Cheers: Welcome to the forum!

:yeah: What she said.

Nice to have you aboard, cyberpumpkin.

[TheWatcher]

I see Paulettes profile has seen lots of activity.
Now if all the lovely women of this forum would just send her a friendship request.:D

[Maturin]

Hi, Cyberpumpkin! Hope to see you in the Fringe and Lost discussions too.


Re the OP: Maybe she's just misunderstood. You could try and be a little nicer to her and try welcoming her on her profile.


So true, LPU, and so uplifting to see what everyone has said there so far ...



Now if all the lovely women of this forum would just send her a friendship request.


TW, you know I'd follow you right over a cliff, but this time, not so much. :nanabobo:

[TheWatcher]

TW, you know I'd follow you right over a cliff, but this time, not so much. :nanabobo:

Alright...but you can't blame me for trying:nanabobo:

and welcome Cyberpumpkin

[LostEmissary]

Come on... seriously? That's the hang up? Sure, Janis surprised me by jumping into that relationship so fast (as I've ranted about in the "Is Janis Dead" poll), but man, woman, alien, amoeba... it's not like the show is asking you to be gay.

I see different lifestyles that I personally wouldn't choose on TV shows that I watch all the time. It's up to us how we choose to live our lives, but to try and ignore the fact that there are people all around us who have different tastes, beliefs, values, etc than ourselves would seem to make it very difficult to cope with living in our society.

I can almost understand thinking that the making out was a little gratuitous for an 8pm show or for a family or children to watch - but that has nothing to do with whether it's straight or gay or other. The half naked scene with Nicole in episode 1 was far more graphic than that. This show has tackled alcoholism, drugs, divorce, gunfights, blood, death, suicide, people being drowned... I would think you'd be far more concerned about that.

To allow your family to watch a show like Flash Forward with all the above mentioned things that take place, then to shield yourselves from the reality that people of the same gender can love each other seems strangely contradictory. Being drunk and lying to your wife and boss or seeing the babysitter half naked riding her boyfriend on the couch is ok for to see, but two women showing affection for each other is the deal breaker? :doh:

[airlybird]

After last night's episode on FlashForward, I will not be viewing it again!! I was really intrigued by the whole idea, until the gay theme was introduced. Why??? Can we as an audience, just enjoy a night of tv, without a gay relationship involved. I don't care what people do in their private life, but I do care what I watch on tv. So you lost me and my whole family. Too bad, I really like it!!
Calm down!...Why so angry?...And even more telling, why are you feeling the need to express that anger to a bunch of strangers?
Fact number 1. You can't catch Gay.
Fact number 2. If something like this seriously bothers enough to feel anger, then there must be a reason for it.
I'm hoping, as you seem to be having such problems feeling comfortable within your own sexuality that it's clearly affecting you in some manner, that you have someone close to you that you can confide in...If not, then i hope you'll find it comforting to know that there are people out there, that are well balanced and secure enough within themselves to not judge you as harshly as you judge others.
:wink:

[snakey]

It's more than closed mindedness, it's hate, pure and simple. Wrap it in any shiney bow you want, but let's cut to the chase. A brilliant gay man said it perfectly about the human condition, 'we are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars'.

[LPU]

And some people see two girl stars kissing and can't watch a show anymore.

[ILoveEko]

Bah, lesbians are hawt.

It wasn't the hawtest kiss, but still - LESBIANS! <3

[Sabarte]

we are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars'.Yes - that's one of his best. Wilde also said

It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious.So, while I find the poster's homophobia and self-righteousness disgusting - far more than a kiss between any 2 people who have feelings for each other could ever be - I guess, I'll just consider her and her opinions as tedious rather than evil. But that's hard to do.

I grew up feeling shamed and invalidated by the homophobia around me, and I know the damage it can cause, especially for the young. So I'm glad that young people today who are struggling with their sexual identity can see a show like this that affirms the legitimacy of same sex-relationships. It can help them feel more okay with themselves and that they have a chance at being accepted in the world rather than being condemned.

And to all the people who have spoken out here on this thread, I want to thank you for being both charming, and heroic - for being willing to speak out against the prejudice and fear that motivates the feelings expressed by the poster.

We gays can't change the world on our own. For that to happen requires that there be good-people like you who view us as fellow human beings not freaks or criminals and are willing to speak out against those who think we should continue to be treated as something abhorrent whose existence shouldn't be allowed to pollute their lives or even their airwaves. You carry on the spirit that motivated the White Rose -the young heroes that Janis spoke of at Quale Prison.

So, thanks, thanks.

And I hope, now, that we can get on with making this forum a primo place for sharing our ideas about Flashforward rather than a place to spew out hate and prejudice.

[merry slug]

At first I thought her issue was the oh-so-politically correct "need" to insert a gay theme, like the "need" to insert someone from virtually every race into every new show. While I can't say for sure that I've seen that, at least it would be arguable.

But then I realized she was just psycho.

[TheWatcher]

Yes - that's one of his best. Wilde also said

So, while I find the poster's homophobia and self-righteousness disgusting - far more than a kiss between any 2 people who have feelings for each other could ever be - I guess, I'll just consider her and her opinions as tedious rather than evil. But that's hard to do.

I grew up feeling shamed and invalidated by the homophobia around me, and I know the damage it can cause, especially for the young. So I'm glad that young people today who are struggling with their sexual identity can see a show like this that affirms the legitimacy of same sex-relationships. It can help them feel more okay with themselves and that they have a chance at being accepted in the world rather than being condemned.

And to all the people who have spoken out here on this thread, I want to thank you for being both charming, and heroic - for being willing to speak out against the prejudice and fear that motivates the feelings expressed by the poster.

We gays can't change the world on our own. For that to happen requires that there be good-people like you who view us as fellow human beings not freaks or criminals and are willing to speak out against those who think we should continue to be treated as something abhorrent whose existence shouldn't be allowed to pollute their lives or even their airwaves. You carry on the spirit that motivated the White Rose -the young heroes that Janis spoke of at Quale Prison.

So, thanks, thanks.

And I hope, now, that we can get on with making this forum a primo place for sharing our ideas about Flashforward rather than a place to spew out hate and prejudice.

:clap:You are welcome. Hate sucks.

[NeillT006]

Isn't it interesting that soapboxing isn't soapboxing when the message is one accepted by the listeners?

Anyway, I am guessing the OP is not a fan of Captain Jack either.

N.

[time is a river]

Isn't it interesting that soapboxing isn't soapboxing when the message is one accepted by the listeners?

Anyway, I am guessing the OP is not a fan of Captain Jack either.

N.

Uh oh, I think that devil in Michigan is missing it's advocate again.

[NeillT006]

Well, maybe it was the intoxicating effect of righteousness.

N.

[Sabarte]

Isn't it interesting that soapboxing isn't soapboxing when the message is one accepted by the listeners?Sorry for "soapboxing." But the OP chose to use the forum to say some things about the content of the show that I thought were off-base in general and that I found personally offensive. So, I felt a need to respond with my thoughts about the appropriateness of the program content, my reasons for those thoughts, and my appreciation of the way others were addressing the appropriateness of the content.

I agree, though, that this forum probably shouldn't be a place for airing social or political agendas, so I'm getting off my soapbox and shutting up about it.

[NeillT006]

Mind the step.

N.

[airlybird]

Isn't it interesting that soapboxing isn't soapboxing when the message is one accepted by the listeners?


N.
As far as i know, there's no rule against it...We even have a soapbox emoticon---->:soapbox:

Sorry for "soapboxing." But the OP chose to use the forum to say some things about the content of the show that I thought were off-base in general and that I found personally offensive. So, I felt a need to respond with my thoughts about the appropriateness of the program content, my reasons for those thoughts, and my appreciation of the way others were addressing the appropriateness of the content.

I agree, though, that this forum probably shouldn't be a place for airing social or political agendas, so I'm getting off my soapbox and shutting up about it.
I wouldn't apologize Sabarte, some people will jump on you no matter what, you just gotta ask yourself, do they really matter to you?...I know they don't to me...And welcome BTW:)

[CalvinHobbesLocke]

Thank you! I'm having such fun reading all the posts! Wonderful to meet you!

And what a great nick too!

[Master Xander]

It always boggles my mind when sex - gay or straight, explicit or not - becomes a bigger issue than violence.

But that's just me.

[chaz]

After last night's episode on FlashForward, I will not be viewing it again!! I was really intrigued by the whole idea, until the gay theme was introduced. Why??? Can we as an audience, just enjoy a night of tv, without a gay relationship involved. I don't care what people do in their private life, but I do care what I watch on tv. So you lost me and my whole family. Too bad, I really like it!!

Hey, where did you go? At least defend your position. Just one homophobic post and poof. Well I didn't mean "poof". You would most likely find that offensive.

[cyberpumpkin]

And what a great nick too!

Thank you, sugar! (I'm old and Southern, so I call everyone "sugar") I've been using "cyberpumpkin" as a username for 10 years online, 'cause we actually have a pumpkin farm. Sorry if this is TMI *grin*

RE this topic. It just makes me sad that there are still so many people who are upset about gays. I lost my best friend to AIDS back in the '80's, and helped his mother make his funeral arrangements. He was a wonderful man, and I miss him every day. Husband and I shared an apartment with him in Haight-Ashbury in the early 80's and I got to know a lot of gay people. To a one, they said they were born that way, so it upsets me when someone says it is a lifestyle choice, or worse, that it is a sin.


I really like the character of Janis, because gay people DO exist, and I am glad to see one portrayed in a prime-time TV show. But I don't just like her because she's gay, I like her because she is cynical, funny and bad-ass - LOL!

[Brian]

But I don't just like her because she's gay, I like her because she is cynical, funny and bad-ass - LOL!

Her interaction with Demetri in this last episode makes me laugh every time I hear it, "Honey, be quiet. The grown-ups are talking." :D

[Dew]

That was a great line. http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn137/Dew2008/Smilies/laughing.gif

[vincentstuntdbl#23]

Ahhh! Found it! :) I knew I wasn't dreaming it...



:p
Ok, chiming in late (redirected from Politics site).
ABC is owned by Disney & whilst it has lightened up. It canceled Once & Again due in large part (according to public opinion) to it's lesbian storyline. They rarely advertised the show & moved it 5 times it's final season. If the final season ever gets released on dvd. Check it out. A young (& talented) Evan Rachel Wood is realising that she's gay & falling for Misha Barton's character. The whole season was great lotsa good character development. I haven't seen FF. Maybe sumtime.

Welcome Cyberpumpkin & Sabarte. :wave2:

[Maturin]

And just to add, I didn't think anyone was on a soapbox [any more or less than any of us ever are] -- Sabarte's post in particular was well-stated and calm, and related the discussion back to the show.

[Bring that clear thinking over to Lost and Fringe, Sabarte :)]

[LostEmissary]

Ok, chiming in late (redirected from Politics site).
ABC is owned by Disney & whilst it has lightened up. It canceled Once & Again due in large part (according to public opinion) to it's lesbian storyline. They rarely advertised the show & moved it 5 times it's final season. If the final season ever gets released on dvd. Check it out. A young (& talented) Evan Rachel Wood is realising that she's gay & falling for Misha Barton's character. The whole season was great lotsa good character development. I haven't seen FF. Maybe sumtime.

Welcome Cyberpumpkin & Sabarte. :wave2:To be fair, there are a TON of shows that fit the description you just gave right there, down to the rare advertising, ever-changing time slots, etc, and suffered the exact same fate (cancellation) despite not having any gay/lesbian main characters (Firefly, Futurama, Arrested Development, etc come to mind). People who love a show only to see it cancelled usually cite the same reasons: Poor advertising, improper promotion, bad time slot, irregular time slot... it's a common theme of network television, especially in recent years.

I found this with regard to the DVDs:

They released the first season in 2002. It didn't sell well.

However, due to popular demand, they tried it again in 2005, by re-releasing Season 1 and releasing season 2. Season 3 was supposed to be released early 2006, but again sales were disappointing.

It's usually about ratings, demographics, budget, and advertising revenue, as opposed to politics - least of all gay/lesbian politics. So I can't say that I trust "public opinion" as a legitimate source when it comes to why Once and Again was cancelled.

Disney/ABC, in fact, kept Ellen Degeneres' show on the air after her character came out (even when ratings dropped), and she still "hosts" the Universe of Energy Attraction at Epcot in Disney World.

I think sometimes it's an easy excuse to suggest that a show ended due to one socio-political reason or another, but almost all the time it's due to poor viewership.

[vincentstuntdbl#23]

Actually they were gonna release S3 - even had a date, but 2 months till they didn't. Turns out the company was losing the dvd rights. Trust me I've researched this show well. The sales were on par with any other show that had it's own 'cult' following. I bet there are lotsa shows that have all seasons released & have sold far fewer copies. I did buy S3 (non-commercial) thru iOffer. I'd like to get the official release sumday. I heard there's sum kool extras. :sigh:

[Winston Smith]

Wow!

This thread just made me realize two things:

1) The struggle for gay rights will continue as long as idiots like the OP are around. Open your mind!

2) I love the people that post on this board. :kiss:

[blybug]

I wasn't at all offended by FF introducing a lesbian relationship.

I was perturbed that said relationship was seeded, blossomed, and wilted all in one episode, between two characters that had no particular chemistry or believable passion.

I was irritated that they went from first date talk to wedding ring talk and "I'll never let you down" in the span of a few minutes.

I was dumbfounded that Janis would in one moment say that she's in the closet because she's a government agent and the Feds don't like gays with guns, then then next moment is making a very public display of affection in a restaurant, in a manner that most hetero couples would not ordinarily do.

I was left scratching my head by the fact that Janis left Maya in her apartment to "rifle through her stuff", then later then breaks up with her over the fact that she "Mosaic'ed" her on a public bulletin board that Janis entered her own information into.

I was disappointed that, because of all the above, the relationship did feel contrived and forced into the plot for the sake of "diversity" and came across unrealistic, rushed and poorly written, with zero chemistry between the characters.

[Found in the Land of Lost]

Very well said, blybug. I was irritated by those things as well.

[LPU]

But that's damned near every relationship on tv. Look at all of the crazy hetero whirlwind romances on Lost.

[Sabarte]

Blybug -

I definitely agree. While mainstream media is at least starting to recognize and more or less accept the existence of gay relationships, I think they still have a ways to go in being able to portray them very realistically.

But, like LPU just said, lots of times they don't portray straight relationships very realistically, either.

I guess part of it relates to the need to cram lots of plot development into a short time frame.

[blybug]

But that's damned near every relationship on tv. Look at all of the crazy hetero whirlwind romances on Lost.

If it was just "rushed" I might have bought it. But Janis' inexplicably inconsistent behaviors and actions made the whole thing unbelievable. The actress who played Maya I thought was actually quite good but was unfortunately paired with an another actress with whom she didn't have good chemistry and placed into scenes that were contrived and illogical.

Maybe we'll see more of this relationship but if so why not let it develop believably over a few episodes and several dates instead of cramming all this will-they won't-they whoops they already did into one episode?

[NeillT006]

Wow!

This thread just made me realize two things:

1) The struggle for gay rights will continue as long as idiots like the OP are around. Open your mind!

2) I love the people that post on this board. :kiss:

All struggles endemic to the human condition will continue as long as any of us continues to dehumanize those with whom we are at odds, stereotyping them as idiots or worse.

I am all for open minds, but I am equally all for open hearts and souls.

I love you, too.

N.

[NeillT006]

If it was just "rushed" I might have bought it. But Janis' inexplicably inconsistent behaviors and actions made the whole thing unbelievable. The actress who played Maya I thought was actually quite good but was unfortunately paired with an another actress with whom she didn't have good chemistry and placed into scenes that were contrived and illogical.

Maybe we'll see more of this relationship but if so why not let it develop believably over a few episodes and several dates instead of cramming all this will-they won't-they whoops they already did into one episode?

Bly, Bly, Bly. You don't believe in the magic of a kiss? You never "just knew?"

N.

[blybug]

Bly, Bly, Bly. You don't believe in the magic of a kiss? You never "just knew?"

N.

:lol:

Yeah, but once I "knew" I didn't dump my one and only later that day because she read my public website posting.

[NeillT006]

Magic can be a transitory thing.

N.

[CalvinHobbesLocke]

I love you, too.

N.

I errr love you too, Nordberg.

[ILoveEko]

Maybe we'll see more of this relationship but if so why not let it develop believably over a few episodes and several dates instead of cramming all this will-they won't-they whoops they already did into one episode?
I blame the alarm clock. Though they coulda had anyone give her the damn thing.

[boonian androphile]

Hey, man, those lesbians are hot!!!!

Now bring on two great looking dudes locking lips and I'll start watching the show!!!!

:bullwhip::itmdrool::wizard:

[chaz]

Hey, man, those lesbians are hot!!!!

Now bring on two great looking dudes locking lips and I'll start watching the show!!!!

:bullwhip::itmdrool::wizard:

I doubt anyone would notice.

[boonian androphile]

I would notice. :(

[Dew]

Yeah, about time for the opposite sex to lock lips.

[Winston Smith]

Originally Posted by blybug http://www.losttv-forum.com/forum/images/styles/black/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.losttv-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2801022#post2801022)
If it was just "rushed" I might have bought it. But Janis' inexplicably inconsistent behaviors and actions made the whole thing unbelievable. The actress who played Maya I thought was actually quite good but was unfortunately paired with an another actress with whom she didn't have good chemistry and placed into scenes that were contrived and illogical.

Maybe we'll see more of this relationship but if so why not let it develop believably over a few episodes and several dates instead of cramming all this will-they won't-they whoops they already did into one episode?


I'm telling you blybug, once you just let go and realize this is a show with a premise that makes no sense, writing that forces characters to make idiotic decisions and act unrealistically and actors who overact everything, you will be a lot better off. Trust me, it's not worth fighting it :D

[snakey]

All struggles endemic to the human condition will continue as long as any of us continues to dehumanize those with whom we are at odds, stereotyping them as idiots or worse.

I am all for open minds, but I am equally all for open hearts and souls.

I love you, too.

N.

change their minds and not only their asses but hearts will follow.

[blybug]

I'm telling you blybug, once you just let go and realize this is a show with a premise that makes no sense, writing that forces characters to make idiotic decisions and act unrealistically and actors who overact everything, you will be a lot better off. Trust me, it's not worth fighting it :D

:D:D

Yeah, I think I'm probably going to have to let go and give up. Too bad, I really wanted this show to be smart and worthy of LOSTesque pathologic addiction. The only decision now will be whether to continuing watching for its train wreck appeal alone, or delete it off the TiVo.

It took me a season and a half to extract myself from the misery that Heroes became.

[depictureboy]

am I a bad person because I thought the girlfriend was way too hot for her? OF course being a straight male well....never mind...anyway, I would just like to say for the record ....GOD SHE WAS HOT!

[blybug]

am I a bad person because I thought the girlfriend was way too hot for her? OF course being a straight male well....never mind...anyway, I would just like to say for the record ....GOD SHE WAS HOT!
+1
:couch:

[Winston Smith]

It took me a season and a half to extract myself from the misery that Heroes became.

Yeah, Sadly I'm still watching Heroes :mad:

[wandering_aimlessly]

Late to this thread, but FWIW the whole lesbian kiss thing is possibly the only thing that has kept me watching so far - even if it is on the DVR when I can Flash Forward through the rest of the crap.

[Lawboy]

Yeah, Sadly I'm still watching Heroes :mad:

Wow, I really feel for you. I gave up half way through season 2. To be honest, the S1 finale blew it for me it was so lame, but I stuck with it for a time. But it got so...boring.

FF picked up last night. Keep showing the baddies, let their be battling corporations or syndicates, and it gets better.

As for Janis, the kiss was alright. I've seen better. Cruel Intentions, to name one.

[raughammer]

After last night's episode on FlashForward, I will not be viewing it again!! I was really intrigued by the whole idea, until the gay theme was introduced. Why??? Can we as an audience, just enjoy a night of tv, without a gay relationship involved. I don't care what people do in their private life, but I do care what I watch on tv. So you lost me and my whole family. Too bad, I really like it!!

Yup, thats why im here, to post that the wife and i wont be watching the show anymore. Why did they have to go to that same old tired well...

Note to show makers: You make a show with homosexual content it will not be watched in this household.

*sigh* NEXT!

[raughammer]

You joined to say this??? I am sure you will not be missed Mrs. Johnson. May I suggest the Disney Channel or the Hallmark Channel. You will have no worries there. :Cheers:

Yup, same reason i joined. To express my displeasure and give voice to the why.

Back to the military channel. I knew i wasnt missing anything on ABC/NBC.

[Brian]

Seriously? You registered for that? Why did you even bother?

[raughammer]

I feel very, very sorry for you and your closed-mindedness.

I feel very, very sorry for you and your lack of morals. :Cheers:

[LPU]

The military channel is soooooooooooo gay.

[raughammer]

Let me get this "straight", you joined to tell us you were going to stop viewing due to a female - female kiss scene. You were OK with the pilot? Unwed, teenagers having unprotected sex in someone else's home while a little kid, who could walk in any second, sleeps upstairs.
It is an important piece of the plot? She is gay and in her FF she is pregnant and happy. She must be going "WTF"?


Nope, never made it to the kiss scene. The gal made the "outted" comment and we turned it off. :nanabobo:

[Brian]

I feel very, very sorry for you and your lack of morals. :Cheers:

I'm sorry that you're not smart enough to just stay away from a forum that doesn't agree with you, your "morals", or your television viewing habits. That's four posts in a row where you've had more than enough time to say what you wanted to say. You're now done. Any further posts will have to be approved by me. Good luck, and good bye.

[foxxie]

Wow, people never cease to amaze, do they?

[CalvinHobbesLocke]

The military channel is soooooooooooo gay.

LPU:< don't ask don't tell! :)

[NeillT006]

I'm sorry that you're not smart enough to just stay away from a forum that doesn't agree with you, your "morals", or your television viewing habits. That's four posts in a row where you've had more than enough time to say what you wanted to say. You're now done. Any further posts will have to be approved by me. Good luck, and good bye.

That's pretty frightening.

Really.

N.

[NeillT006]

Wow, people never cease to amaze, do they?

Or disappoint.

N.

[LostEmissary]

That's pretty frightening.

Really.

N.Give me a break. It's one thing to be racist, bigotted, or just plain hateful towards other people in your own home - we all have that right - but it's totally another thing to bring it to a community like this. All that will do is end up driving out people who are of a certain race, ethnicity, sexual preference, etc out of here. Anyone who comes here with a civil and open mind shouldn't feel as though their personal lifestyle isn't approved of, as long as they aren't hurting others. It's not about gay or straight or Christian or atheist or black or white or green... it's about acceptance and tolerance of others.

It's just odd that people can watch shows where people are cheating on their spouse, committing violent acts, or using drugs, but it's fine to keep watching that show. But heaven forbid should a woman love another woman or a man love another man, then dag nabbit, I'm going to sign up on an internet website for the sole purpose of expressing my disapproval.

We're all humans here, and like I said, as long as you aren't spreading ideas of hate, violence, discrimination, judgement, or anything of that nature, you should be welcome here. On the other hand, if you're going to come on here and try to soapbox about your lack of tolerance for a particular sector of a population, that's a completely different thing than expressing your desire for a tolerant, accepting community.

[NeillT006]

it's about acceptance and tolerance of others

Can I get a witness?

N.

[LPU]

Truly, you are a better man than the rest of us.

[LostEmissary]

Can I get a witness?

N.It's about acceptance and tolerance of a lifestyle, not acceptance and tolerance of holier-than-thou garbage like this: "I feel very, very sorry for you and your lack of morals."

That's an open condemnation of someone's lifestyle. What Brian said, or what I've said, or what other have said doesn't condemn anyone for the way they're living their life. It's condemning them for coming on here for the SOLE purpose of telling others they don't approve of the way they're living their lives.

Showing a lack of tolerance for a lack of tolerance is not the same as just coming on here to show an outright lack of tolerance. Yes, there's a difference.

[NeillT006]

Truly, you are a better man than the rest of us.

I understand that tolerance and acceptance is hard.

If it wasn't, well, then everyone would be doing it, eh?

N.

[LostEmissary]

I understand that tolerance and acceptance is hard.

If it wasn't, well, then everyone would be doing it, eh?

N.Nobody is forcing anyone to actually practice acceptance/tolerance... but don't come on here for the sole, singular purpose of displaying the opposite of it.

[LPU]

It's funny because you're doing the same thing to us that we are to them.

Oh well. I'm okay with not tolerating or accepting hateful people.

[NeillT006]

It's funny because you're doing the same thing to us that we are to them.

Oh well. I'm okay with not tolerating or accepting hateful people.

Merely holding up a mirror.

"them" vs "us"

Those sort of characterizations can rationalize and excuse a whole lot of things that you and I would probably agree are at odds with any hope for the ultimate goal of tolerance and acceptance.

N.

[Sabarte]

I understand that tolerance and acceptance is hard.

If it wasn't, well, then everyone would be doing it, eh?

N.

So, I assume your position would be the same if someone were to come to the forum for the sole purpose of posting their complaints about the show having African-American characters, or it having a scene with an African-American in bed with an Asian. Should we be equally tolerant and accepting of them expressing their viewpoint and announcing to us that they will not be watching the show because of such disturbing content?

[NeillT006]

So, I assume your position would be the same if someone were to come to the forum for the sole purpose of posting their complaints about the show having African-American characters, or it having a scene with an African-American in bed with an Asian. Should we be equally tolerant and accepting of them expressing their viewpoint and announcing to us that they will not be watching the show because of such disturbing content?

I think blanket expressions of hate and intolerance are always wrong.

But I also think that an atmosphere of hate and intolerance is an atmosphere of hate and intolerance, regardless of which chimney is pumping out the pollution.

N.

[treesong]

Being tolerant and accepting of the wish to express a viewpoint is something totally different from agreeing with that viewpoint.

So, yes, we should not chase people away merely because we make the assessment that their morals are not the same as ours. I think it's better to try to establish some form of communication, than saying: "well, I don't agree, go away." And some statements in this thread have been far more of the nature of attacking the poster instead of the post, than that.

[LostEmissary]

But I also think that an atmosphere of hate and intolerance is an atmosphere of hate and intolerance, regardless of which chimney is pumping out the pollution.I disagree. Hatred of hatred itself is not the same as the act of hatred. It's just not the same thing. We can sit here and go in circles about it ("I hate him for hating her for hating him for hating that for hating etc), but the bottom line is that having no tolerance for intolerance is not the same as the "initial" intolerance, especially when that intolerance is directed at particular race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.

If you can't see the difference between intolerance of another person's lifestyle vs. intolerance of people who join an internet forum just to degrade a particular lifestyle choice, then I don't know what to tell you - we are on vastly different pages.

There are different types of tolerance, and being intolerant of intolerance does not make one a hypocrite.

[LostnTime]

Think now we need a little Kate and Claire or kate and Juliet or Kate and Sun or Kate and Juliets sister.

And have Sawyer filming it

[NeillT006]

being intolerant of intolerance does not make one a hypocrite.

But resorting to the clichéd tools of intolerance, in my opinion, does.

N.

[LostEmissary]

Being tolerant and accepting of the wish to express a viewpoint is something totally different from agreeing with that viewpoint.

So, yes, we should not chase people away merely because we make the assessment that their morals are not the same as ours. I think it's better to try to establish some form of communication, than saying: "well, I don't agree, go away." And some statements in this thread have been far more of the nature of attacking the poster instead of the post, than that.I will concede this, however, the people that have been for all intents and purposes chased away, signed up here for what is apparently the express purpose of soapboxing their morals. I don't believe that's what this community is about. And I don't mean to say that a newbie has any less priviledge than a forum veteran, but if you don't plan on contributing anything to any discussion other than to say you're not watching this show, then I get the strong suspicion the person wasn't going to stick around and contribute here in any positive way in the first place.

I don't think, for example, that we should just be like "oh hi, how are you, welcome!" to someone who's first post is "Hi, I stopped watching TBS with all their re-runs of Seinfeld, because I don't like Jews." Is that really ever going to end up being a positive contribution to this community? If you at least took the time to make one or two other posts of reasonable appropriateness, or show the least bit of open mindedness it would be one thing.

Obviously there's a gray area here with what should be tolerated and what shouldn't be, which is why it's ultimately up to the Administrators and Moderators of this site to make the rules, and up to us to decide if we want to live by those rules. I get the sense that the Admins/Mods are of the idea that they're not going to smile and nod while someone bashes a particular group of people as their one and only post on this forum. If we don't like that approach, I don't think any of us are forced to be here, and at most, I think a clarification of forum policy with regard to "social/ethnic/sexual hate posting" is the most anyone should be allowed to demand.

[Mr Mo]

:dontfeedtrolls:


:twocents:


:popcorn:

[NeillT006]

Yes, anyone who disagrees with us is surely a troll.

N.

[Mr Mo]

Don't read too much into my 2cents, N. I think you make important points and in general agree with you. But in this case i think the guy just wanted to start trouble. I could be wrong and i know that. I'm glad the decision wasn't mine to make.

[treesong]

I don't think, for example, that we should just be like "oh hi, how are you, welcome!" to someone who's first post is "Hi, I stopped watching TBS with all their re-runs of Seinfeld, because I don't like Jews." Is that really ever going to end up being a positive contribution to this community? If you at least took the time to make one or two other posts of reasonable appropriateness, or show the least bit of open mindedness it would be one thing.

Oh, I don't argue at all for pretend niceties. But I think the assessment of OP's open mindedness is not ours to make, not on this board. A simple statement of "I don't think your view will find much appreciation and acceptance here, and is at least at odds with my own personal feelings, so I wonder what you exactly hope to contribute," sounds about right, to me.

In the words you used, when we find ourselves on vastly different pages, I don't see a need to use the words on the other page.


Obviously there's a gray area here with what should be tolerated and what shouldn't be, which is why it's ultimately up to the Administrators and Moderators of this site to make the rules, and up to us to decide if we want to live by those rules. I get the sense that the Admins/Mods are of the idea that they're not going to smile and nod while someone bashes a particular group of people as their one and only post on this forum. If we don't like that approach, I don't think any of us are forced to be here, and at most, I think a clarification of forum policy with regard to "social/ethnic/sexual hate posting" is the most anyone should be allowed to demand.

The OP stated that she didn't care about what people did in their own homes, but that she didn't want to see it as a theme on TV. No derogatory words were used. As such, it seems to me that she was within forum rules. But, as you say, that is up to the mods and admins.

I would think, however, that a simple statement of "not according to forum rules, closing," would suffice. Instead, we have the bashing of a poster.

So, yes, at the moment, I'm confused about these forum rules.

[Brian]

That's pretty frightening.

Really.

N.

Well, if you're referring to my response, then I'm sorry my moderating style doesn't live up to your "morals" or standards. I'm not going to sit idly by and let someone spew hatred on this forum any more than I would do it myself. If someone has a problem with homosexuals and/or their portrayal on TV, then I suppose that's well within their right. It's well within their right to make that public if they're so motivated. What's not within their right is to start quoting post after post after post on our forum making comments like that. They can still post, but not until they're approved by a staff member. No different than writing in to a newspaper or calling a talk radio show. Crap like that is not going to happen here as long as I have something to say, and the ability to do something, about it.

If that upsets you, you're more welcome to find somewhere else to post as well.

[LostEmissary]

Oh, I don't argue at all for pretend niceties. But I think the assessment of OP's open mindedness is not ours to make, not on this board. A simple statement of "I don't think your view will find much appreciation and acceptance here, and is at least at odds with my own personal feelings, so I wonder what you exactly hope to contribute," sounds about right, to me.

In the words you used, when we find ourselves on vastly different pages, I don't see a need to use the words on the other page.




The OP stated that she didn't care about what people did in their own homes, but that she didn't want to see it as a theme on TV. No derogatory words were used. As such, it seems to me that she was within forum rules. But, as you say, that is up to the mods and admins.

I would think, however, that a simple statement of "not according to forum rules, closing," would suffice. Instead, we have the bashing of a poster.

So, yes, at the moment, I'm confused about these forum rules.I do hear what you're saying, I don't think that anyone has to go overboard with it, and with regard to the original poster, I don't think anyone DID go overboard. However, you might react differently if it was something about you in particular (ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc) that was being talked about by the original poster, and a slightly more harsh reaction would be certainly understandable for someone to whom the original poster's message hit close to home.

[NeillT006]

Well, if you're referring to my response, then I'm sorry my moderating style doesn't live up to your "morals" or standards. I'm not going to sit idly by and let someone spew hatred on this forum any more than I would do it myself. If someone has a problem with homosexuals and/or their portrayal on TV, then I suppose that's well within their right. It's well within their right to make that public if they're so motivated. What's not within their right is to start quoting post after post after post on our forum making comments like that. They can still post, but not until they're approved by a staff member. No different than writing in to a newspaper or calling a talk radio show. Crap like that is not going to happen here as long as I have something to say, and the ability to do something, about it.

If that upsets you, you're more welcome to find somewhere else to post as well.


Surely, you are right about who runs the board, and has their finger on the trigger. And if you wish to ban me for my honest expression of opinion on an issue that has apparently aroused a fair number of members, that's your call.

N.

[treesong]

I do hear what you're saying, I don't think that anyone has to go overboard with it, and with regard to the original poster, I don't think anyone DID go overboard. However, you might react differently if it was something about you in particular (ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc) that was being talked about by the original poster, and a slightly more harsh reaction would be certainly understandable for someone to whom the original poster's message hit close to home.

Hmm, I think it went a tad overboard, generalizing the point of view expressed in the post to the poster herself, in rather uncomplimentary terms.

I do recognize that there was a somewhat implied message in there, that could hit close to home with many people here. If that happened to me, and I would lose my objective perspective, and repay the poster in kind, I would hope my fellow posters would tell me that I have alternatives at my disposal.

My guiding principle is always that if I can't rationally argue my point of view in a discussion, then I have no reason to be there.

[LPU]

How else would you characterize the pov of these two posters and why would you not characterize them in uncomplimentary terms? I am simply not going to feel bad about the treatment that these two received considering the entrance that they made.

[Found in the Land of Lost]

In general, I tend to take the side of Neill and treesong on this type of issue. The OP did not say anything specifically derogatory about gay people. They didn't say that they hated gay people either. They basically stated that they are intolerant and don't personally want to view material that depicts gay characters or whatever. That, IMO, is within their rights on this forum. It may make me mad and make me not respect that person, but I wouldn't feel that it would be right to silence them. Believe me, there are certain types of derogatory comments that hit me very close to home that are not entirely uncommon (less so these days, but still...), but people are entitled to express their opinion (IMO) as long as they are not crossing certain lines.

However, I think that what got that person's posts moderated is not that they expressed an unpopular and inflammatory opinion, but more that they were exhibiting trollish behavior in the way that they did it. If you recall, the OP of the this thread stated the exact same opinion, and was NOT put on moderated status.

[Mr Mo]

In general, I tend to take the side of Neill and treesong on this type of issue. The OP did not say anything specifically derogatory about gay people. They didn't say that they hated gay people either. They basically stated that they are intolerant and don't personally want to view material that depicts gay characters or whatever. That, IMO, is within their rights on this forum. It may make me mad and make me not respect that person, but I wouldn't feel that it would be right to silence them. Believe me, there are certain types of derogatory comments that hit me very close to home that are not entirely uncommon (less so these days, but still...), but people are entitled to express their opinion (IMO) as long as they are not crossing certain lines.

However, I think that what got that person's posts moderated is not that they expressed an unpopular and inflammatory opinion, but more that they were exhibiting trollish behavior in the way that they did it. If you recall, the OP of the this thread stated the exact same opinion, and was NOT put on moderated status.
That's exactly what i meant to say. My troll smilie referred specifically to the guy with 4 posts, not Paulette.

[LPU]

They have every right to say these things, for sure. And we have every right to voice extreme displeasure with them and their opinions. Obviously not how some would have it handled but...

[Brian]

However, I think that what got that person's posts moderated is not that they expressed an unpopular and inflammatory opinion, but more that they were exhibiting trollish behavior in the way that they did it. If you recall, the OP of the this thread stated the exact same opinion, and was NOT put on moderated status.

Thank you Liz.

ETA - Forgot this gem...

Surely, you are right about who runs the board, and has their finger on the trigger. And if you wish to ban me for my honest expression of opinion on an issue that has apparently aroused a fair number of members, that's your call.

N.

Do I really need to dignify this with a response? Neill, you're smarter than that.

Let me make this perfectly clear, since obviously I haven't yet. I don't care what opinion anyone has. I don't care if they wish to come here and express that opinion. I don't care if you love the show, or hate it. Makes no difference to me at all. However, when you come here, you will follow the rules the rest of us have to follow. I'm not going to allow someone to troll posts for asian hooker olympics and I'm not going to allow someone to troll posts for their displeasure of homosexual portrayal on TV. Trolling is trolling, period.

Here's a note to anyone else who wants to come and express the same sentiments about this topic. We have a multi-quote button. It looks like this: http://www.losttv-forum.com/forum/images/styles/black/buttons/multiquote_off.gif. Use it, and keep your language TV-14, and you'll have no problems from the staff on this site.

Easy enough to understand?

Either of these people are more than welcome to come back and defend their position. Neither has which leads to me believe there was no intent, on their behalf, in creating an actual dialogue when they made their initial posts to begin with. Neither is restricted from posting in any way. Again, good luck.

[treesong]

How else would you characterize the pov of these two posters and why would you not characterize them in uncomplimentary terms? I am simply not going to feel bad about the treatment that these two received considering the entrance that they made.

The point is that I don't care to extend the point of view in posts to the posters. If I was interested in the latter, I would ask, not assume.

People usually have an emotional background, or whatever, which makes them believe what they believe. If they can't back it up with something other than an "I feel this to be right," I find them utterly unconvincing. By offering our own emotion-fueled responses, we become unconvincing ourselves. In the end it becomes a "did not, did too," with the stronger party winning.


Our inability to make a valid, non-personal argument against the point of view expressed, reflects on us, not on them. I would think we could come up with a few.



In general, I tend to take the side of Neill and treesong on this type of issue. The OP did not say anything specifically derogatory about gay people. They didn't say that they hated gay people either. They basically stated that they are intolerant and don't personally want to view material that depicts gay characters or whatever. That, IMO, is within their rights on this forum. It may make me mad and make me not respect that person, but I wouldn't feel that it would be right to silence them. Believe me, there are certain types of derogatory comments that hit me very close to home that are not entirely uncommon (less so these days, but still...), but people are entitled to express their opinion (IMO) as long as they are not crossing certain lines.

And I agree with this. And to clarify --needlessly, I hope--, an opinion stated as in the OP doesn't make me happy, either.


However, I think that what got that person's posts moderated is not that they expressed an unpopular and inflammatory opinion, but more that they were exhibiting trollish behavior in the way that they did it. If you recall, the OP of the this thread stated the exact same opinion, and was NOT put on moderated status.

I was mainly addressing the first leg of this thread. But I do agree with Neill that the line as to why the person got moderated seemed a bit blurry. I couldn't tell whether it was for trollish behavior, or the content. This inability to tell stems, for me, from that first leg of the thread, where those uncomplimentary posts towards the OP were made. Posts that would have been addressed, I think, if the OP's opinion had been unpopular, but deemed "morally right."



They have every right to say these things, for sure. And we have every right to voice extreme displeasure with them and their opinions. Obviously not how some would have it handled but...

There is nothing wrong with expressing emotions. But I think the way to do so without attacking posters is to make it about yourself, and not about them. The "you make me feel X," instead of the "you are an Y" approach.

But I got that from a book.



Either of these people are more than welcome to come back and defend their position. Neither has which leads to me believe there was no intent, on their behalf, in creating an actual dialogue when they made their initial posts to begin with. Neither is restricted from posting in any way. Again, good luck.

Well, I'm not surprised the OP hasn't returned. There was little to convince her of an opportunity to have an actual dialogue.

Anyway, thanks for clearing up the reasons, and apologies if you feel offended that there was some uncertainty about those reasons at all.



I take it we can discuss the fascinating idea of Asian hooker Olympics in a non-trollish way? (As long as we keep it TV14, of course.)

[LPU]

Who here honestly believes that the OP was interested in an actual dialogue?

[treesong]

Who here honestly believes that the OP was interested in an actual dialogue?

Does it matter what we believe?

[LPU]

As much as it matters what she believes, I suppose.

[NeillT006]

ETA - Forgot this gem...

I thought it was pretty good, too.

N.

[treesong]

As much as it matters what she believes, I suppose.

Hmm, but we know next to nothing about her beliefs. She didn't show intolerance towards gay people in general, according to her "I don't care what people do in their private lives." It was specifically on TV. I have no idea what that means. It could be ranging from "don't tempt me, please," to "if I don't see 'evil,' it doesn't exist," to "the tooth fairies threatened me to say it," to... anything, really. It even doesn't exclude tolerance for gay people.


That is why I don't really care about what people believe. There's no arguing beliefs. What matters is how well, and how, they defend their opinion.


Don't get me wrong. I think that a society needs to address groups of people who are intolerant of something society wants. But I would hope that would be in the form of a dialogue, not a shouting match. Whatever the case, we weren't invaded by a movement. Someone expressed an opinion.

[CalvinHobbesLocke]

asian hooker olympics and

<sigh> I miss the "asian hooker olympics" thread. :sigh:

[ZIA]

<sigh> I miss the "asian hooker olympics" thread. :sigh:

LOL! :naughty: Sorry?

[blybug]

<sigh> I miss the "asian hooker olympics" thread. :sigh:

Maybe this is an old inside joke, but if it has anything to do with this week's FF episode please let me know, I may go ahead and watch the eppy after all.

[Brian]

Not an old inside joke, rather a newer one. See this thread (http://www.losttv-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63912) (namely post #19).

[merry slug]

Yup, same reason i joined. To express my displeasure and give voice to the why.

Back to the military channel. I knew i wasnt missing anything on ABC/NBC.

I feel very, very sorry for you and your lack of morals. :Cheers:

Nope, never made it to the kiss scene. The gal made the "outted" comment and we turned it off. :nanabobo:

:clap:

Yay! A new troll to play with! The mods and admins have gotten wayyy too adept at nipping these in the bud. What else am I supposed to do for hiatus???

[cyberpumpkin]

If "V" has gay lizards, we're gonna have to go through this debate again :)

[Sabarte]

If "V" has gay lizards, we're gonna have to go through this debate again :)

Could happen, there's about 1500 species of animals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#Lizards) in which homosexual behavior has been observed, including some lesbian lizards:
Whiptail lizard (Teiidae genus) females have the ability to reproduce through parthenogenesis and as such males are rare and sexual breeding non-standard. Females engage in sexual behavior to stimulate ovulation, with their behavior following their hormonal cycles; during low levels of estrogen, these (female) lizards engage in "masculine" sexual roles. Those animals with currently high estrogen levels assume "feminine" sexual roles.And, we already have Black Swans, who are ohhh so gay:

An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are homosexual and they steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs. More of their cygnets survive to adulthood than those of different-sex pairs possibly due to their superior ability to defend large portions of land.

[ILoveEko]

Awesome.

[CalvinHobbesLocke]

If "V" has gay lizards, we're gonna have to go through this debate again :)

Gay lizards is just not right! It's in the Bible! Somewhere!

[Sabarte]

Gay lizards is just not right! It's in the Bible! Somewhere!

I'm sure it must be. In fact, Thomas Aquinas condenmed homosexuality as a "peccatum contra naturam' - "a sin against nature" - something that goes against the natural order of things. So it would obviously be wrong for lizards or any of those other 1500 species of animals to be engaging in "un-natural acts."

[LostViking]

Maybe this is an old inside joke, but if it has anything to do with this week's FF episode please let me know, I may go ahead and watch the eppy after all.


No kidding - me too. :)

[ZIA]

Not an old inside joke, rather a newer one. See this thread (http://www.losttv-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63912) (namely post #19).

Asian Hooker Olympics FTW! :rotfl:

[cyberpumpkin]

Asian Hooker Olympics FTW! :rotfl:

Gay Asian Lizard Hooker Olympics - now THERE'S a show!

Originally Posted by CalvinHobbesLocke http://www.losttv-forum.com/forum/images/styles/black/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.losttv-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2803407#post2803407)
Gay lizards is just not right! It's in the Bible! Somewhere!
Ah, but is it in the Lizard Bible? :-)

:Hippy:

[ZIA]

Ah, but is it in the Lizard Bible? :-)

:Hippy:

We have to consult with the Lizard Men. Put your tinfoil hat on! :)

[cyberpumpkin]

Could happen, there's about 1500 species of animals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#Lizards) in which homosexual behavior has been observed, including some lesbian lizards:
And, we already have Black Swans, who are ohhh so gay:

Thank you for posting this. I've had some heated discussions with some family members about homosexuality, and "it ain't natural" was always one of their arguments. I've cited the research about homosexuality in the animal kingdom to mutterings of me making it up or the researchers were just a bunch of danged gays (except a much more derogatory term).

LOL to ZIA on tinfoil hats!

[NeillT006]

I'm sure it must be. In fact, Thomas Aquinas condenmed homosexuality as a "peccatum contra naturam' - "a sin against nature" - something that goes against the natural order of things. So it would obviously be wrong for lizards or any of those other 1500 species of animals to be engaging in "un-natural acts."

Putting aside the emotional content of the discussion, and just thinking about this style of argument in tactical terms, I would be bothered with the fact that there are also 1500 species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism_(zoology)) (at least) which are known to engage in cannibalism.

N.

[scotpgot]

So what would your solution be, Neill?

As far as I see it, I suppose we have several options:

a) agree with the poster (I don't like it, either, and will not watch the show because of it.)
b) Admonish the poster in a civil form (I disagree with your position, and believe it to be archaic and uninformed.) (This is, I believe, what has been done for the most part here.)
c) Make fun of the poster and/or disagree in less civil terms. (For staff, this response would include banning.)
d) Ignore the poster/stay quiet.

This is in regards mostly to the OP, rather than the second set of responses, which were, in my opinion, clearly trollish in nature, which is an issue aside from the original content of the thread.

[merry slug]

I can't wait to see the African-American lizards, the Asian lizards, the Hispanic lizards...


As far as cannibalism goes, I'd say in some cases it's very natural (Alive, anyone?).

[merry slug]

So what would your solution be, Neill?

As far as I see it, I suppose we have several options:

a) agree with the poster (I don't like it, either, and will not watch the show because of it.)
b) Admonish the poster in a civil form (I disagree with your position, and believe it to be archaic and uninformed.) (This is, I believe, what has been done for the most part here.)
c) Make fun of the poster and/or disagree in less civil terms. (For staff, this response would include banning.)
d) Ignore the poster/stay quiet.

This is in regards mostly to the OP, rather than the second set of responses, which were, in my opinion, clearly trollish in nature, which is an issue aside from the original content of the thread.


I suppose we should do "d." For one thing, I don't think the OP is still around.

But it's kind of fun sometimes to discuss.

[Iggy the Lizard]

oh yes,i am excited.

what were we talking about again.



lizardmen

[NeillT006]

So what would your solution be, Neill?

As far as I see it, I suppose we have several options:

a) agree with the poster (I don't like it, either, and will not watch the show because of it.)
b) Admonish the poster in a civil form (I disagree with your position, and believe it to be archaic and uninformed.) (This is, I believe, what has been done for the most part here.)
c) Make fun of the poster and/or disagree in less civil terms. (For staff, this response would include banning.)
d) Ignore the poster/stay quiet.

This is in regards mostly to the OP, rather than the second set of responses, which were, in my opinion, clearly trollish in nature, which is an issue aside from the original content of the thread.

Well, you skipped lynching.

I am sorry if I am archaic and uniformed. I will work on that.

N.

[scotpgot]

Well, you skipped lynching.

I am sorry if I am archaic and uniformed. I will work on that.

N.
Lynching would be included in option "c".

And I recognize your sarcasm, but sincerely hope you do anyway. Also, please note I said "your position" (i.e. your opinion) is archaic and uninformed.

[NeillT006]

What are we but the things we think, eh?

N.

[scotpgot]

The things we are, both physically and emotionally. We are perhaps a mix of what we believe and what is true.

I thought I was one thing for a very long time, and turned out to be another. Just because I thought it did not make it true. There still exists a divide, I would imagine, between how I look at myself (and how I see others) and what is actually there.

[scotpgot]

My point being that our "attack the post, not the poster" policy is kind of based on the assumption that there is at least a separation between what a person thinks/says, and the person themselves.

[Master Xander]

I am sorry if I am archaic and uniformed. I will work on that.

N.

Yes, I do believe wearing uniforms is archaic.

X.

:nanabobo:

[CalvinHobbesLocke]

Yes, I do believe wearing uniforms is archaic.

X.

:nanabobo:

I'm sure you love a man in uniform though :)

[NeillT006]

Yes, I do believe wearing uniforms is archaic.

X.

:nanabobo:

Actually, I looked pretty good in mine.

N.

[Sabarte]

Putting aside the emotional content of the discussion, and just thinking about this style of argument in tactical terms, I would be bothered with the fact that there are also 1500 species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism_(zoology)) (at least) which are known to engage in cannibalism.

N.

I fully support your right to be as bothered as you choose.

Thank you for your insights on argument tactics. But the "gay animals" bit came up as a humorous follow-up to the posts about gay lizards - not as an "argument." And the fact that numerous other species exhibit homosexual attraction or activity merely suggests that such relationships can hardly be condemned as "un-natural." It helps focus the discussion on the real reasons for such condemnation - "moral" judgments or a desire to preserve the currently imposed social order.

As for the cliched cannibalism comparison, it in fact illustrates that our condemnation of cannibalism also is based on moral or social norms, not on some fiction about it being "un-natural." I don't think it elevates our level of discourse, though, to equate gays with cannibals.

[chaz]

Wait did I miss the gay cannibals?

[Waiting4nothing]

Thank you, one and all. Really good stuff.

[NeillT006]

I don't think it elevates our level of discourse, though, to equate gays with cannibals.

Not what I was about, at all. But, I guess we can all read or hear that which we expect (maybe even me, given your explanation).

I do agree with you 100%, by the way, regarding the dangers which lurk in the "desire to preserve the currently imposed social order." No one is naturally immune to them. No one. This is why, at least in my opinion, as archaic or poorly conceived as it may be considered, we all are charged with individual responsibility to consider the things we say or do to guard against the expression of those dangers. That is why, again in my opinion, we must be alert within ourselves to the perpetuation of attitudes which go much deeper than issues of who is doing what to whom, or who is fill in the blank and who isn't, and which rationalize, to any degree, hate, suspicion and suppression as an appropriate response to "the other."

[/sermon]

N.

[treesong]

It helps focus the discussion on the real reasons for such condemnation - "moral" judgments or a desire to preserve the currently imposed social order.

Yes, society is in progress. It always has, and probably always will. We recognize an intolerance for gay people as part of an older system of moral values.

As with any change, some people will be more conservative, and not jump on the bandwagon as easily as others. The question then becomes: will they be treated as the new social outcasts, or does progress include getting rid of those classifications altogether?

In my opinion, changing an intolerance for one group of people into an intolerance for another group of people is merely a transformation, not growth. If we truly want to call ourselves open minded, then we need to reach a state where we accept that different moral values can co-exist, and that our own moral values never give us the right to judge or condemn those of others.

What we can do is not lock people away in their "paper doll world," and call them "lost to us." We can offer dialogue, and try to give them some insight in why we think these new moral values are not as bad as they think. While this approach may not be fruitful in convincing a lot of people, some may just need a little help to make the step. And I find getting rid of the "eye for an eye" and lynch-mob mentality progress in itself.



While writing this, I see Neill edited his post. I think we are basically saying the same. But since I've written it already, I'll go ahead and post it anyway.

[NeillT006]

While writing this, I see Neill edited his post.

Surprising, is it not, that even one who time has forgotten can figure out all those fancy buttons?

N.

[treesong]

Surprising, is it not, that even one who time has forgotten can figure out all those fancy buttons?

I have never underestimated your ability to push buttons.

Since you are a Lost man, let me add that I am speaking figuratively.

[LostEmissary]

Yes, society is in progress. It always has, and probably always will. We recognize an intolerance for gay people as part of an older system of moral values.

As with any change, some people will be more conservative, and not jump on the bandwagon as easily as others. The question then becomes: will they be treated as the new social outcasts, or does progress include getting rid of those classifications altogether?

In my opinion, changing an intolerance for one group of people into an intolerance for another group of people is merely a transformation, not growth. If we truly want to call ourselves open minded, then we need to reach a state where we accept that different moral values can co-exist, and that our own moral values never give us the right to judge or condemn those of others.

What we can do is not lock people away in their "paper doll world," and call them "lost to us." We can offer dialogue, and try to give them some insight in why we think these new moral values are not as bad as they think. While this approach may not be fruitful in convincing a lot of people, some may just need a little help to make the step. And I find getting rid of the "eye for an eye" and lynch-mob mentality progress in itself.



While writing this, I see Neill edited his post. I think we are basically saying the same. But since I've written it already, I'll go ahead and post it anyway.I just don't get this though. I hate to beat this horse beyond death, but where do we draw the line of what kind of intolerance to allow? Nazis? Are they ok? We should tolerate them? Genocide? Murder? Rapists? Pedophiles? We should appreciate and tolerate their point of view?

I know that nobody is suggesting the above - that we tolerate crime. I'm exaggerating. But my point is who's to say where to draw this line?

I personally draw the line at intolerance of groups who have no mal-intent, no ill will towards others, no particular hateful agenda... Gays/Lesbians aren't a group that's spreading intolerance, hate, crime, or anything of that nature. They simply are not attracted to the opposite sex. As long a gay or lesbian person is not hurting anyone, I will not sit idly by while other people bad-mouth them. I won't sit idly by while ANYONE gets bad mouthed if they don't deserve it.

We should be allowed to defend the innocent. People who are otherwise law abiding, loving, and caring just like anyone else should not have to be subject to ridicule or debasement just for who they choose to love. I will not sit around and "tolerate" those kinds of actions. I consider that to be enabling and encouraging of intolerance, debasement, or ridicule.

[treesong]

I just don't get this though. I hate to beat this horse beyond death, but where do we draw the line of what kind of intolerance to allow?

I think you have answered your own question in the remainder of your post. We look at how people act on their beliefs. We should have moved past the persecution of heretics. The OP was stating an opinion. There was no debasement, ridicule, or agenda present. No rallying call to get rid of gay people, or to call them lesser human beings.

The OP made a statement of what she thought was "overdone" on TV. For all we know, she just watched a series of new shows, and a particular theme came back and back again. Perhaps she merely wanted to express "I get it, move on already."


So, would you say that you have an agenda? You appear to want to act on your beliefs. You won't sit around, in your own words.

If you had it all your way, where would your rallying call lead?

[Brian]

Neill, treesong (or anyone else for that matter) - If either of you wish to discuss the way I've handled the situations in this thread, you can do so via PM. If you don't wish to PM me, then feel free to contact John. However, that discussion is not going to happen publicly, nor in this thread. I truly hope you're both finished questioning the way this was handled so that this thread can remain open. You both know better.

[LostEmissary]

I think you have answered your own question in the remainder of your post. We look at how people act on their beliefs. We should have moved past the persecution of heretics. The OP was stating an opinion. There was no debasement, ridicule, or agenda present. No rallying call to get rid of gay people, or to call them lesser human beings.

The OP made a statement of what she thought was "overdone" on TV. For all we know, she just watched a series of new shows, and a particular theme came back and back again. Perhaps she merely wanted to express "I get it, move on already."


So, would you say that you have an agenda? You appear to want to act on your beliefs. You won't sit around, in your own words.

If you had it all your way, where would your rallying call lead?This is not a rallying cry, this is not a "cause." It's a defense of those who I felt were unfairly disparaged. Yes, I absolutely think that the OP does disparage homosexuality. I'm not asking anyone to encourage homosexuality, approve of it, or like it. Just don't come on here and knock it, because that's an idirect knock on anyone who's gay. I'm Italian, and if the OP substituted Italian into their post, I'd be pissed.

If the OP said they were going to stop watching a show because there's too many Jews or Blacks or minorities on TV, I'd be doing the same thing.

This isn't about gay rights or any cause or rally. I'm not gay, nor do I go out of my way to support gay rights, gay marriage or anything like that, but it's about human kindness. Show a little consideration for your fellow humans. If we sit here and "allow" closed mindedness towards sectors of society just for who they are, we're indirectly condoning it. I don't agree with "attacking" the OP, but at the same time, I don't think a kind brush off says enough about the displeasure that most of us feel when innocent groups are unfairly disparaged.

[merry slug]

Alright, who changed the thumb down to a thumb up? :eyebrow:

[NeillT006]

I will not sit idly by while other people bad-mouth them. I won't sit idly by while ANYONE gets bad mouthed if they don't deserve it.


Please believe me when I say that we are not too far apart in our beliefs regarding the importance of engagement.

Where I stumble is on the qualifier "if they don't deserve it" (and I have never, ever been talking about people's sexual orientation in this thread, so don't go all ballistic on me). Who is to decide that? Me? Do you trust me to be right always? Do I trust myself? Sure, there are things which seem obvious. But the internal strength of an idea or system of thought is not tested in easy cases.

How does it handle the hard cases? How do we deal with people with whom we disagree? I agree with Sabarte who says (I think) the danger is in orthodoxy, and the inclination to preserve what is perceived as "order." What I am trying to say, and have been trying to say throughout, is that this danger is present regardless of the orthodoxy under consideration, existing or emerging. And the weapons of orthodoxy are too often the same, regardless of the value we ascribe to the underlying tenets. Trivialization, stereotyping, hate, suppression of ideas and oppression of people just flow too easily from the exercise of defending, or establishing, a belief system.

For me the ultimate goal is one which works to include, not exclude. It's one which tolerates expressions of disagreement without dismissing a person giving voice to those disagreements as something to be feared, as something ignorant, as something less valuable than me.

I know it is not easy, and I do not pretend to hold within me the ultimate solutions. I only believe that they are not to be found where hate, and all its relations, live.

N.

[NeillT006]

Neill, treesong (or anyone else for that matter) - If either of you wish to discuss the way I've handled the situations in this thread, you can do so via PM. If you don't wish to PM me, then feel free to contact John. However, that discussion is not going to happen publicly, nor in this thread. I truly hope you're both finished questioning the way this was handled so that this thread can remain open. You both know better.

Brian, I am sorry if you think this discussion is about you. It was never intended to be.

N.

[treesong]

I truly hope you're both finished questioning the way this was handled so that this thread can remain open. You both know better.

As far as I'm concerned, I was finished expressing my thoughts about it a while back. I am addressing posts, at the moment, and the ones that I am addressing are quoted in my replies.



If the OP said they were going to stop watching a show because there's too many Jews or Blacks or minorities on TV, I'd be doing the same thing.

So what about freedom of speech? Can we only offer an opinion when it says that we like something?

Would complaining about the umpteenth hospital drama be disparaging doctors and nurses?


What do you think of the statement by the OP that everyone is free to do what they want in their private lives?


Show a little consideration for your fellow humans. If we sit here and "allow" closed mindedness towards sectors of society just for who they are, we're indirectly condoning it.

Agreed.


I don't agree with "attacking" the OP, but at the same time, I don't think a kind brush off says enough about the displeasure that most of us feel when innocent groups are unfairly disparaged.

Well, there is a certain kind of unfairness present in freedom of speech. Someone can say something you don't agree with. They can even say something that hurts your own beliefs. But the way to deal is not to direct that hurt to hurt in return.

We can state our displeasure by making it about us, instead of them. "We feel hurt," states a problem. "You hurt us," is an accusation. By solving a problem, everyone can win. In accusations, there is always a party that will lose, unless a stalemate is reached, where everyone loses.



For me the ultimate goal is one which works to include, not exclude. It's one which tolerates expressions of disagreement without dismissing a person giving voice to those disagreements as something to be feared, as something ignorant, as something less valuable than me.

I know it is not easy, and I do not pretend to hold within me the ultimate solutions. I only believe that they are not to be found where hate, and all its relations, live.

This sums it up rather nicely, for me.

In my opinion, we need to reach a state where disagreements can simply be mentioned, without getting much more notice than a shrug of the shoulders. "I don't like cheese -- I do." "I don't like shows with lesbian kisses -- I do."

I don't condone people having a mission to get rid of cheese. Nor do I condone people having a mission to make cheese an obligatory part of anyone's menu. Both groups can express their likes and dislikes, however.

What matters are the acts with which people defend their views, and if they want to spread those views by using methods that are not in accordance with the values we hold high.

[John]

Alright, who changed the thumb down to a thumb up? :eyebrow:

It's a known bug with that pair of smilies. It's on my list, but it's down there a ways.

This conversation reminds me of many that we had a few years back. While I don't think the the entire conversation has been helpful, I think it's a good reminder of the fact that we all should take a moment and think before posting. However, I think the topic has been blown far out of proportion.

There's an old saying around these parts. "Don't feed the trolls." I won't go as far as to say that the discussion that developed wasn't warranted at least on some angles, but I will go as far as to say that some of you forgot that old saying.

This community has come a long way in its treatment of new members, and that's a very good thing, but I think we still have a bit more road to travel. This thread is not the best example, so I'm not going to cite specifics about what happened here. Still, in other places, we have not done as good a job as we could have done. There are new members who join the forum every week who are slapped down for their thoughts, and that's not how we grow the community. We need to remember that fact. New blood is key to our survival. It's ok to disagree, but we need to remain not only civil, but also lenient. Not one of us, and not even one little crowd of us can determine the validity of another's thoughts.

[LostEmissary]

Would complaining about the umpteenth hospital drama be disparaging doctors and nurses?Doctor or nurse is a choice of paid profession/job, far different from the philosophy that many put forth that homosexuality is genetic/inborn. I'd say any trait you are born with would be something that's pretty unfair to disparage someone over.

What do you think of the statement by the OP that everyone is free to do what they want in their private lives?While the OP did grant that, it was almost like they were just trying to soften what they knew would be the "big reveal" of their post. Again, I see it no different than saying "people can be whatever ethnicity they want, I have no problem with the existence of different races, but once I saw there was a black man running the LA FBI field office, I stopped watching. Too many black people on TV shows. My family and I will watch something else."

And again, just to make it clear, I don't think an all out attack on the OP is necessarily fair, nor do I think my original post in reply to the OP was an attack. Perhaps some of the rebuttals to the OP were over the top, and I'm not defending that either.

I just think that ultimately this isn't really about homosexuality. To me personally, it's about fair treatment of people who've done nothing to deserve what would, at the very least, be termed an insult to a trait that many have been most likely born with, but I think I speak for everyone when I suggest that this probably isn't the thread to debate the nature of homosexuality in our culture.

Like minded people are easy to find on the internet. I'm assuming the OP's main interest of discussion wasn't as innocent as some people are making it out to be, since the OP didn't even bother to try and clarify their stance if - as some are saying - it was mis-interpreted. Seems to me OP knew full well what she was implying, had her say, and then hit the road.

I've basically had my say. And in case at any point I've sounded upset with anyone, I just want you all to know I'm not. I've always prided myself on trying my hardest to give the benefit of the doubt to others, especially on forums like this as text can often be a very pathetic way of getting across one's true message. There's much that can be misinterpreted with text, and I think it's easy - for all of us - to read something into text that isn't there or isn't intended to be there.

I think we can all agree that we can all benefit from being nice, or at the very least civil, to each other. Even when your heart is in the right place your words can often belie that.

[treesong]

Doctor or nurse is a choice of paid profession/job, far different from the philosophy that many put forth that homosexuality is genetic/inborn. I'd say any trait you are born with would be something that's pretty unfair to disparage someone over.

Is it fair to hold it to someone personally with which moral background they were raised?

We could make a little pyramid:

- inborn traits
- upbringing
- profession

Of course, few people have a profession because they simply like it. They usually have some kind of knack for it. We don't scoff at people's professions. We don't scoff at people's inborn traits. We can scoff at people for their upbringing? That seems arbitrary.


While the OP did grant that, it was almost like they were just trying to soften what they knew would be the "big reveal" of their post. Again, I see it no different than saying "people can be whatever ethnicity they want, I have no problem with the existence of different races, but once I saw there was a black man running the LA FBI field office, I stopped watching. Too many black people on TV shows. My family and I will watch something else."

When it was almost like that, did she get the benefit of the doubt, in order to explain herself? How is her message different from "I have no problem with the existence of different opinions, but once I saw what your opinion was, I stopped listening"?


And again, just to make it clear, I don't think an all out attack on the OP is necessarily fair, nor do I think my original post in reply to the OP was an attack. Perhaps some of the rebuttals to the OP were over the top, and I'm not defending that either.

Well, I haven't kept a record of who said what. If need be, I look back to see if some poster said something particular. But I'm not really concerned with that. As you say, I thought certain reactions were over the top, and I'm not only not defending them, I'm speaking out against it.


I just think that ultimately this isn't really about homosexuality. To me personally, it's about fair treatment of people who've done nothing to deserve what would, at the very least, be termed an insult to a trait that many have been most likely born with, but I think I speak for everyone when I suggest that this probably isn't the thread to debate the nature of homosexuality in our culture.

I agree that it isn't about homosexuality. To me, this is about whether or not someone deserves to be insulted, period. To me (again), "attack the post, not the poster," is not about whether we we equal the thoughts expressed in the post with the poster, but about if we can keep it civilized. There is not much difference between calling an opinion stupid, and a person expressing that opinion stupid. So, the rule seems to state that we simply keep those judgments to ourselves, and try to invalidate the opinions expressed in other ways. And while it is a rule on this board, I happen to agree with it as a general guiding principle in life.

Fair treatment, as you say, is what it's all about.


Like minded people are easy to find on the internet. I'm assuming the OP's main interest of discussion wasn't as innocent as some people are making it out to be, since the OP didn't even bother to try and clarify their stance if - as some are saying - it was mis-interpreted. Seems to me OP knew full well what she was implying, had her say, and then hit the road.

You mean, she hit the road after she was called narrow minded, having a twisted brain, and was told to keep on living in her paper doll world.

Why would she want to stick around, if people already had made up their minds about her? If people were taking their own assumptions and treat them as truths?


I've basically had my say. And in case at any point I've sounded upset with anyone, I just want you all to know I'm not. I've always prided myself on trying my hardest to give the benefit of the doubt to others, especially on forums like this as text can often be a very pathetic way of getting across one's true message. There's much that can be misinterpreted with text, and I think it's easy - for all of us - to read something into text that isn't there or isn't intended to be there.

I think we can all agree that we can all benefit from being nice, or at the very least civil, to each other. Even when your heart is in the right place your words can often belie that.

Perhaps the OP's heart was in the right place, and her words belied that. If so, I think an opportunity has been missed to find out.

[LostEmissary]

You mean, she hit the road after she was called narrow minded, having a twisted brain, and was told to keep on living in her paper doll world.No, actually, she hit the road one minute after she posted (before a reply could even be posted) and never returned.

Why would she want to stick around, if people already had made up their minds about her? If people were taking their own assumptions and treat them as truths?Honestly, if the OP's post is the way she introduces herself when "walking in the door" of any community, then I can't fathom how she had any intent of making friends or being welcomed. And if you don't bother to defend your point of view when it comes to the kind of statement the OP made, then I think it speaks volumes about your character. Just my 2 cents.

Perhaps the OP's heart was in the right place, and her words belied that. If so, I think an opportunity has been missed to find out.Is that what you truly think? If the OP's heart was in the right place, then a clarification was in order. That's what most people do when they've been grossly misinterpreted. On the other hand, when you just pop your head, things get stirred up, and you don't return to at least take one attempt at a post along the lines of "I'm sorry everyone, my words were misinterpreted, I'm going to leave now," then I think you've pretty much made your bed.

The OP posted at 1:41 PM, and last visited at 1:42 PM. Looks a lot like a hit and run. I don't think there's any other way to interpret the post. It's clear she wasn't here to join a community, and was probably here to rile one up. The kind of tone taken with the OP isn't the kind of tone you take when you're trying to make friends or be welcomed, at least not with your first post on an open forum.

Does that make any of it right? I have no idea.

[treesong]

No, actually, she hit the road one minute after she posted (before a reply could even be posted) and never returned.

Not while logged in. I don't have access to those kinds of logs, nor am I interested in them. Any speculation about why she hasn't come back is simply that: speculation.


Is that what you truly think? If the OP's heart was in the right place, then a clarification was in order. That's what most people do when they've been grossly misinterpreted. On the other hand, when you just pop your head, things get stirred up, and you don't return to at least take one attempt at a post along the lines of "I'm sorry everyone, my words were misinterpreted, I'm going to leave now," then I think you've pretty much made your bed.

It doesn't matter what my thoughts of the OP are. This is exactly why we address posts, not posters. A person here doesn't need to defend their life, their belief system, and whatnot. All they need to do is defend their post.

The OP never had any reason to say she was sorry, if she could have defended her post. She certainly wouldn't have to apologize for being misinterpreted, as communication is a two-way street.

Perhaps if she had known that she was going to be judged, she might have decided not to post, or to come back and defend herself, or to go on and attack intolerance and presumptuousness.


The OP posted at 1:41 PM, and last visited at 1:42 PM. Looks a lot like a hit and run. I don't think there's any other way to interpret the post. It's clear she wasn't here to join a community, and was probably here to rile one up. The kind of tone taken with the OP isn't the kind of tone you take when you're trying to make friends or be welcomed, at least not with your first post on an open forum.

I see all this as justification after the fact. When the first replies were made, there was no way of knowing when she would return. We still don't know. There is no way of knowing if she has read the responses. I think it's all rather irrelevant. The "stranger in town" shouldn't be treated all that differently from the regular.


I simply think that assigning value to our assumptions about what other people should, or shouldn't, have done carries little weight. Certainly not enough to justify our own reactions to those people. While I won't hesitate to ask people to defend their opinion, I feel ill-equipped to make judgments.

[merry slug]

Deleted by MS- I'm sorry, that was probably too personal a question.

[Sabarte]

The OP was stating an opinion. There was no debasement, ridicule, or agenda present. No rallying call to get rid of gay people, or to call them lesser human beings.

The OP made a statement of what she thought was "overdone" on TV. For all we know, she just watched a series of new shows, and a particular theme came back and back again. Perhaps she merely wanted to express "I get it, move on already."


I guess how one views the original post is a matter of perspective. And, in case it hasn't been clear from my earlier posts, my perspective is that of a human who also happens to be gay - and has plenty of first hand experience with all the direct and indirect ways in which gays have been (and still all to often are) regarded and treated as something other than fully human - as being less deserving of a place at the table of life.

I've gotten to the place where I can pretty much live with that attitude. But there are lots of people who can't live with it - literally. Everyday, thousands and thousands of gay teens are subjected to verbal, and often physical, abuse in their schools and communities. Some to the point that they'd rather die than go to school and face one more day of it. And many of those kids - and their just kids, for God's sake - do die. The suicide rate among gay teens is significantly higher than for non-gays. So is homlessness for the kids who run away to escape the harrassment, and fear and self-loathing for many of those who do their best just to tough it out. Even those kids who are confident, or hardened, enough to stand up to that abuse and affirm who they are have to do so knowing they face a life as second class citizens - that, for instance, when they fall in love, they won't be able to walk down a street holding hands with their lover without fear of ridicule, or worse, unless they're in a "safe" gay ghetto neighborhood; that they won't be allowed to express that love by marriage or share with their lover the same rights and privileges that married couples share; and that they'll always be vulnerable to various forms of discrimination and physical violence. All of that - just because of who they are, just because their very human feelings of sexual attraction and desire for bonding are directed towards other humans of the same gender.

And, I'll be the first to admit that all I'm angry about all that - real angry about how some religions, and institutions, and so-called "cultural norms" help create an atmosphere in which all the heartache those kids are forced to endure continues to thrive. So excuse me if that anger caused me to respond too emotionally or stridently to what the OP said.

But, just for the record, I invite you to actually look at what she said (the bold was in the original, btw):
After last night's episode on FlashForward, I will not be viewing it again!! I was really intrigued by the whole idea, until the gay theme was introduced. Why??? Can we as an audience, just enjoy a night of tv, without a gay relationship involved. I don't care what people do in their private life, but I do care what I watch on tv. So you lost me and my whole family. Too bad, I really like it!!For starters, I think the reference to a "gay theme" is debasing. It paints gays as something outside of whatever the normal theme is. Imagine if she objected to the introduction of a "black theme" or a :Jewish theme" or a "feminine theme." I suppose, though, some would say that's just her opinion so we should accept and respect it just like any other expression of opinion. Fine - tell that to those kids who get to hear similar "opinions" from their classmates and their communities day after day.

But, putting that aside, I disagree strongly with the statement that the OP didn't have an agenda or wasn't making a rallying call. First off, she was expressing her "opinion" on behalf of "we as an audience" - as if her attitude and viewing preferences were the "mainstream." Second, she said that seeing two women kiss and be involved in a romantic relationship made it impossible for the audience to enjoy a night of TV. That pretty obviously says there is something objectionable about a gay relationship that doesn't exist for all the other relationships, not to mention the drugs, murder, and mayhem, seen in the show. Then she clearly states her agenda - and it sure sounded to me like a rallying call to get rid of gay people on tv and to keep their public displays of affection in a closet.

I thought those statements, supposedly expressing some mainstream attitude, called for a response that questioned whether those views were in fact representative or were out of touch with reality and the product of some narrow provincial attitudes. I then expressed my opinion regarding the value of such programing, both as a means of expanding social acceptance of gay relationships and in possibly providing a much needed boost for the self esteem of some gay kid out there.

Finally, I guess what really pushed me over the edge with the post was the OP's reference to her whole family. To me, that says she's not just expressing her opinion but she's taking action to pass that same attitude along to her kids - to help mould a new generation filled with that prejudice. I know that society gives parents the right to twist their kids' minds in what ever fashion they choose. But, just as I cringe when I see a parent shout at or belittle or slap their child in a supermarket, when I see kids being inculcated with old prejudices, I feel saddened, both for those kids and for the gay kids who hope for a better future.

So that's why I'm not willing or able to stand silent, or politely nod my head and say "Thank you for sharing," when someone makes a special effort to proudly applaud their prejudice and encourage others to drink the same poison. I think expressions of prejudice-laden opinions have consequences. So, call me what you will, but when people spew out the kind of prejudice that I know has had harmful effects on me and countless others, I'm going to call them on it.

And if I call them on it with less restraint than others, who haven't lived under the cloud of the same prejudice, deem appropriate. Tough - deal with it.

Which brings me to my last point. This thread demonstrates the divisiveness that can be generated in this type of setting by someone's little rant about an emotionally charged subject like race, religion, or sexuality. I think it's entirely appropriate for a forum's TOS to prohibit negative statements on any of those topics and for posts containing them to be deleted. And just to be clear, I'm not talking about comments about gay lizards or about how hot the kiss between Janis and her girlfriend was - I even thought it was hot, and you know which side of the street I walk on. I trust the moderators to know the difference between casual banter and pointed, intentionally negative statements about an entire class of people.

To anyone who has endured this diatribe and gotten to this point, thanks.
To anyone who got this far and strongly disagrees with or is offended by what I said, I say double thanks for at least being willing to hear it all.

[Dew]

:goodpost: :awwhug: Sabarte You have a beautiful soul.

[RoseArienh]

I think the point that Neill and treesong are trying to make (and correct me if I'm wrong, gentlemen) is that "attack the post, not the poster" means just that, and I agree with them wholeheartedly.

It doesn't mean, "attack the poster if their opinion is pretty much disliked" or "attack the poster if they are unpopular." While I may well abhor someone's personal opinions, I don't feel that I have the right to make personal comments about them and their beliefs.

[Found in the Land of Lost]

...I see it no different than saying "people can be whatever ethnicity they want, I have no problem with the existence of different races, but once I saw there was a black man running the LA FBI field office, I stopped watching. Too many black people on TV shows. My family and I will watch something else."...

Even though this is precisely the type of bigotry that hits me personally at home and makes my own blood boil, I still say that a person has a right to say this. The person is not using racial slurs or stereotypes and is not saying anything negative or derogatory about that race. Those things can be implied and we can probably guess that the person probably subscribes to those ideas as well, but the person has not said those things and I don't think it's right to say that a person isn't allowed to participate based on what we think that they feel or what we think that they might say unless they cross that line.

I feel that true tolerance and understanding has to go both ways. If I had an unpopular view (as I sometimes do), I would want to be able to express it, as long as I did it in a respectful way. Because of that, I feel that it's very important to extend that same opportunity to people who hold opinions that are very different from mine, even if it is personally painful or upsetting.

Of course, this is just my opinion, and I know that not everyone agrees with me. Sabarte, I feel your pain and I know what it's like to have people look at you like a piece of trash because of who you have a relationship with. It makes me angry and it's very hard to understand how people can think that way, but for me, it's more important to have a broader view of tolerance and freedom and understanding, and IMO that includes the closed-minded.

[scotpgot]

Of course you'd have a right to say it, but at the same time I'd have a right to say how pissed off it makes me. No?

This is what's bothering me. What Neill and treesong appear to be saying is that even though the OP (and another poster) said hit many of us to the bone, and is generally considered an unpopular opinion, that they should have been welcomed with open arms and been engaged in high-minded debate. But this is not a damn theory we're talking about, this is WHO PEOPLE ARE. I am no so hypocritical that I am going to be friendly (even as a staff member) and welcome them cheerfully to the forum, and I am not such a coward that I won't say anything about an opinion that I personally regard as ridiculous.

[Found in the Land of Lost]

Right. I just feel that it isn't right to say that a person can't post here or to resort to name calling and insults. By all means, I don't mind one bit if we all express our feelings to the contrary (I certainly did at the beginning of the thread) as long as we're not engaging in personal attacks.

[Dew]

I think it is time to curb my online time here.

[CalvinHobbesLocke]

I think it is time to curb my online time here.

Or at least in this thread.

[Found in the Land of Lost]

I'm sorry if anything that I said upset anyone. I will shut up now. :D

[treesong]

This is what's bothering me. What Neill and treesong appear to be saying is that even though the OP (and another poster) said hit many of us to the bone, and is generally considered an unpopular opinion, that they should have been welcomed with open arms and been engaged in high-minded debate.

I think I suggested this:

Oh, I don't argue at all for pretend niceties. But I think the assessment of OP's open mindedness is not ours to make, not on this board. A simple statement of "I don't think your view will find much appreciation and acceptance here, and is at least at odds with my own personal feelings, so I wonder what you exactly hope to contribute," sounds about right, to me.

I don't see anything in there about open arms. Perhaps there is something about a debate.

We're not against debate, are we?


Perhaps you are suggesting that Neill and I are cowards?

[Found in the Land of Lost]

Okay, I think this conversation has run its course. Debate is one thing but running a sensitive subject into the ground is another. Carry on, there's nothing else to see here...

:Hippy:

[John]

...and I'm moving it.

To be honest, I'm a little disappointed in a number of people who participated in this thread. But that's just my opinion.