Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« DeLay & The Journos | Main | Freedom v. 'free' healthcare »

Thursday, September 29, 2005

You will watch us! And you will like it!

Courtesy of Neale News, a new report showing what the rest of us already knew:  Canadians prefer U.S. shows over local fare.  Apparently, it comes as somewhat of a surprise to some people that Canadians share the same need for coherent entertainment as the rest of the world.  They simply cannot comprehend that an overwhelming portion of the population is completely uninterested in Aboriginal programming and Punjabi TV.  That's to say nothing about the preponderance of French channels on the Canadian dial.

The CRTC and it's proponents try to foist ambiguous Canadian programming on an unwilling populace, through regulations.  What they are finding though, is that Canadians cannot be compelled to watch government approved programming, even if you eliminate most of their choices.  Hence, the presence of a growing number of (nudge, wink) U.S. satellites.  Try to make them tune in to the views you want them to see, and they will simply tune out.

Don't expect that to stop them from trying to expand regulations, though...

Crtc_1 But the poor showing for Canadian-made TV shows comes despite the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the country's broadcast regulator, giving domestic broadcasters incentives to include more advertising minutes per primetime hour if they broadcast more Canadian dramas.

"From our perspective, we believe that the ad incentive program is inadequate, and the only way in which Canadian broadcasters will actually produce Canadian material to any significant extent is if they're obligated to do so through regulation," said Steve Waddell, national executive director of ACTRA, Canada's actors union. (emphasis added)

They can keep piling on more rules, but don't expect their fortunes to change.  Last time I checked, TV was still an optional activity.  When you offer few choices other than French kids shows (that still use mimes -eeek!) or 'cultural' channels or the CBC (I think they use mimes, too!)  don't be surprised when most of us simply decide to go rent a movie.

Now, I don't watch a lot of TV but when I do, I'm not going to waste my time on a program that has a quota for Canadian content.  I am virulently allergic to government-regulated programming, and would much rather jump off the cliff, into that wild void called 'choice'.  If a Canadian program is good, people will watch it.  If however, it is nothing short of politically correct pap - it has to be shoved down our throats, by the CRTC.

Welcome to the Canadian version of 'freedom of choice' - You are free to choose what we want you to see.  Thanks guys, but I think I'll just go scrub the brick with a toothbrush, instead.

North American Patriot

Posted by Wonder Woman on September 29, 2005 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference You will watch us! And you will like it!:


CRTC making a play on an old line-

You can choose any colour car you want as long as it is Black...Henry Ford.

Posted by: Paul | 2005-09-29 6:28:27 AM

Canadian culture does not exist, never has existed, and never will exist, no matter how much money is thrown at it.

Posted by: Scott | 2005-09-29 6:57:59 AM

I'm attracting porno now...Where is the CRTC when you really need them?!

Posted by: Wonder Woman | 2005-09-29 7:43:55 AM

I don't think that the CRTC or the CBC exists for the audience; it exists to fund the producers, directors, actors, crew. The audience is irrelevant.

What has happened is that rather than allowing cultural expressions to emerge from within the population of Canada, to be funded by private capital, our centralist authoritarian mode of governance has taken upon itself the sole right to develop and articulate Canadian culture. It has set up government agencies (CRTC, CBC, various film studios and subsidies), funded by the taxpayer, which produce film and tv shows but with 'Canadian content'.

This definition in itself sets up false stereotyping. Imagine the US insisting that cultural expressions produced in the US will primarily be funded by the government; this means that producers will opt for these easier-to-get funds rather than the more difficult raising of private capital. But, once in that funding haven, their freedom of expression options become drastically reduced. The gov't then defines the content of your artistic production: e.g. it must include 'US culture'.
What the heck does this mean? Cowboys and John Wayne? Or, or, or???
What if Italy did this? Would that mean films of spaghetti and opera?

Essentially, the development of local cultural identities freezes, stops dead, by the use of such a top-down tactic. You can only find funding via the government, and the gov't defines the general content of your productions. This limits the scope of artistic exploration; the productions reduce to a common denominator of type and content. The Boards of Directors of these funding agencies become a closed group and the ideology of funding become reified in what they will permit to be funded.

Then, the producers, actors, writers etc, also become reified into a typology - and a closed group.

This is what has happened in Canada. The government has moved in to defining artistic and cultural expressions. So, Canadian content has reduced to the 'common denominators' of: aboriginals, Quebec and hockey. This is what is funded by the government.

Therefore, the CRTC and the CBC have nothing to do with an audience; they don't even need an audience. Their agenda is to fund a Set of Workers - film producers, directors (how much money has Michaelle Jean's husband gotten from the gov't over the years for his films?), actors, etc, etc...and that's their only agenda. Whether anyone sees these productions is irrelevant. BUT - they ensure they are 'shown' by insisting that a radio or television station doesn't get a licence unless it shows some of these productions. Again, the fact that everyone tunes them out - is not the point.

Posted by: ET | 2005-09-29 7:55:15 AM

The goal in itself is not bad. But the means are disgusting.

We have to put the bulls in front of the plow! Start first by having a Canadian identity and moral values.

Posted by: Rémi houle | 2005-09-29 9:49:42 AM

I very seldom watch CBC or Canadian movies - these are over-acted, sexual scenes over exaggerated.
We do have some great canadian actors but these go south to work.

Posted by: md | 2005-09-29 9:55:05 AM

"Privately owned Canadian stations" finance & air Canadian Idol, the recent Terry Fox TV movie, numerous hockey games on nights other than Saturday, etc, Robert. If enough people want to watch it, it will get funded. Free market at work. If the reverse is true -- not enough people want to watch it so it can't get funded -- why should tax dollars be wasted on it? Why should any business get government funding for making a product that hardly anybody wants to buy?

You want to give your money to the CBC to fund such stuff, go ahead. Just don't ask me, or worse, compel me through my taxes, to do it.

Posted by: Ian in NS | 2005-09-29 10:10:00 AM

This is not the way doing it Robert. If there is such thing as Canadian identity then if would appear randomly and naturally in good quality programming which is controlled only by free market rating.. No nation on Earth refuse content that reflects its own life and history. The way it is done in Canada is the way how dictatorships operate: they create false ideologies, they show false mirrors of reality where fake identities represents twisted agendas. The interweave of power, media and ideology are well-known for long. Please do a research on the media and politics in the seventies in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and Yugoslavia. You'll find disturbing similarities with current Canadian reality in approach, ideology(!!) and execution..
No wonder Canadians are so brainwashed they have no healthy context and justification for their own identity in the World or just in North America.. The forced one party-ideology actually does the opposite: it makes the nation loose its real identity.. But don't worry, if it is strong enough it will survive. Not by itself though...

Posted by: Quo Vadis | 2005-09-29 10:19:56 AM

I agree Robert on your point that I'm not being told what to watch; some access to programming such as newscasts from the BBC and Fox are only available through the cable suppliers via paying for the channel, however in the most recent case FOX news was denied access by Canadian viewers based on the content, this is decided and approved or denied by the CRTC. that is a choice the viewer should be allowed to make.

My question is when the CBC funds and creates what is Canadian interest stories such as your Dieppe and Vimy examples there is need for a CRTC required regulation that mandates the amount of content within the Canadian market place that makes it a requirement? In other words create a body that states X amount of programming is required and the CBC will create on the taxpayers dime, thus fulfilling the required niche.

If there is a market of viewers that wishes to see and take part in stories about Dieppe,or Vimy in a docudrama on TV then I suggest that CTV or Global or other PRIVATE Canadian television operations can do the market research to prove the demand for such programming, then fund, produce and distribute such entertainment to the Canadian Market place.

You not suggesting that without the CBC, and CRTC regulating the industry to force certain programming, that Canadians are incapable of creating such programming anyways. Or are you?

I always thought, naively perhaps, that viewers tuned into shows that are sharply produced, well written and releatively well acted and relevant to the viewing public.

Posted by: Paul | 2005-09-29 10:24:01 AM

Raw Bert wrote:

"Did you miss the CBC's production of Dieppe. Have you not heard of the CBC's plans to film a special docudrama commemorating the 90th anniversary of Vimy Ridge?"

Good idea, RawBee - trust the commemoration of what's left of our proud history to the Trudeaupian progressives at the Corpse. Given their past approach to such things, I eagerly await their explanation that the high casualty rate at Vimy Ridge would have been avoided had turn-of-the-19th century Canadians been more tolerant of gays and not committed genocide against first(?!?) nation folk. Perhaps the Governess General's Canuckophile hubby could get some of his FLQ friends involved in the production, eh? How about that well-known Canadian military historian and Vimy expert, Bill Graham, as narrator?

Posted by: Great Walls of Fire | 2005-09-29 10:41:47 AM

Robert asks if you havefreedom to watch U.S. T.V how does that interfere? Well I don't watch much T.V. but I do watch CNBC (a U.S. financial show Robert) on my Canadian satellite system. Unfortuately it is chopped up at times to incomprehension by Star Choice inserting its Canadian ads. I pay for CNBC which I want - not Canadian Ads!

Posted by: Mike W | 2005-09-29 11:08:58 AM

I'm waiting for the production of the Canadians invading Norway.

Posted by: kelly | 2005-09-29 11:19:49 AM

It seems to me that we spend a lot of societal money to create artistic expression in media forms that are a smokey mirror of American culture. Movies, television series, and musical productions are a convenient way for the governments of the day to demonstrate their commitment to Canadian culture. But to what end?

Looking at important Canadian cultural contributions, would the unique musical traditions of the Maritimes have developed were it not for the isolation & poverty of those communities? Imagine if the governors of pre-Canada had decided that maritime culture was important and that they would ensure they gave it all the assistance and funding it needed to achieve its potential – it would not exist today and what would have taken its place would be indistinguishable from that which is produced elsewhere.

Remove the artifice of cultural funding, and true artistry will flourish. I cannot predict what form that would take – perhaps a retro-resurgence of live theatre, perhaps a progressive move to cyberarts. One thing that is certain is that Canadian artistic expression would not cease in the absence of government funding. The maritime musicians played on without ornate concert halls – their music became richer and more distinctive. The same richness of a truly Canadian cultural tradition cannot exist as long as our current regulation/subsidisation of ‘culture’ persists.

At the end of the day, we are not preserving or advancing Canadian culture. To the contrary, we are stagnating and distorting it, forcing it into a ‘made in America’ mold of convenience.

Posted by: bc_dad | 2005-09-29 11:31:26 AM

Robert, with your basic psychological need to rush-in-and-denigrate, you've totally missed the point.

First, the fact that our media productions are controlled by the government rather than the citizens of this country - doesn't mean that we are not'free to see what we want to see'. You are completely missing the point.

As has already been pointed out, we are NOT free to see/hear what we want. The CRTC regulates what we are allowed to see - e.g. Fox News - and such a practice is exactly the practice of communist and totalitarian regimes.

The key point is the fact that the gov't has set itself up as governing what may/may not be culturally articulated by the media within Canada, by its control of the media content. You point with pride that the gov't is funding documentaries of Dieppe and Vimy - but so what? As has already been pointed out, the WISH to make AND VIEW such films ought to rest within the control of the people. It should not be the case that the gov't sets up an agenda of What Films You Can Make.

Canada doesn't have a film industry; it has a gov't run propaganda media system. The gov't taxation and media regulation disables the population, both financially and intellectually, from themselves developing film-making as a private capitalist industry.

The themes, the ideas, the content of 'what's in the films we make' ought to emerge and stay with the people. Instead, the Canadian gov't has set up a private but publicly funded film-industry which functions both as a propaganda system and to nurture and confine a small set of media producters, directors, acts - primarily in Quebec. There's a clique of the 'leftist media' in Quebec and Toronto, self-enclosed, dependent on the gov't funding for their living, indifferent to whether or not their films are attractive to an audience. It's like welfare. It doesn't matter what you produce, for you are paid by the gov't no matter what.

It is impossible to produce films privately in this country; the secondary corporations in our piggy-back economy can't fund such an industry. Then, the gov't actually controls the CONTENT of the media! That's the agenda of communist and totalitarian countries.

So, the only films made are those by this publicly funded gov't controlled film industry. The regulators of this industry, civil servants and an 'in-group' all of whom know each other, over time, calcify their thoughts and reduce the content to the 'tried and true' imagery (Quebec, Quebec, rewritten history..and that's about it).

The gov't is not interested in the audience; it doesn't require people to themselves choose to PAY to see these productions in a movie. After all, Canadians have already PAID for them, without their agreement, by their taxes. The gov't essentially denies Canadians the right to choose whether or not to see these films by effectively saying: "We are making you pay for these films, via your taxes. You can sleep through the film if you want; we don't care; we've already got your money".

Somehow - that doesn't seem like a democracy. And, it's no way to generate a film-industry. Or a film-audience.

Posted by: ET | 2005-09-29 12:01:19 PM

I could never hope to top ET's articulate response to Robert, but I will say this...A great documentary series like Dieppe is a fine example of Canadian film making - But the US has multitudes of historical documentaries being made every day, and no taxpayer-funded sledgehammer to ensure that they get aired, yet still they do. It's because people want to see them. Television networks are still businesses and they will provide whatever the viewers want, because it is the best way to make money.
Don't be fooled for a second, into thinking that you are not being prevented from watching certain things...You watch the Discovery Channel? Ever seen what it looks like in another country? I have. How about Court TV (my favorite) but only in the US...The Canadian version is virtually unwatchable.
They have to ALTER the programming to meet content standards. Problem is, when every TV and radio signal is controlled, you never even know what you're missing. I have had Canadian satellite and American satellite and in comparison, the difference is staggering.

Posted by: Wonder Woman | 2005-09-29 12:58:54 PM

I love canadian content. I recently turned the channel to Aboriginal Peoples Network (or whatever it's called) and saw the most racist and politically incorrect comedian in my memory. He wasn't THAT funny but the unPCness was interesting. Only on APTN!

Posted by: soup | 2005-09-29 12:59:49 PM

I want ESPN!

Posted by: Mad Eye Moody | 2005-09-29 1:15:15 PM

soup: APYN actually shows an awful lot of lousy Hollywood movies in prime time. Love the CRTC.

Robert McClelland et al: The fact is Fox is now available on Rogers Cable (channel 181). I still prefer CNN--how's that for a "right-whinger"?

But NewsNet makes me want to choke (cf Peter Kent).


Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-09-29 1:53:18 PM



Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-09-29 1:54:09 PM

1der Wuman wrote:

"But the US has multitudes of historical documentaries being made every day, and no taxpayer-funded sledgehammer to ensure that they get aired, yet still they do. It's because people want to see them."

So does the lack of historical documentaries on Canadian themes eminating from sources other than the Corpse mean Canadians DON'T want to see them? Anyone thinking this need only review the Canadian ratings for this type of programming when it appears on, for eg, PBS (I suspect the regional PBS station shown in my local market would have to shut down without the influx of Canadian dollars they receive during "pledge week").

So if there IS a market for this type of production, why is there so little of it? Surely one part of the explanation is that, in our haste to further "progress" our nation, we have so thoroughly and completely renounced our past, to actually celebrate even some little part of it is unfathomable. Why, to take even a modicum of pride in something that happened before Trudeau remade our nation is to imply it isn't necessary to change everything or deny the systemic and myriad flaws in Canadian society and we can't have that, can we?

Try to think of some noteworthy event in Canadian history that could be made the subject of a major documentary without offending the sensibilities of at least some of the high priests of multiculturalism, Canada's official state religion. Having trouble? - don't worry, it can't be done.

Posted by: Great Walls of Fire | 2005-09-29 2:13:01 PM

Robert - your data, as has been pointed out before, is frequently wrong.

Are you sure that the reason that the CRTC refused Fox news was only for the administrative technicality that it had 'backed out of' an agreement with Global News?

I think you are ignoring that in June of 2003, the CRTC refused Fox News, on its own, access to Canada.
Then, Fox News tried to align itself with Global TV - and this alliance was itself turned down by the CRTC in November of 2003. It was the CRTC that refused the alliance with Global, not Fox News.

Then, this behaviour of the CRTC bevame very public, and people complained (including myself, not that it matters). This was also when the CRTC was permitting Al-Jazeera to broadcast in Canada, and the complaints were very loud - how could they permit an Islamic fundamentalist broadcast and reject Fox News (and no, it isn't fundamentalist, so don't bother with the insults)...and finally, the patriarchal CRTC permitted Canadians, who are deemed to lack the critical facility to make up their own minds what to watch - to view Fox News.

Unfortunately, since I'm not much of a TV person and therefore, get only minimal cable, I don't get either CNN or, more importantly, Fox News.

Posted by: ET | 2005-09-29 2:30:20 PM

At least the CRTC was kind enough to give us Don Cherry back, delayed of course in case he hurts another poor frenchmans' feelings.

Posted by: kelly | 2005-09-29 3:13:30 PM

Great Walls of Fire: I do think Canadians want this kind of programming. But the bureaucrats in charge, never fund and rarely allow anything on the air that could generate any kind of patriotic pride, in this country -- unless of course the pride emanated from the PC image of a furry beaver, doling out free health care from the lap of the "Great P.E.T."
Many Canadians don't demand access to this kind of programming, because they have been steeped in Liberal, multi-culti wishy-washiness so long, they simply are unaware that it even exists. Or that it deserves our support.
The biggest problem is that the rot is systemic. From actors, to directors, to commentators and broadcasters, network execs, administrators for artisitc funding programs, and the CRTC -- Most of them are on the same side-the one that wants to keep us molded into their perfect socialist nation.
We have so much to be proud of. But we got a new flag, and a new song, and were quietly told to forget that there was ever anything before. And without a dissenting voice...Most of us will listen.

BTW...Are you mocking my name?

Posted by: Wonder Woman | 2005-09-29 3:55:19 PM

Lynda Carter wrote:

"BTW...Are you mocking my name?"

Just ever so slightly - call it my attempt to keep things appropriately light in this little corner of the blogosphere. Please don't wig out like certain other COUGHetCOUGH posters.

Posted by: Great Walls of Fire | 2005-09-29 4:06:54 PM

Great Walls of Fire - I have a few questions for you:
Why is mocking someone else an 'appropriate act'?
How does mocking someone else maintain 'lightness'?
Why should a blog be 'light'?

Can you answer - rationally and intelligently - any of those questions?

Posted by: ET | 2005-09-29 5:09:54 PM

Here is a practical, head on solution being campaigned to finaly start putting public broadcasting to use on behalf of its shareholders, namely, democracy's citizenship. I say head on because I propose to utilise the sponsorship scandal to call on the renewal of public broadcasting until we see unity rise up from a socio-cultural healing, making use of our national tool to learn how to do so together.
I am posting a proposal to begin adressing public-pivat broadcasting dilema with the BBC campaign of British economist and matematician Chris Macrae. His campaign can be viewed at:

If you need credentials for the man, he is the son of the late Norman Macrae who was deputy edetor of "The Economist" for 20 years. Chris' s blog is at:

Here is one small contribution I pursue:

There is a natural relationship to be fostered from the BBC to CBC and ABC(Australia)
I work for free as a stay at home dad. You can google my name and add CBC or BBC next to it and more of my ideas wiil be available.
Benoit Couture, Edmonton

Posted by: Benoit Couture | 2005-09-29 5:35:14 PM

I cannot fathom why anyone would want to watch U.S. network television. The "news" programs are little more than an extension of the White House propaganda team. The sitcoms and reality tv programs exhibit all the writing skills of an elementary school student. The commercials occupy 1/3 of the air time and they are becoming more disgusting by the week.

I'm no big fan of the CBC but they do have an intelligently scripted program occasionally.

I'm also not a hockey fan, but if you Americanadians had to depend on US tv for your hockey fix you'd be out of luck.

So rave on you troglodites. Arguing which country has the best tv is like arguing which brand of cigarettes will kill you the slowest. They're all poison. What cigarettes are to the body tv is to the mind.

Doral Hemm

Posted by: Doral | 2005-09-29 5:46:53 PM

Doral: I recommend subscriptions to the Times Literary Supplement, the New York Review of Books, Aviation Week & Space Technology and CAR magazine.


Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-09-29 6:51:46 PM

When you rip money out of people's wallets to subsidize some unionized urban Ahhhts dorks in Toronto or Montreal, you are removing from them the choice of watching other shows, because you have made them poorer.

And in any case, a subsidized culture is a dead culture. The way we speak, what we sing, how we dance, what makes us laugh - all these things evolve spontaneously between ordinary people every day. Culture is invented in people's kitchens and around the office water cooler, not in some CBC brainstorming session. (Hello? Ralph Benmergui? Are you busy next year? Do you have any more ideas for young, hip shows?)

If people want to watch your show, they'll pay for it. If no one wants to watch your show, then it's not part of their culture, or anyone's culture.

Posted by: Justzumgai | 2005-09-29 7:28:12 PM

The point is not about which country has the best TV - It's about why I don't need my tax dollars going toward a government funded agency whose sole purpose is to restrict me from watching any damn thing I please.

Posted by: Wonder Woman | 2005-09-29 7:37:50 PM

Eat Tea wrote:

"Why is mocking someone else an 'appropriate act'?
How does mocking someone else maintain 'lightness'?
Why should a blog be 'light'?"

You know, ET, you have some very good and insightful posts, but I don't believe anybody has died and made you queen of this blog. I grow weary of your tiresome crusade to turn this boisterous and entertaining little blog into some kind of Important Institution for Intellectual Intercourse, so I'll answer your questions and bid thee good night on this topic:

1. Do you honestly equate a little light-hearted frivolity about the monikers people make up to post their little diatribes to be "mocking someone"? Are you incapable of appreciating the difference between making fun of an artificial name a person uses to stay anonymous and "mocking someone"? How can "someone" be mocked when the mocker hasn't a clue about who the mockee is?

2. I think the answer lies when "mocking" is replaced by the vernacular "making fun" - I suspect it's the latter word, and its foreignness to you, that has prompted this particular question.

3. Because they tend to be a teensy bit more interesting and, strangely enough, more widely read when they amuse and entertain, rather than read like the exegesis of someone's doctoral thesis.

You are a poster here, not the webmaster. If you think blogs are for erudite comment and profound thought alone from which all light-hearted banter should be banned and the perpetrators chastised, I believe www.et.ca is still available. Just make sure you have tons of bandwith to handle the traffic.

Posted by: Great Walls of Fire | 2005-09-30 9:22:19 AM

Great Walls of Fire- you are arguing from your own axioms, which you state are 'beyond doubt'. I think you need to examine these axioms for they are 'full of holes'.

Why does asking you a question about why you promote 'making fun of/mocking' someone's blog name make me 'Queen of the Blog'? Well? It's a legitimate question.

Why does the fact that I think rationally and critically mean that I am engaging in a 'tiresome crusade' to turn this 'boisterous..into some kind of important institution for intellectual intercourse'? What's wrong with 'intellectual intercourse'? Are you saying that such a discussion denies and is not also 'boisterous and entertaining'? Prove it. The two modes are not, despite your claim, incompatible and the best intellectual discourses are indeed 'boisterous and entertaining'. The fact that you find such qualities only within mockery of someone, is your problem.

The word used by the person whose name you were mocking/making fun of was - "mocking". That is therefore the word to use.

Now, you are changing it to 'making fun of' and asserting that such a term is 'foreign to' me. What do you mean by that allegation, and how can you prove it? Why is it foreign to me? I don't think that an answer to a criticism is best dealt with by personal attacks, and yet, that is what you are doing.

The phrase 'to make fun of ' is a synonym of to 'mock, to expose to laughter, to deride'. So?

Why does 'making fun of' someone's name make your post more interesting? Are you sure that it makes it more widely read?

No, making fun of someone's web name is not equivalent to 'light-hearted banter'. It remains - making fun of them and mocking them. There are plenty of other ways to insert 'light-hearted banter' into a post.
Why? Because mocking or making fun of (remember, these are synonyms) someone's blog name is the same as mocking the individual who uses that name.

Why not turn your humorous attempts to the issues rather than the bloggers? I think that would be more constructive.

Posted by: ET | 2005-09-30 10:11:38 AM

Although I appreciate the points made by both, ET and Great Walls of Fire, let me interject and say, everybody chill out...I'm a big girl, and if GWF wants to have a little fun with my name, which was never really intended to be serious anyway, I can take it. I'll save my battles for the big stuff. Thank you, though for defending me, ET. I love your comments. I do like to find someone who takes the subject so seriously, and we could certainly use more people of your intellect and depth, in this country.
To ebt...The name I have chosen for myself, tells a lot more about who I am, than the name my parents gave me. If I provided my name and address, how would that reveal anything to you? I believe in justice and truth, and actively participating in making things right, so when it came time to choose a name, I chose a woman who exemplified those qualities for me. The fact that I chose a fictional character who's just a little bit campy, tells you I don't necessarily take myself too seriously. If I told you my name was Theresa, it tells you nothing.
Mark Twain was a pen name...Did that make his writing undignified? And if you have long since stopped reading ET's posts, how would you know to comment on one? What a silly argument.
I say make fun all you want. Nobody laughs at me, more than I do.

Posted by: Wonder Woman | 2005-10-01 6:58:19 PM

Remember folks, ad--x is one of the many enjoyable products you will get to see MORE ADS for as a result of this collusion deal regarding more dramas you don't want to see: more commercials interrupting "House".

Posted by: Feynman and Coulter's Love Child | 2006-09-25 3:20:44 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.