Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (34271)	2/17/1999 8:52:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 67261

Unfortunately, my acquaintance with teletubbies is too limited to make an informed judgment.

To: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (34271)	2/17/1999 9:31:00 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

There is just too much collective coincidences with that Teletubby. I'm not a scholar of the history of teletubbies. What is absurd is that anyone cares. The toddlers that watch the program are unlikely to attribute any signifigance to purple triangles. It reminds me of my days in college when groups used to declare Gay blue-jean days where all gays were supposed to wear blue jeans and I suppose by implication that anyone in blue jeans was gay. I and most people just ignored it. Next I suppose Falwell will call for the censoring of The Wizard of Oz because Judy Garland is a gay pride symbol. TP

To: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (34271)	2/17/1999 3:55:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Are you joking here, or giving an honest opinion on this matter? I would be very surprised were it the latter, but in that it seems quite the general tendency in this country to parrot back the "sophisticated" ridicule of the media, I would be very impressed. As I have said here, it seems many people now laugh at Falwell's statement, but I find nothing funny in that it seems very likely the Tinky Winky character is indeed a homosexual representative of sorts. I have not yet seen the character, but if it possesses all the various symbols Falwell claims it possesses, then I can hardly see how one can out-of-hand dismiss the possibility. 'Why does it matter?' someone here has effectively asked. The answer will be remarkably apparent to anyone who can think past his bias. It matters because some parents do not want their children growing comfortable with characters that they consider sexually ambivalent. Recognizing both this and his obligation to inform those he pastors on societal issues ( particularly as they impact morality), Falwell has most assuredly had an excellent response to this issue. From what I have read, he did not try and use guns or anything of the sort to have Tinky Winky banned. He merely told his people (those who likely would not desire their children to grow comfortable with characters that they consider in any way morally defunct) to consider rejecting "Teletubbies" because the character Tinky Winky seemed objectionable. He then very reasonably described why the character is objectionable. What is truly ridiculous is the response of his opponents. They have merely responded with ridicule, and it seems most people have accepted this response as a suitable argument. To my way of thinking (and it has little to do with my position on homosexuality), Falwell has presented the better case, despite all the "sophisticated" laughter of his opponents. Now one may claim Falwell's Jewish antichrist and other statements disqualify taking him seriously on this Teletubbie issue. This is no argument. Firstly, Falwell apparently spoke not to those who would disqualify him, but to his own people. Secondly, he has not done anything that warrants we relegate him to the trash heap of humanity. He is no Larry Flynt. Thirdly, given the former point, it is his argument we should consider and not the man.