Hi, T-Diamond - It is myself who owes you the apology for directing such a self-centered and largely out of left field reply to you comments, which as you say, were merely trying to give an answer to my question and express a single concise opinion of your own.

If you are interested in discussing the role of media with me, I'd be happy to further engage. I tend to break down information semantically in order to filter out the background noise of well formed sentences.

Your statements have a context.

I would say they all refer to the domain of show-biz.

Every domain has discrete entities, Show-biz has, among others:

- MEDIA
- CELEBRITIES
- CONSUMERS

The domain of show biz is filled with instances of its various entities.

Of the entities referred to here, all instances map to individual people.

MEDIA --> a member of the press

PERFORMER --> an actor who is employed to participate in the production of a product (episode, movie, newscast,etc..)

CONSUMER --> individuals of the television watching population. Any discussion in the domain of show-biz (in my opinion) must consider this entity because without anyone to watch a thing, there is no reason for any of the other entities to exist.

so:

(I) MEDIA >>puts emphasis on>> CELEBRITIES : Sexual Preference

I have observed that the MEDIA, as a whole, is a domain in it's own right. In addition, they also owe their existence to CONSUMERS.

Following the principal that the simplest explanation tends to be correct, then by (I) I would tend to infer:

(I.a) CONSUMERS <<demand details unrelated to raw talent<< PERFORMERS

(I.b) MEDIA >>works to supply the demand in (I.a)>> CONSUMERS

From the above, I conclude that the value of a performer in the eyes of a consumer is simply not based on raw talent.

Is this WRONG? Or just a fact to be noted?

0  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

me too......i don't know what it is, but it IS!!!! He turns me on which leads to better *** with my hubby!!!

1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

The Globes are always a joke, but this year was parody to the extreme, almost to the ridiculous. House was nominated over Dexter… House. A fox program. Unless it’s animated – where Fox spends all it’s money – any show on Fox is considered a joke in the industry. Perhaps with the exception of “24” of which I’m still not a fan.

The transition Michael C. Hall goes through between the public mask and the real face of the Dexter monster is the highest level of professional difficulty – he is so trust-worthy in one, and sheer horrifying as the other. Hall is the real deal – and I hope he gets some solid Hollywood attention for the work he put in over the last two seasons. The scenes between Doakes and Dex in the last two episodes of the second season are among my favorite yet written for television.

The SAG’s snubbed him because they’re all jealous Michael was cast in the role they wish they got themselves.

0  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

"I met Doug McClure on several occasions - he was never a happy camper - and Michael C. Hall has talent! Doug McClure was a pretty face."

but he did have nice hair there, for a little while, kinda like Michael C. Hall...

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

Thanks! =) Thought I'd add it because it is the three dexters! Would be awesome if we could find one with him holding the little boy who plays the toddler dexter (the one you see harry taking from the crime scene) That would just be amazing!

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?