Who knows who wrote that card for Letterman to read? A comedy writer? David himself? An intern? I mean come on, he read it like any regular person who knew nothing of Q as if it was thrown together by someone else for the "bit" with someone's interpretation of what can be found online. ie.they may have 'thought' Q was to debut later this month.
The positive pump is that it was a grand orchestration by someone at Q to help spread the word and raise interest.
The negative pump is that probably to the average straight person across middle America, the thought of an all gay television network is a funny thing. One of the writers might have come across something about Q (the "Today" ad came out 1/6/05, top ten list was 1/10/05) and thought it'd be fun to poke fun at with some fictitiously named shows.
I do agree with what qbid posted before about any news is good news.
The thing about those two views is that they are polar opposites. Somewhere in the middle is probably closer to the 'truth.' However, we don't know.
Look at the mistake Dan Rather made with Bush's National Guard record? Just because something is spoken or in print or online does not make it so. David is a comedian and was doing a comedy bit. He is not a news broadcaster.
I'm all for keeping spirits up, (insert smiley face here :) ) but how about doing it for the sake of keeping the spirit up and not because of any attachments to some pieces of information that are lacking in fact and have a surplus of speculation?
I appreciate all the positivity about Q, but not to the extent of blatant pumping and "never mind the man behind the curtain" smoke and mirrors cheerleading. I love hearing the factual positives and ideas just as much as the factual negatives. To always find a positive pump with every bit of news somehow loses it's positive effect and slips slowly into denial. Like the perfect nutso wife who killed herself in the first episode of Desperate Housewives. Of course, all of this is just my opinion.
-OB
---------------------------
AI
