|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #4 -- 2 skits from closed captions
| Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #4 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #28078] |
Do, 05 Mai 2005 01:39 |
|
"Wally Waltripp aka Talladega Rastus" <Squibnick [at] webtv.net> wrote in message
news:307-42759E07-85 [at] storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net...
> Do you really think The Adventures of Cueball" is the "Holy Grail"
> against which all subsequent scifi shows are measured, Shocko? A scary
> thought. You didn't like Deep Throat 9? [[DS9]] speaking of Cueball,
> d'you remember that ep when Riker is hitting up that...girl[?] from that
> supposedly androgynous race? Wasn't that just a shameful apologist forum
First off, define: Cueball. Sounds like a character in the series Sliders.
Second, I faintly remember Riker being involved in something
repulsive like that. You would have to post which episode name
and year it was for me to look it up and comment upon it.
If it was The Outcast, the records show that that episode
first aired 03/16/1992, which was right in the middle
of the Clinton campaign for President which I have
previously discussed as the real turning point when
Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives took control
in Hollywood and in the country.
And it works right into the timeline of being 5 months
after the Death of Gene Roddenberry and the takeover
of the Star Trek franchise by Rick Berman.
Suddenly, the Star Trek TNG actors were being asked to
read scripts which expanded on the idea of Sodomy being
'just another life choice' and Stewart it seems, to his credit,
reacted against this.
Politics
=========================================
In these 1994 SNL skits, Patrick Stewart says:
"say No to anal sex !".
As such, Stewart, who I am sure contributed to both
of these 1994 Saturday Night Live scripts clearly wanted
to denounce the direction the Star Trek franchise took at
that time when it was taken over by Hollywood Homosexuals.
Of course, Star Trek: The Next Generation was the
Gold Standard against which all the other subsequent
science fiction shows are measured.
In 1994, this was Star Trek TNG's last year (1987-1994) and
Star Trek Deep Space Nine was the new series (1993-1999)
taking over. Gene Roddenberry died in Oct 1991, Rick
Berman took over control of the Star Trek franchise.
One clear difference between the two series was Sodomy.
ST DS9 has deep Sodomy symbolisms written directly into
the storyline
Terry Farrell (a woman) had a symbiont/symbiant inside her
which was a man. And in fact, she was referred to by Sisko
as "Old Man" on a regular basis.
In addition, this ridiculous script item allowed the Rick Berman
Hollywood Homosexuals to write into the script scenarios where
Terry Farrell (a woman; note how even the actress's name is
sexually ambiguous) has affairs physically with other women,
such as with Susanna Thompson in the episode Rejoined.
Clearly, this homosexuality which had taken over the
Star Trek franchise, was killing it, since I am sure I am
not the only guy who stopped watching Star Trek product
aroundthis period.
Patrick Stewart as the elder stateman of the franchise
at this point clearly was intent, in the writing of these
Saturday Night Live scripts, on denouncing the
Rick Berman Hollywood Homosexuals who took over
the Star Trek franchise in 1991 and who still have control
of Star Trek content.
Here is Rick Berman encouraging homosexuals to pose him
questions about introducing Sodomy into the Star Trek
scripts by interviewing with an obscure homosexual
publication in order to generate fake support for Sodomy
on the series.
I doubt Roddenberry would even have talked to this rag.
http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/braga2003.html
Politics
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #4 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #28089 ] |
Do, 05 Mai 2005 03:04 |
|
Since I have nothing better to do ayway...
John Shocked wrote:
> [snip]
>
>First off, define: Cueball. Sounds like a character in the series Sliders.
>Second, I faintly remember Riker being involved in something
>repulsive like that. You would have to post which episode name
>and year it was for me to look it up and comment upon it.
>
The whole concept of that series could just as easily be understood as a
promotion for heterosexuality. After all, wasn't Riker the one to make
the androgynous alien turn female and love him? He made it renounce it's
male half and focus on it's female half, essentially guiding it into a
heterosexual lifestyle.
>Terry Farrell (a woman) had a symbiont/symbiant inside her
>which was a man. And in fact, she was referred to by Sisko
>as "Old Man" on a regular basis.
>In addition, this ridiculous script item allowed the Rick Berman
>Hollywood Homosexuals to write into the script scenarios where
>Terry Farrell (a woman; note how even the actress's name is
>sexually ambiguous) has affairs physically with other women,
>such as with Susanna Thompson in the episode Rejoined.
>
>
Let's see... Nope, nope and nope. The whole Dax arc was focussing on the
difficulties of a humanoid male or female having to deal with feelings
and memories from a different sex. What you seem to want to forget
desperately to make your point is that Jadzia Dax is a symbiosis of two
lifeforms. The humanoid female Jadzia and the alien Dax whose gender is
never mention - if even it had one. In fact, the memories of men and
women that had been joined with Dax were opened up to Jadzia upon her
own joining. She needed a strong character to be able to wrestle through
the emotional swamp and retain her identity. You fail to mention that
Jadzia Dax eventually married a very masculin male humanoid - Worf.
Despite the temptations of that other Trill woman, who was the
heterosexual lover of a previous host - Jadzia Dax chose *not* to pursue
a lesbian relationship in favour of a heterosexual one. So, in
conclusion, Jadzia Dax is hardly the poster child for homosexuality...
But there is an even more important concept behind all of this you
refuse to recognize: Alien life. You keep referencing against life on
earth in our current time period, or better yet, in the USA about a
decade ago. Star Trek and Battle Star Galactica are series about a
fantasy universe in the distant future. They are *make-believe*. And
even so, they simply show us a possible future which leaves open all
options. If I wanted to see a series about frigid puritan conservatives
in denial, I would not watch Star Trek. It's the daring (which, by the
way, is in limited supply even here, but that's probably a
ratings-thing) of the series to even suggest such alien topics as love
with a genderless species or male pregnancy through touch (Star Trek
Enterprise, where Trip was impregnated by an alien 'female') which makes
it so great to watch. It goes beyond the boundaries placed upon us by
our own societies and shows us not to limit ourselves by those
boundaries. Even if it goes only a few steps beyond...
By the way, if you really are such a tunnel-visionary, why did you never
mention the "appaling" interspecies breeding that is so common in Star
Trek and many other sci-fi series? Isn't that some hidden propaganda
stunt for sex with animals? But please, retort, answer me, set me
straight... I can't wait to hear what arguments you will come up with!
Erwin
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #4 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #28116 ] |
Do, 05 Mai 2005 05:31 |
|
"Jaxtraw" <jaxtraw [at] nospamnobigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:427983c9$0$551$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:p2dee.6105$D91.4597 [at] fed1read01...
> <snip>
> Please remove followups to alt.startrek as this thread is off-topic for
that
> group. Many thanks.
How could Patrick Stewart possibly be off-topic for
a Newsgroup about Star Trek ?
Again, here is the truth about how the Star Trek series has been
damaged to the point that the series of series is near death.
And that is no fun for true science fiction tv fans.
People have been tuning out for around 13 years now.
Hollywood Homosexuals Selling Sodomy in the Scripts
is killing Science Fiction TV.
Politics
====================================
>>"Wally Waltripp aka Talladega Rastus" <Squibnick [at] webtv.net> wrote in
message
>>news:307-42759E07-85 [at] storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net...
>>> Do you really think The Adventures of Cueball" is the "Holy Grail"
>>> against which all subsequent scifi shows are measured, Shocko? A scary
>>> thought. You didn't like Deep Throat 9? [[DS9]] speaking of Cueball,
>>> d'you remember that ep when Riker is hitting up that...girl[?] from that
>>> supposedly androgynous race? Wasn't that just a shameful apologist forum
>>
>>First off, define: Cueball. Sounds like a character in the series
Sliders.
>>Second, I faintly remember Riker being involved in something
>>repulsive like that. You would have to post which episode name
>>and year it was for me to look it up and comment upon it.
>>
>>If it was The Outcast, the records show that that episode
>>first aired 03/16/1992, which was right in the middle
>>of the Clinton campaign for President which I have
>>previously discussed as the real turning point when
>>Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives took control
>>in Hollywood and in the country.
>>
>>And it works right into the timeline of being 5 months
>>after the Death of Gene Roddenberry and the takeover
>>of the Star Trek franchise by Rick Berman.
>>Suddenly, the Star Trek TNG actors were being asked to
>>read scripts which expanded on the idea of Sodomy being
>>'just another life choice' and Stewart it seems, to his credit,
>>reacted against this.
>>
>>Politics
>>
>>
>>
>>=========================================
>>In these 1994 SNL skits, Patrick Stewart says:
>>"say No to anal sex !".
>>As such, Stewart, who I am sure contributed to both
>>of these 1994 Saturday Night Live scripts clearly wanted
>>to denounce the direction the Star Trek franchise took at
>>that time when it was taken over by Hollywood Homosexuals.
>>
>>Of course, Star Trek: The Next Generation was the
>>Gold Standard against which all the other subsequent
>>science fiction shows are measured.
>>
>>In 1994, this was Star Trek TNG's last year (1987-1994) and
>>Star Trek Deep Space Nine was the new series (1993-1999)
>>taking over. Gene Roddenberry died in Oct 1991, Rick
>>Berman took over control of the Star Trek franchise.
>>One clear difference between the two series was Sodomy.
>>ST DS9 has deep Sodomy symbolisms written directly into
>>the storyline
>>
>>Terry Farrell (a woman) had a symbiont/symbiant inside her
>>which was a man. And in fact, she was referred to by Sisko
>>as "Old Man" on a regular basis.
>>In addition, this ridiculous script item allowed the Rick Berman
>>Hollywood Homosexuals to write into the script scenarios where
>>Terry Farrell (a woman; note how even the actress's name is
>>sexually ambiguous) has affairs physically with other women,
>>such as with Susanna Thompson in the episode Rejoined.
>>
>>Clearly, this homosexuality which had taken over the
>>Star Trek franchise, was killing it, since I am sure I am
>>not the only guy who stopped watching Star Trek product
>>aroundthis period.
>>
>>Patrick Stewart as the elder stateman of the franchise
>>at this point clearly was intent, in the writing of these
>>Saturday Night Live scripts, on denouncing the
>>Rick Berman Hollywood Homosexuals who took over
>>the Star Trek franchise in 1991 and who still have control
>>of Star Trek content.
>>
>>Here is Rick Berman encouraging homosexuals to pose him
>>questions about introducing Sodomy into the Star Trek
>>scripts by interviewing with an obscure homosexual
>>publication in order to generate fake support for Sodomy
>>on the series.
>>I doubt Roddenberry would even have talked to this rag.
>>
>>http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/braga2003.html
>>
>>Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #4 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #28118 ] |
Do, 05 Mai 2005 05:41 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> "Jaxtraw" <jaxtraw [at] nospamnobigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:427983c9$0$551$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>
>>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:p2dee.6105$D91.4597 [at] fed1read01...
>><snip>
>>Please remove followups to alt.startrek as this thread is off-topic for
>
> that
>
>>group. Many thanks.
>
>
> How could Patrick Stewart possibly be off-topic for
> a Newsgroup about Star Trek ?
Why would anybody think Patrick Stewart's invariably on-topic in a Trek
group? Please explain.
BTW, this is also x-posted to non-Trek groups (example:
alt.battlestar-galactica), FWIW. It's certainly off-topic for at least
some of them.
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #4 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #28119 ] |
Do, 05 Mai 2005 05:47 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Osgee.6126$D91.3700 [at] fed1read01...
> "Jaxtraw" <jaxtraw [at] nospamnobigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:427983c9$0$551$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
> > "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:p2dee.6105$D91.4597 [at] fed1read01...
> > <snip>
> > Please remove followups to alt.startrek as this thread is off-topic for
> that
> > group. Many thanks.
>
> How could Patrick Stewart possibly be off-topic for
> a Newsgroup about Star Trek ?
>
Because your post is nothing to do with Star Trek. Fantastical theories
about homosexual fifth columnists have nothing to do with the TV series
"Star Trek", and Patrick Stewart is only on topic if it's something to do
with his appearances in Star Trek. He's in the movie Excalibur too, and the
X-Men movies, but long discussions about Excalibur and X-Men are nothing to
do with Star Trek so should be confined to groups discussing movies in
general, Arthurian legend movies, the X-Men, appropriate Marvel Comics
groups and so on.
You keep ranting on about Battlestar Galactica. That has nothing to do with
Star Trek either. Your imaginative contentions about neocon conservative
homosexuals (surely the tiniest of minorities) must be on topic for some
group or other, but sure as shit they aren't anything to do with Star Trek.
Ian
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #4 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #28121 ] |
Do, 05 Mai 2005 05:48 |
|
Jaxtraw wrote:
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote
>>How could Patrick Stewart possibly be off-topic for
>>a Newsgroup about Star Trek ?
> Because your post is nothing to do with Star Trek.
That's correct. I concur.
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #4 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #28147 ] |
Do, 05 Mai 2005 07:58 |
|
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:117j5enin0gfhee [at] news.supernews.com...
> John Shocked wrote:
> > "Jaxtraw" <jaxtraw [at] nospamnobigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > news:427983c9$0$551$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
> >>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:p2dee.6105$D91.4597 [at] fed1read01...
> >><snip>
> >>Please remove followups to alt.startrek as this thread is off-topic for
> > that group. Many thanks.
> > How could Patrick Stewart possibly be off-topic for
> > a Newsgroup about Star Trek ?
> Why would anybody think Patrick Stewart's invariably on-topic in a Trek
> group? Please explain.
Patrick Stewart single handedly resurrected the whole Star Trek
franchise with his performances in Star Trek: The Next Generation.
It would all still be dead today as Shatner left it, if not for Stewart.
He put in great performances and sold the credibility of the scripts.
Richard Dean Anderson is the opposite. A lousy actor who does not
even try to sell the credibility of the science fiction script content.
And that has damaged SG-1's ratings.
> BTW, this is also x-posted to non-Trek groups (example:
> alt.battlestar-galactica), FWIW. It's certainly off-topic for at least
> some of them.
Wrong. The whole point here is that the Hollywood Homosexuals
seem to be targetting the demographic of viewers that science fiction
represents, with the intent to persuade them to either become Sodomites
or at least support their agenda.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #4 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #28149 ] |
Do, 05 Mai 2005 08:08 |
|
"Jaxtraw" <jaxtraw [at] nospamnobigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:427996b5$0$555$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Osgee.6126$D91.3700 [at] fed1read01...
> > "Jaxtraw" <jaxtraw [at] nospamnobigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > news:427983c9$0$551$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
> > > "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:p2dee.6105$D91.4597 [at] fed1read01...
> > > <snip>
> > > Please remove followups to alt.startrek as this thread
> > > is off-topic for that group. Many thanks.
> > How could Patrick Stewart possibly be off-topic for
> > a Newsgroup about Star Trek ?
> Because your post is nothing to do with Star Trek. Fantastical theories
> about homosexual fifth columnists have nothing to do with the TV series
"fifth columnists" ? What is that.
> "Star Trek", and Patrick Stewart is only on topic if it's something to do
> with his appearances in Star Trek. He's in the movie Excalibur too, and
the
> X-Men movies, but long discussions about Excalibur and X-Men are nothing
to
> do with Star Trek so should be confined to groups discussing movies in
> general, Arthurian legend movies, the X-Men, appropriate Marvel Comics
> groups and so on.
This is nonsense. Patrick Stewart is clearly on topic for Star Trek
and actually for any TV show about science fiction.
> You keep ranting on about Battlestar Galactica. That has nothing to do
with
> Star Trek either. Your imaginative contentions about neocon conservative
> homosexuals (surely the tiniest of minorities) must be on topic for some
> group or other, but sure as shit they aren't anything to do with Star
Trek.
> Ian
Rubbish. If you support Hollywood Homosexuals crowbar-ing Sodomy
into the science fiction scripts, just come clean with that. Why beat
around the bush.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #4 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #28174 ] |
Do, 05 Mai 2005 15:10 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> The whole point here is that the Hollywood Homosexuals
> seem to be targetting the demographic of viewers that science fiction
> represents, with the intent to persuade them to either become Sodomites
> or at least support their agenda.
And that's a problem, why exactly?
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #4 -- 2 skitsf... [message #28243 ] |
Do, 05 Mai 2005 23:13 |
|
"Sib Habishian" <Squibnick [at] webtv.net> wrote in message
news:467-427A699F-54 [at] storefull-3218.bay.webtv.net...
> Ol' cueball not relevant to Trek?!? We shall make sure to
> cross-post to your little group, now.
If you are disseminating truth like the following, then all is well.
Politics
==============================================
"Wally Waltripp aka Talladega Rastus" <Squibnick [at] webtv.net> wrote in message
news:307-42759E07-85 [at] storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net...
> Do you really think The Adventures of Cueball" is the "Holy Grail"
> against which all subsequent scifi shows are measured, Shocko? A scary
> thought. You didn't like Deep Throat 9? [[DS9]] speaking of Cueball,
> d'you remember that ep when Riker is hitting up that...girl[?] from that
> supposedly androgynous race? Wasn't that just a shameful apologist forum
First off, define: Cueball. Sounds like a character in the series Sliders.
Second, I faintly remember Riker being involved in something
repulsive like that. You would have to post which episode name
and year it was for me to look it up and comment upon it.
If it was The Outcast, the records show that that episode
first aired 03/16/1992, which was right in the middle
of the Clinton campaign for President which I have
previously discussed as the real turning point when
Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives took control
in Hollywood and in the country.
And it works right into the timeline of being 5 months
after the Death of Gene Roddenberry and the takeover
of the Star Trek franchise by Rick Berman.
Suddenly, the Star Trek TNG actors were being asked to
read scripts which expanded on the idea of Sodomy being
'just another life choice' and Stewart it seems, to his credit,
reacted against this.
Politics
=========================================
In these 1994 SNL skits, Patrick Stewart says:
"say No to anal sex !".
As such, Stewart, who I am sure contributed to both
of these 1994 Saturday Night Live scripts clearly wanted
to denounce the direction the Star Trek franchise took at
that time when it was taken over by Hollywood Homosexuals.
Of course, Star Trek: The Next Generation was the
Gold Standard against which all the other subsequent
science fiction shows are measured.
In 1994, this was Star Trek TNG's last year (1987-1994) and
Star Trek Deep Space Nine was the new series (1993-1999)
taking over. Gene Roddenberry died in Oct 1991, Rick
Berman took over control of the Star Trek franchise.
One clear difference between the two series was Sodomy.
ST DS9 has deep Sodomy symbolisms written directly into
the storyline
Terry Farrell (a woman) had a symbiont/symbiant inside her
which was a man. And in fact, she was referred to by Sisko
as "Old Man" on a regular basis.
In addition, this ridiculous script item allowed the Rick Berman
Hollywood Homosexuals to write into the script scenarios where
Terry Farrell (a woman; note how even the actress's name is
sexually ambiguous) has affairs physically with other women,
such as with Susanna Thompson in the episode Rejoined.
Clearly, this homosexuality which had taken over the
Star Trek franchise, was killing it, since I am sure I am
not the only guy who stopped watching Star Trek product
aroundthis period.
Patrick Stewart as the elder stateman of the franchise
at this point clearly was intent, in the writing of these
Saturday Night Live scripts, on denouncing the
Rick Berman Hollywood Homosexuals who took over
the Star Trek franchise in 1991 and who still have control
of Star Trek content.
Here is Rick Berman encouraging homosexuals to pose him
questions about introducing Sodomy into the Star Trek
scripts by interviewing with an obscure homosexual
publication in order to generate fake support for Sodomy
on the series.
I doubt Roddenberry would even have talked to this rag.
http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/braga2003.html
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #4 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #28310 ] |
Fr, 06 Mai 2005 10:44 |
|
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:117j5rkgn179n3f [at] news.supernews.com...
> Jaxtraw wrote:
> > "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> >>How could Patrick Stewart possibly be off-topic for
> >>a Newsgroup about Star Trek ?
> > Because your post is nothing to do with Star Trek.
> That's correct. I concur.
Explain how the following is not relevant to Star Trek ?
=========================================
"Wally Waltripp aka Talladega Rastus" <Squibnick [at] webtv.net> wrote in message
news:307-42759E07-85 [at] storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net...
> Do you really think The Adventures of Cueball" is the "Holy Grail"
> against which all subsequent scifi shows are measured, Shocko? A scary
> thought. You didn't like Deep Throat 9? [[DS9]] speaking of Cueball,
> d'you remember that ep when Riker is hitting up that...girl[?] from that
> supposedly androgynous race? Wasn't that just a shameful apologist forum
First off, define: Cueball. Sounds like a character in the series Sliders.
Second, I faintly remember Riker being involved in something
repulsive like that. You would have to post which episode name
and year it was for me to look it up and comment upon it.
If it was The Outcast, the records show that that episode
first aired 03/16/1992, which was right in the middle
of the Clinton campaign for President which I have
previously discussed as the real turning point when
Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives took control
in Hollywood and in the country.
And it works right into the timeline of being 5 months
after the Death of Gene Roddenberry and the takeover
of the Star Trek franchise by Rick Berman.
Suddenly, the Star Trek TNG actors were being asked to
read scripts which expanded on the idea of Sodomy being
'just another life choice' and Stewart it seems, to his credit,
reacted against this.
Politics
=========================================
In these 1994 SNL skits, Patrick Stewart says:
"say No to anal sex !".
As such, Stewart, who I am sure contributed to both
of these 1994 Saturday Night Live scripts clearly wanted
to denounce the direction the Star Trek franchise took at
that time when it was taken over by Hollywood Homosexuals.
Of course, Star Trek: The Next Generation was the
Gold Standard against which all the other subsequent
science fiction shows are measured.
In 1994, this was Star Trek TNG's last year (1987-1994) and
Star Trek Deep Space Nine was the new series (1993-1999)
taking over. Gene Roddenberry died in Oct 1991, Rick
Berman took over control of the Star Trek franchise.
One clear difference between the two series was Sodomy.
ST DS9 has deep Sodomy symbolisms written directly into
the storyline
Terry Farrell (a woman) had a symbiont/symbiant inside her
which was a man. And in fact, she was referred to by Sisko
as "Old Man" on a regular basis.
In addition, this ridiculous script item allowed the Rick Berman
Hollywood Homosexuals to write into the script scenarios where
Terry Farrell (a woman; note how even the actress's name is
sexually ambiguous) has affairs physically with other women,
such as with Susanna Thompson in the episode Rejoined.
Clearly, this homosexuality which had taken over the
Star Trek franchise, was killing it, since I am sure I am
not the only guy who stopped watching Star Trek product
aroundthis period.
Patrick Stewart as the elder stateman of the franchise
at this point clearly was intent, in the writing of these
Saturday Night Live scripts, on denouncing the
Rick Berman Hollywood Homosexuals who took over
the Star Trek franchise in 1991 and who still have control
of Star Trek content.
Here is Rick Berman encouraging homosexuals to pose him
questions about introducing Sodomy into the Star Trek
scripts by interviewing with an obscure homosexual
publication in order to generate fake support for Sodomy
on the series.
I doubt Roddenberry would even have talked to this rag.
http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/braga2003.html
Politics
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #4 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #28313 ] |
Fr, 06 Mai 2005 10:58 |
|
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:117k6q1l6v31b76 [at] news.supernews.com...
> John Shocked wrote:
> > The whole point here is that the Hollywood Homosexuals
> > seem to be targetting the demographic of viewers that science fiction
> > represents, with the intent to persuade them to either become Sodomites
> > or at least support their agenda.
> And that's a problem, why exactly?
Obviously if people object to homosexuality enough to get up
go to the polls and vote against the homosexual agenda
in large numbers just 6 months ago, that would tell any TV
producer that viewers do not want to see such crap.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Script of SNL Patrick Stewart 1994 Appearance #4 -- 2 skits from closed captions [message #59163 ] |
So, 12 Juni 2005 07:51 |
|
YOU GO GIRLFRIEND!
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qLiee.6146$D91.4694 [at] fed1read01...
> "Jaxtraw" <jaxtraw [at] nospamnobigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:427996b5$0$555$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Osgee.6126$D91.3700 [at] fed1read01...
>> > "Jaxtraw" <jaxtraw [at] nospamnobigfoot.com> wrote in message
>> > news:427983c9$0$551$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>> > > "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:p2dee.6105$D91.4597 [at] fed1read01...
>> > > <snip>
>> > > Please remove followups to alt.startrek as this thread
>> > > is off-topic for that group. Many thanks.
>> > How could Patrick Stewart possibly be off-topic for
>> > a Newsgroup about Star Trek ?
>
>> Because your post is nothing to do with Star Trek. Fantastical theories
>> about homosexual fifth columnists have nothing to do with the TV series
>
> "fifth columnists" ? What is that.
>
>> "Star Trek", and Patrick Stewart is only on topic if it's something to do
>> with his appearances in Star Trek. He's in the movie Excalibur too, and
> the
>> X-Men movies, but long discussions about Excalibur and X-Men are nothing
> to
>> do with Star Trek so should be confined to groups discussing movies in
>> general, Arthurian legend movies, the X-Men, appropriate Marvel Comics
>> groups and so on.
>
> This is nonsense. Patrick Stewart is clearly on topic for Star Trek
> and actually for any TV show about science fiction.
>
>> You keep ranting on about Battlestar Galactica. That has nothing to do
> with
>> Star Trek either. Your imaginative contentions about neocon conservative
>> homosexuals (surely the tiniest of minorities) must be on topic for some
>> group or other, but sure as shit they aren't anything to do with Star
> Trek.
>> Ian
>
> Rubbish. If you support Hollywood Homosexuals crowbar-ing Sodomy
> into the science fiction scripts, just come clean with that. Why beat
> around the bush.
>
> Politics
>
>
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 10:52:33 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,10556 Sekunden |
