Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 Wil Wheaton Moves Beyond Wesley To Internet Stardom

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Oct 23, 2001
 Comments:
Wil Wheaton, the guy who played Wesley Crusher on Star Trek: The Next Generation, is back, and it's not pretty.

He's done the usual indie and straight-to-video work characteristic of the faded child actor; he's even doing a little better than that, he's got a gig at the Acme Comedy Hour, a live sketch-comedy/talk show in LA.

And, along with fellow Trek actor Armin Shimerman (Quark), Wheaton is on the National Board of the Screen Actors Guild!

From his weblog, we discover: He's married with two stepkids, plays Dungeons and Dragons, and attends conventions with the same sense of fan-boy-ish glee that other Trekkies^H^H^HTrekkers do!!

As I read about Wheaton's dedication to fans and his hearty identification with their culture and interests, I discovered Wheaton's blog when doing my journalistic duties for a completely unrelated weblog, where it was linked as a "meme." He's become a sort of net.personality of late, what with his site being linked on Fark and Memepool.

Which, of course, makes him fair game here!

Wil graciously offered to answer my questions via email. Questions and responses are printed below.
internet_idiocy

More stories about Internet Idiocy
Milosevic Goes Free, Thanks to Godwin's Law!
The Online Social World: Internet Dating
Is Your Son a Computer Hacker?
Internet Licenses: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?
Writing Satire For A Technical Audience
Death Threats on Groups.Google.Com
Adequacy.Org Presents the Commonsense Crossword
Google Needs a Winston Smith
On criminal language and the word `hacker'
Avatars and the Telecommunications Revolution
Keeping the terrorists off the net
The Internet, Pornography, and Masturbation are destroying college students

More stories by
perdida

Hump Day News Wrap-Up #1: Where is Chandra Levy?
The cultural and economic benefits of smoking
Germany Eats Young in Attempt to Globalize
Philip Morris Is Right
In Praise of Censorware
peace
what now for US Israel-Palestinan policy?
Milosevic, Sovereignty, and the War against Terrorism
Something Patriotic that The Geeks Can Do Right Now
Why They Should Abolish the World Series
Looking For A Few Good Crusaders
Welcome to the Third World
Britney Spears' Six-Inch Secret
An Adequate Look at Insider Trading
Google Needs a Winston Smith
America's Case for Packing Heat
What To Do About Arafat?
Koleen Brooks Has Got The Right Stuff
Shit or Get Off the Pot
Perdida: So, your real name is Richard William Wheaton.. I can understand calling yourself by the middle name in order to avoid the inevitable 'Dick,' but why do you gratuitously lop off an "L" to make "Wil?"

Wil Wheaton: It's all part of my personal Project Mayhem. And I wanted to ensure that I could NEVER get a souvenir license plate with my name correctly spelled on it. It, uh, builds character. Or something.

P: Although you've had strong roles in Stand By Me, Flubber and other films, most people remember you best as Wesley Crusher of ST:TNG. In Wesley's first appearance on the show, he barges onto Captain Picard's bridge and promptly pisses off the bridge crew with flaming displays of "know-it-all".

In the eloquently stated views of many fans, Wes never changed. If you had been Captain Picard, would you have kept Wesley on board?

WW: Contrary to popular belief, Picard kept Wes on board not for his clearly superior intellect, but rather for his smooth, hairless chest.

Picard once admonished Wesley, "You know, Ensign Crusher, in Grecian days, ensigns performed certain favors for their captains..."

For some reason that scene was cut.

P: What do you imagine happens to Wesley after he defects to a radical Indian planet and goes off with The Traveler?

WW: Well, at first, Wesley zips around the universe, unencumbered by the limitations of Space and Time. He travels through the Continuum, back in time to the formation of Life, The Universe, and Everything. He drinks deeply from the fountain of knowledge, and finds his thirst nearly unquenchable. Then, he discovers his true calling: Traveling throughout all of space and time, banging hot teen bitches for all eternity.

Score.

P: The average Trek fan, at least on Slashdot, had something like this to say about the premiere of "Enterprise:"

"Because 100 years after the invention of the warp drive, mankind still hasn't figured out not to exploit women. Genetically engineered insect-eating ?female? strippers (one pink and one blue, symbolizing the hetero and homosexual preferences they were engineered to serve) dancing erotically while the crew of the Enterprise dropped its collective jaw, forgetting duty to God, Country, and Humanity.

Forgivable, perhaps, until the scene we all knew was over the line. Cleansing alien spores using BLUE light (rather than UV) and hand-applied disenfectant? Ok. BUT WHY THE GRATUITOUS NUDITY AND SEXUAL UNDERTONES? The only thing that surprised me was the lack of a scrolling 1-976-HOT-SLUTTY-VULCANS number on the bottom of the screen. As the camera lingered on as much of the exploited actresses' flesh as it could legally swallow, I realized that this Star Trek was determined to boldly stoop lower than any drek before.

If you want to do something useful with your time while this Star Drek is on, spend the hour collecting donations for your local battered womens' shelter. With shows like this on TV, they're going to need the support."

What's your take on the first episode? I personally think that Enterprise is trying to re-capture an "old Trek" sensibility, where Kirk always bonks the sexy girl alien, but ends up falling flat on its ass.

WW: I completely agree. The suggestive photography was simply unacceptable. I will not rest until T'Pol gives us FULL FRONTAL NUDITY!

P: The latest strategy in Brent Spiner's desperate campaign to worm out of the role of Data, beginning in Star Trek 9, is his claim that Data can't play an "ageless android" any more. In response, there are rumors that #10 (Star Trek: Nemesis) will kill off the Data character or replace him with a CGI.

On the other hand, a growing movement has sprung up to save the beloved Data character. They're serious: they have drafted petitions and sent them to Spiner's agent, and are cold-calling Rick Berman's office at Paramount. One fan won't take her Data-loving kids to the film if the character's killed off.

As a person who has semi-successfully escaped from the Trek franchise, how do you think Spiner should solve this problem?

WW: I wonder if those people who send petitions to Paramount spend a fifth of that energy writing politicians or getting involved in their communities? I mean, write those letters and petitions...but do it for something that MATTERS.

I'd tell Brent to tell Berman that he wants to have a career beyond Star Trek, and he'd like to discuss becoming a recurring, rather than a regular. Worked for me.

P: Let's say some group of terrorists blew up a Federation planet, and Picard had to decide how to respond- how to protect civilians from getting blown up without starting a huge galactic war. What do you think he'd do? Do you think that Star Trek's mushy liberal view point, like the Prime Directive of non-interference, holds any water in today's post-tragedy world?

WW: Well, the first thing he'd do is hide out for the better part of the day, when the planet was blown up, because his handlers knew he wouldn't be able to address the UFP with any grace or aplomb. Then, when he did speak, he'd tell the UFP that everyone is either with us, or with the terrorists, to effectively quash any criticism of his policy decisions. Then he'd find a planet where he could claim the terrorists lived, and he'd launch a long and profitable war against that planet, with no endgame in sight. His approval ratings would skyrocket, because nobody would want to be perceived as "against" the UFP. As an added bonus, when he wanted to do something really stupid, like drilling on Lothar 7 for oil, in the Lotharian Brazilfish Reserve, it'd be very easy for him, because everybody would be so focused on the war that they wouldn't notice.

Wait, none of that makes sense. That's just plain stupid. Nobody with any brains would do anything like that.

Picard is smart, and what he'd do is improve security within the UFP, for REAL, even if it cut into profit margins for the big companies that drive the UFP's economy. He'd also do it in an informed, well-thought out way, ensuring that all UFP citizens were safe, without having to trample all over their rights as UFP citizens.

But something like that would never happen. That's just TV.

Editor bc asks: "Did you ever feel attracted to Gates McFadden? Or lobby the scriptwriters (who were fond of Greek mythology) to include a plot involving the Oedipal complex for your character? Do you still have your copy of the Tasha Yar issue of Playboy? Don't you think the dreams of young men wishing they could be you and be with your mother were due to this corrupting Star Trek influence? Don't you feel guilty? I would."

WW: Boy, you know, I was never attracted to Gates. I think part of it was that she was my onscreen mom. I'm not sure. Maybe it's just me.

My fellow editor seventypercent asks: "I have to admit that Star Trek, in all of its various incarnations, has always made me spitting, hopping mad. Never before in the history of television has there been a bigger advertisement for Communism than Star Trek, and the people responsible for it have been allowed to get away with it for decades. In First Contact, Captain Picard (a foreigner) freely admits that "money doesn't exist in the 24th Century!" Instead, what has been created is a Marxist paradise where the philosophy is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The collectivism, militarism, and atheism of Star Trek is diametrically opposed to the principles that have made the United States the world's foremost (and only) superpower.

"Now, I don't hold you personally responsible for this; after all, when you first came on the show you were young, impressionable, and easily duped by the bloodthirsty Communist butchers behind the show. However, I do have a couple of questions. First, were you ever aware of the presence of Soviet or Cuban government officials that were on the set or involved in the production of Star Trek: TNG ? Second, now that you are older and wiser, do you understand the irreparable harm that you and your fellow cast members have done to this once-great nation, and do you feel any residual remorse?"

WW: Dude. Turn off the TV.

On a related note, editor dmg asks: What is with the racist, sexist, and anti-religious symbolism clearly present in star trek ?

The Borg's cube-like space craft is obviously a symbolic reference to the cube-shaped kaa'ba in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Are the star trek writers suggesting that muslims are a hive-like collective of murderers ? This is hardly respecting diversity.

Sexism is clearly present in Uhuru's microscopic mini-skirts and Kirk's patronising attitudes toward humanoid and alien females.

And the racism ? Spock is constantly riduculed on the sly for his 'logical' approach. OF COURSE HE'S LOGICAL, HE'S A FUCKIN VULCAN. Drawing attention to it is simply racist.

The two thrusting phalluses on stilts that form part of the original Enterprise need no further interpretation. the phallic motif persists throughout the show.

It also encourages drug taking. Everyone knows that 'beam me up' is drugs slang for get me some drugs right now. Is this really the kind of show we want our children to watch?


WW: Your questions are all valid. A car of men in grey suits will be arriving shortly, and they'll answer all of them for you. Resistance is futile.

P: Thanks for your time, Wil.

WW: Hey, thanks for showing me your tits.


I am disappointed, to say the least (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by Starship Trooper on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 08:38:14 PM PST
A writer and journalist as profilic as perdida makes herself out to be would not allow her interviewee to manoeuvre around questions as important and relevant as 70%'s and dmg's. While I understand that Wheaton's boyish charm could have caused her to momentarily lose her journalistic edge, still I expected more. But alas, we are all only human after all.
---
A seasoned witch could call you from the depths of your disgrace, and rearrange your liver to the solid mental grace

You know .. (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by seventypercent on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 08:55:37 PM PST
Initially, I was angry that Wheaton so haphazardly dodged my question. After all, the real-life struggle against Communism is far more important than make-believe battles with Klingons, the Ferrengi, or the Borg .. and the stakes are far higher. As I think about it, though, I come to the conclusion that it's really not his fault. The Reds have still got their hooks firmly planted in this guy. They got to him at a young age and brainwashed him into becoming a pawn for their nefarious and underhanded cause. Sure, he seems normal enough today, but patriotic Americans have to believe that the Communists have a long laundry list of dirty deeds that they will be calling upon him to perform. All it will take is for one of their operatives to say a secret word or display a secret symbol that will subconsciously trigger the internal brainwashing that he was subjected to.

The boy is a ticking bomb.

If you've seen The Manchurian Candidate, you'll know what I'm talking about.

--
Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

snuggle against communism (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by philipm on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 05:13:35 AM PST
The struggle against communism is long and hard.
Sometimes you just have to take it like a man and cry through the pain caused by the capitalist opressors of free flowing people everywhere.

They one thing I do know is that Geroge Bush, with vice president Cheney at his side, will lead us through this crisis of faith. We all have to believe that money and greed will win at the end. How else can we justify the endless years of backstabbing at the company we work for? Why else have we spent our careers quietly making sure that its not the engineers why make the money?

I think we must not look too harshly on Wesley, despite his many actions, he is far less a terrorist than saadam hussein, that godless middle easterner. If only sadaam believed in god, like the rest of the people in that region, the world would be so much better.




--philipm

 
Oh, I know... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 07:55:11 AM PST
I can't believe the supposedly upright and moral seventypercent would recomend The Manchurian Candidate as it stars a well known drug abuser and womaniser. His hypocracy in demeaning such movies as MASH for advocating alchohol abuse and womanising and then reccomending a movie that supported a particular drug abuser/womaniser is loathsome at best.


Careful, you (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by seventypercent on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 08:19:46 AM PST
I can't believe the supposedly upright and moral seventypercent would recomend The Manchurian Candidate as it stars a well known drug abuser and womaniser.

Adequacy.org is a decent and respectable site, and I will not have you talking about Angela Lansbury in such a manner.

--
Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

 
Wil is not an automaton. (none / 0) (#40)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 04:34:36 PM PST
Based on your quote, I'm assuming you're coming from an Objectivist background. I liked your question, and the point that Star Trek is based on an evil philosophy. At least the series is dying on an artistic level, so it can't really spread its message very effectively anymore.

To say Wil is "brainwashed" totally dismisses the fact that he exercises his free will (no pun intended) in deciding what to say and believe. In effect, you're pitying him. Give him the chance to stand by his words or renounce them. It's futile to try to "handle" him or make excuses for him.

John Tchoe
http://www.chaoticgood.net


 
guh... (3.00 / 2) (#43)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 07:07:32 PM PST
what have you been smoking???

really......


 
The vagaries of web publishing, unfortunately.. (5.00 / 4) (#7)
by perdida on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 09:20:03 PM PST
Wil responded to the emailed questions and then immediately posted the announcment of the interview on wilwheaton.net so we had to put the thing up immediately, without pressing him further on these important questions on the political significance of ST:TNG. Unfortunately, it was an effective strategy..

Wil has many fascinating and controversial views.. perhaps we can convince him to respond to further questions in the article comments.




This is what democracy looks like

What are his thoughts on sexual harassment? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by elenchos on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 10:23:53 PM PST
That's what I'd like to know.

And I'd also like to hear some kind of explanation as to how so many people can go off on these snipe hunts about "COMMUNISM" or some fabricated charge that he is guilty of criticizing the President in time of War, when Will Weaton commits the lowest abuse of women with practically his every word.

Mr. Weaton, are women merely objects to you? Do you think abusing your celebrity status to coerce ambitious young hospitality industry workers and journalits to play your sick little games meets the definion of sexual harassment? Do you care?

Perdida, have you considered re-examining your internalized submission to the patriarchy? Your desire to secure a place for yourself in the male power structure is admirable, but is the "Uncle Tom" approach really the way to go?

Please, hire a lawyer, and show this latter-day Jack Nicholson that you aren't going to be any sexual harasser's doormat.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


 
Is this an allusion to Bush? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 09:15:32 PM PST
>>he'd launch a long and profitable war against that planet, with no endgame in sight.

People tell me that I'm not very good at recognizing sarcasm but if I'm not mistaken this looks like Wil is taking a jab at our President.

I had to reread this paragraph in the light of what 70% brings up later on about communism. The fallacy in Wil Wheaton's thinking is, of course, that George W. Bush has clearly stated when we will stop bombing Afganistan. When we have <b>won</b> the war against terrorism.

Bush Jr. doesn't want to make the same mistake his father made when he stopped short of invading Baghdad. Stopping before the war is over is utterly pointless.




Jezz people, relax! (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 01:37:42 AM PST
OK, so his answer's wasn't that spectacular but if you read his site frequently as I have you will know that Wil is not really a neo-conservative sexist oaf who does not like his President. Wait, scratch that last part.

He is simply person who has his own ideals and will be damned if he forced to kowtow to something he does not believe. Read his site and you will know. Although I may object to his use of "colorful" vocab, he has his own thoughts and I am NOT going to make him conform with any group. Resistance is futile? You're either with us or against us? Funny, the IRA once said that... and they're TERRORISTS!

As for me, I don't believe in forcing thousands of Afghans to become starving refugees, accidently bomb a hospital (what happened to those smart bombs? Oh, made by Micro$oft?) and dropping bombs to "fight terror". You only cause more ill feelings towards the US and it is growning...

You do not burn an apartment building to smoke out a thief... you'll just end up having a LOT of irate tennants. Face it, the US has some issues it must resolve and fixing them DOES NOT mean capitulating to terrorists demands....





Wil Wheaton rocks (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 11:08:30 AM PST
Sexist? Wil Wheaton isn't sexist. He got asked some fairly stupid questions, and he responded to them. I didn't notice anyone calling BC sexist because he asked Wil if he ever wanted to get jiggy with Gates McFadden. (Isn't she *more* than an sex object, hmmmm?) Wil didn't have a screaming problem with the softcore scene with the detox gel, so what? And since when did anything vaguely sexually suggestive become sexist?

He's been doing something OTHER than star trek for quite a few years now....do you really think he's going to give you a serious answer to 'what would Wesley Crusher be doing after the show ends'? And you've got to admit, Wesley Crusher looking for 'hot teen bitches' is pretty funny.

That communist thing...that was a joke, right? Cause that was really funny. Someone tell me that's not serious. Or, is Adequacy part of the 50s revival section of the web?

And the borg cube doesn't look anything at all like the Kabah. Not even close. And the warp nacelles aren't phallic...they're supposed to be a woman's legs. Gives 'docking a shuttle' a whole new meaning. I think it's entirely sexist of you to assume something was masculine when it was actually so clearly feminine. Repent! Throw him to the communists!

I recommend a deep colonic for all of you.



WTF? (none / 0) (#45)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 08:34:15 PM PST
Commie? Ohhh noooo... my precious bodily fluids. You guys ARE NOT serious? I mean, your questions were not so why would you expect the answers to be?


funny (none / 0) (#55)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 08:37:50 AM PST
Wil Wheaton is funny.


 
Wake me when it's over... (2.00 / 1) (#20)
by noah Oneye on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 07:47:40 AM PST
George W. Bush has clearly stated when we will stop bombing Afganistan. When we have won the war against terrorism.

Riiiight. Well, that ought to be an easy enough thing to do. I mean, I guess we've won when there hasn't been a terrorist attack for what, 6 months? 1 year? 10 years? How will we know that the last attack was THE last attack? Or do we "win" by killing or incarcerating every terrorist and potential terrorist in the world? Should be easy enough. Define terrorist for me, while your at it, in a way that could be used pragmatically for the above objective.

Fact: Winning this war is impossible. The end cannot even be imagined theoretically, let alone acheived. And if you think that bombs are going to eliminate the animosity which breeds terrorism, you are a very silly person, and should consider a career in politics.

Stopping before the war is over is utterly pointless.

I'm pretty sure that once you stop a war, it's over. Well, assuming the other side is just sitting there and taking it passively, as we expect the terrorists will do. I suppose you mean that it is pointless to stop a war before it is won. Let's pretend you're right. How, then, should we handle a war which is impossible to win?

And this Wil Wheaton is the uber-anti-feminist stuff is so boring. You'd think that on the world's most most controversial website a washed-up ex-Trek actor could get away with something as mundane as "Thanks for showing me your tits." In fact, I think he showed a relatively firm grasp of his audience throughout the interview.

Bah...


"...and in your free time you can make me sandwiches..."

 
Ugh. (3.66 / 3) (#9)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 11:09:29 PM PST
I can't believe Wil Wheaton is such a crass, sexist oaf. He's more FRAT-boy than FAN-boy! The man is clearly a traitor to the humanist ideals that Gene Roddenberry championed so many years ago, when those stirring words: "Space, the Final Frontier..." were first spoken on TV sets across the land.

I will always cherish the CHARACTER of Wesley Crusher, but Wheaton the man is obviousy just a jackass. He does not deserve to be riding the coattails of our beloved TNG to his present pitiful level of infamy.

I call upon all true Trekkers to reject this jerk and all he stands for! Would that Whorf were here to teach this foul-mouthed punk a lesson with his double-bladed Klingon B'ma'gu!


Speak for yourself, pig (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 03:42:38 AM PST
It's spelled "humynist". Any other spelling is inherently misogynist and phallo-centric, and should be avoided by all right thinkings persyns.

Thankyou.

--wymynyst.


a question for you (none / 0) (#12)
by philipm on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 04:52:20 AM PST
a question for you, dear fymenist,

do you think wysley looks gay in that picture?

those flowying robes and that large expanse of soft lucious skin....

how do you feel about that?


--philipm

Shit (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 04:56:21 AM PST
I ythought that was a picture of Perdida. and I thought she looked hot!!!


It's not, and she's cuter (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 09:46:42 AM PST
though I've never met Wil in rl


 
Completely supportive. (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 05:02:31 AM PST
Why? What's your point?

--wymynyst


wesley = gay ? (none / 0) (#16)
by philipm on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 05:16:15 AM PST
well, if wysley is gay, i do not want his gayness to interfyre with my enjoyment of his masculine good looks. There is just something abou him that makes me all tingly. I thought that you would know, synce you are a wyman, and all.


--philipm

I'm not interested in your penis (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 05:26:28 AM PST
Is that clear enough?

--wymynyst


what size exactly (none / 0) (#18)
by philipm on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 05:37:13 AM PST
now, are you not interested in a particular size of penis, or just all penyses?




--philipm

Very funny, male oppressor (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 06:18:56 AM PST
I thought I was being pretty clear, but it appears that testosterone has addled your violent, rape-obsessed male "brain". I'm not interested in YOUR penis. Size doesn't matter.

--wymynyst


what does "your" mean? (none / 0) (#25)
by philipm on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 09:37:27 AM PST
What if it was not "mines", so to speak?
What if you were blidnfolded and it was a random one?

Or what if one that you didn't like today got disguised as another one, say Bill Clinton's?
What if it was a really good disguise?
How about a race change?




--philipm

Male pornographic fantasies (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 05:25:45 PM PST
Disgusting. At least we can all see the level to which your inferior male brain sinks. Fantasies about gang rape of blindfolded womyn. You do realise that this is evidence of enormous insecurity regarding womyn, don't you? You have trouble feeling confident around womyn, and hence fantasize about raping a womyn made vulnerable by her blindfold, and you want help from other men to do it. I think you have some unresolved feelings for Bill Clinton, as well.

--wymynyst


Y is not the only vowel (none / 0) (#61)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 10:11:08 AM PST
oh goodness... i hope this is parody... please let this thread be parody...


 
y kant wymynyst spel? (1.00 / 1) (#75)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 08:10:47 PM PST
Clearly, you are suffyring from a disease that prevynts you from spelling certain words corryctly.

Look, feminism (Feminism?) is great and all that, but you can't just go around arbitrarially redefining the spelling of certain words and expect anyone (in the mainstream comminity--and I mean women (or womyn or wymyn or wimin or superhumyn or whatever) not just men) to take you seriously.

While you're at it, why not redefine the whole darn language? How about changing the spelling of everything so that the word that used to be spelled 'woman" is now spelled "Almighty"? Would that make you happy? The way you spell a word sends a message to the reader and when you spell "feminist" as "wymynist" it makes me think of warez d00dz--they like to spell worng.

I'm sorry for being rude, but the spelling for the word your trying to use has already been firmly established. Also, not all the evil things that were ever done were done by men. I'm sure at some point someone who was not male did something bad too. It's not good to look at the whole of homo sapien's history as "one big dick". There's lots more there than that.

Lastly, the Wil interview was supposed to be meant as a joke but this apparently didn't come across very well.

--
Furry cows moo and decompress.



Y wymynyst (3.00 / 2) (#77)
by wymynyst on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 12:33:26 AM PST
In case it has escaped your phallus-blinded eyes, the traditional spelling of "woman" emphasises the traditional role of womyn in society: as subservient to men. I, as a womyn, don't feel the need to be reminded of the history of institutionalised rape that is characteristic of every western nation. I obviously don't think I need to be bound by tradition. If I did, I'd be someone's little wifey, wouldn't I?

If you are so intent on concentrating on traditional spelling, perhaps you should start spelling other words more traditionally. Here's one to kick you off: Chaucer spelled "cunt", "quaint". I hope I haven't offended you by talking about womyn's genitals, but you seemed to have no qualms about thrusting your penis into the conversation.


Read the Bible please (none / 0) (#79)
by Adam Rightmann on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 09:50:57 AM PST
Right there in Genesis it tells how a merciful God, seeing how Adam was lonley, cast him into a deep sleep, removed a rib bone, and created woman, meaning from man. To attempt to deny that relation with semantic tricks is heresy.


A. Rightmann

shocking (none / 0) (#81)
by nathan on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 01:38:16 PM PST
Mr. Rightmann, what in Heaven's name are you doing reading the bible? I thought you were a good Catholic! You have posted elsewhere that you are a family man, and thus you cannnot a priest. Leave the study and interpretation of Scripture to the magisterium and tradition of the Church.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Good Catholics should read the Bible (none / 0) (#85)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 06:37:36 AM PST
The mistake that Protestants make is they think that reading the Bible is all there is to understanding God, not realizing they should have a very firm grounding in theology and history to understand all the nuances, like why bacon is now okay. So, please, enjoy the Bible, learn from it, and when you have any theological questions, ask your parish priest.


A. Rightmann

 
"womyn" (none / 0) (#89)
by Mendax Veritas on Mon Nov 5th, 2001 at 10:43:44 PM PST
It would be amusing, and trivially easy, to refute everything you've said, but it would be beside the point. You're obviously not a real "womyn", or even a real female. Your entire writing style is so heavily testosterone-based that it's perfectly clear that you're a gender-surfing troll.


 
Can't you take a joke? (none / 0) (#31)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 02:52:48 PM PST
He likes acting boyish and immature. What he says is not always what he means. He is married and has two step children. He doesn't treat his wife like that and his wife get's his humor, if you don't then maybe you should shut the fuck up.


 
Searching for Wil Wheaton (1.00 / 1) (#21)
by mystic on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 07:53:30 AM PST
I agree that Wheaton's comments are a bit over the top, unfortunately sexist, and probably not suited to a weblog that touts "news for adults". But on the other hand, we really shouldn't be on Wheaton's case for answering questions with such lightheartedness. A lot of the questions - wait, all of the questions except the first one - were pretty geeky fanboy questions about Star Trek, and you have to know Wheaton is tired of talking about how he played a geek on Star Trek who had a hot mom. If I was an actor who had played one extremely significant role and was continually asked the same questions about it, eventually it is likely that I would also come up with snarky answers.

Regarding asking Wheaton questions about being a part of a Communist plot, the kid is an actor. He wasn't even in First Contact. And as for the accusations of racism, Star Trek is continually showing examples of races and cultures with differing viewpoints coexisting together. Why were no questions asked about what good Wheaton felt he had accomplished by being on the show? Uhuru, Kirk, Spock and T'Pol were brought up to illustrate racism and sexism, and Wheaton never starred with any of these characters, and the former three characters were from a different generation - watch most other TV shows from that era for more examples of racist and sexist stereotypes. And what's this about the Borg cube symbolizing Mecca? It's a freakin' cube. And by the way, Wheaton was not in any of the Borg episodes either.

A bit of the true Wheaton did seem to break through when he made a comment about George Bush. People here are on Wheaton's case because he is critical of the President during a time of war. I think this is the perfect time to be critical of the President. It is very easy for the President to get away with what he wants right now because "you're either with us or against us". If you look back through history you will see a lot of examples where nations with huge issues rallied blindly behind their leaders, with sometimes fantastic and other times tragic results. Am I personally with the President? Surely I am. But just because America is the nation with the big issue doesn't mean I'm going to blindly accept everything that comes out of the White House. Challenging what our leaders do at every step is our right.

I am sad that these questions didn't address what Wheaton is today - he's a father, a husband, and an improv comic - some of the latter did come through in his responses to his questions. It looks like what we have here is yet another list of fanboy questions for Wesley Crusher. Too bad nothing was asked of Wil Wheaton.


Thank You. (none / 0) (#54)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 01:34:51 AM PST
It's nice to know that some people have common sense. -_-


 
HERE HERE! (none / 0) (#83)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 02:25:42 PM PST
Something Wil said, either on Slashdot or his own site: He believed that this interview was supposed to be satire - humorous - in jest - funny - a lark -

Sorry to be redundant, but some folks seem to need it.


 
Oh my god (3.50 / 2) (#24)
by nx01 on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 09:18:50 AM PST
Oh my god oh my god oh my god!

An interview with someone who was at one point involved in Star Trek! Someone who has seen the glory, the majesty, the absolute POWER which is the USS Enterprise! Someone who actually met The Great Bird!

I think I'm going to spooge! The only thing that would have made this better is if it was with T'Pol, or someone else with two suitable... talents.


"Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it."
-- James Gosling

 
Wesley Fucking Crusher... (3.33 / 3) (#27)
by twodot72 on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 10:12:13 AM PST
Are you people mad? Defending the guy who played Wesley Fucking Crusher!!

The very name makes me sick. He is, after all, the character which nearly killed ST:TNG. Thank god he didn't appear in every episode; if he had, I'd have sworn off Star Trek forever.

Wesley, the mommy lovin' smart-ass whiny cry-baby, was a character totally without redeeming qualities, played by a pitiful excuse for an actor. I didn't know the actor is also a sexist, but I can't say I'm surprised.

I hated the way he left the series too, becoming like a god. A suitable destiny for Wesley would have been something like this: He is accidentally beheaded by Worf while practicing with the bat'leh. Afterwards, everyone including dear mom Beverly would act really relieved, and they'd decide to recycle him in the replicator instead of giving him a decent burial. Dang it, why did the scriptwriter have to be such a pussy :-(


regardless of all that (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by alprazolam on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 10:51:19 AM PST
the fact that he never even thought of tagging Gates McFadden's sweet ass has convinced me that he is utterly beyond contempt. the possibility that somebody never once had a dr. crusher/troi lesbian encounter fantasy is absurd.


Couldn't agree more (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by twodot72 on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 12:29:07 PM PST
This guy is despicable on so many levels.


 
Her sweet ass? (none / 0) (#33)
by sdem on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 06:17:44 PM PST
Man alive, you would be amazed at what a professional makeup job will do to a woman...


 
Dude, it's a fucking TV show (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 02:50:49 PM PST
Wil Wheaton is an actor. He was playing a part he was paid for. He didn't right the scripts. He didn't direct the episodes. He got paid to act. You want to hate Wesley Crusher, go spit your venom and Rick Berman.


Assigning the blame (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by twodot72 on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 10:36:07 PM PST
He didn't right the scripts.
No, but he wronged them!

I do blame the scriptwriters for creating such a pathetic character, casting for selecting the so called actor, and Rick Berman for not ordering Wesley kicked out of the series sooner (and in a more gruesome way).

I can also bloody well blame Wil for his shoddy acting. Getting paid does not rid you of professional responsibility. How would that work?

Your housepainter did a shoddy job? Paint is not sticking to your walls? Don't blame him, he was gettnig paid!

Professional assassin killed your sister? Don't blame the assassin, he was getting paid!

See? Your reasoning is simply absurd.


Re: Assigning the blame (3.50 / 2) (#38)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 09:02:31 AM PST
On the contrary, I think it is your reasoning that's flawed; your analogies are poor. Blaming the painter for doing a bad job of applying the paint is one thing. Blaming him for the fact that you don't like the colour of the paint you chose now that you see it on your walls is quite another. Analagously, one might blame the actor for a poor acting, but I'd question blaming him for a poor script.


You probably deserved a 3 rating (3.00 / 2) (#47)
by error27 on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 11:26:50 PM PST
but I gave you a 2 because you spelled color wrong.


Colour (none / 0) (#66)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 07:24:06 PM PST
In other parts of the world, like Canada, color is spelled colour. Look it up, or read something written by someone who lives outside the United States.


 
?Que? (none / 0) (#52)
by twodot72 on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 12:50:38 AM PST
Analagously, one might blame the actor for a poor acting, but I'd question blaming him for a poor script.
You seem to have a bit of a reading comprehension problem. If you reread my previous post, you'll see that I indeed do blame Wil for the bad acting, but not for the script. Your accusations are simply made up.


And I suppose you could do better? (none / 0) (#59)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 08:54:31 AM PST
You guys need to get a life. Seriously. This makes me laugh it's so sad. "Blame the actor" "blame the script" Who really cares? The show's over, he was smart enough to leave before they bled it to death, not to mention all those movies. It's being dragged in the dirt and you're pondering his acting skills? Don't know if you noticed, or cared to because you're selecting your arguments solely to prove your "points" but the acting was dry for the most part of the first season of "ST: TNG" as you call it, Wesley or no Wesley. I think it was good for a change to have a younger character on the ship, and sure he was annoying, he was a TEENAGER. Have YOU met a teenager who wasn't annoying at one point in their lifetime? Please. You died and made YOU the critics of the universe? Get a life people. Believe it or not, there IS life beyond Wesley Crusher.


Laughter (none / 0) (#69)
by twodot72 on Sun Oct 28th, 2001 at 02:35:02 AM PST
This makes me laugh
Glad I could provide some amusement for you.

Laughing has very positive effects on your health; therefore, reading Adequacy will actually prolong your life!

Have a nice day, and keep'em chuckles comin' :-)


 
WRONG! (none / 0) (#82)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 02:05:30 PM PST
He sure is/was a good enough actor to make you believe enough in him to hate him... even after what? 10 years??

Good Job Wil!


 
Wil Wheaton a sexist (2.66 / 3) (#39)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 04:30:28 PM PST
I don't know a single man out there who isn't a sexist. Why should Wil be any different. As far as I'm concerned men are only good for two things, sex and procreation. And a lot of the times you aren't even good at the first, that's why women turn to each other.( No I am not a lesbian, but my sexist husband may drive me there.)


All men are sexist :-) (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by twodot72 on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 12:55:27 AM PST
Ok, maybe it's true. On the other hand, maybe you just married the wrong guy?


Wil Wheaton (none / 0) (#56)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 08:49:15 AM PST
Wil Wheaton's jus another guy trying to make things work right now. Whatever he did in the past was then. You fucked up when you were a kid, didn't you? You think I don't know about you and him? You think nobody knows? Jesus.
Wil Wheaton's an actor, and all of these comments about him being sexist were obviously written by women and homosexuals. You are all obviously jealous that you were never child stars.

Also, you make me sick.

Kapow


MY GOD (none / 0) (#57)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 08:51:22 AM PST
It's this kind of attitude that is destroying our lives. Not until we learn to treat one another with RESPECT will we learn to RESPECT OURSELVES


*dance* (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 08:52:47 AM PST
These Maple Leaf cookies taste like maple syrup cut with cocaine. They are the essence, the form, of maple sugar. They make me feel like a tree, to have them coursing through my ... uh... tummy.




 
Pot to Kettle: You are Black. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 10:07:06 AM PST
"As far as I'm concerned men are only good for two things, sex and procreation."

bigotry, you know no bounds. sexism of this nature is disgusting. off-colour comments are one thing, misandry is another.


 
I rated your comment 2 (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by error27 on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 05:35:24 PM PST
Because you said Wil was single when he was married.

And also because it amused me to rate you at 2.




 
You amaze me (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by Roughy on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 10:19:35 AM PST
Let's all blame a guy for the role he took on Star Trek.

That's cool.

What have you done?

That's what I thought.

The truth is, each and everyone of us thinks it would be so great to be this or that and we mock and shame anyone who ever has any "issues" with it, because you know, that pasture is so much greener.

When we're done getting over ourselves, why don't we try to just be better at what we do and let the chips fall as they may. If you cannot do that, flame me.


Right on. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by chloedancer on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 01:20:42 PM PST
Ever notice how those who don't take chances, avoid doing anything believed to be "uncool" by the status quo and generally somnambulate through life wasting oxygen are inevitably the first to criticize? They just offer up their scorn from a safe distance and have the audacity to believe that it actually matters... how tragically lame, really.


Right on. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by RobotSlave on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 03:03:38 PM PST
Ever notice how those who take chances only in their own minds, avoid any viewpoint that might reflect poorly on them, and generally daydream through life wasting oxygen are inevitably the first to jump on the bandwagon when someone says people shouldn't be so quick to criticize? They just offer up their self-aggrandizement from a safe distance and have the audacity to believe that no-one should question it... how tragically lame, really.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

You're just jealous, Roboserf. (none / 0) (#67)
by chloedancer on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 08:38:24 PM PST
I find it amusing that you think your opinion matters to me (or anyone else). It seems that you have a knee-jerk response to responding to any comment I make; I've decided that it won't interfere with my choice to post, nor will it draw further comment from me, juvenile troll. (This would have been sent via email of you posted an address, but I guess that's just in keeping with your "armchair critic" strategy.)


Good heavens, Chloe. (none / 0) (#68)
by RobotSlave on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 09:02:31 PM PST
That was little more than a bit of satire; hardly the most controversial thing I've ever written in response to you.

The problem here is that when Slave smells bullshit, Slave tends to get a little excited. This can lead to controversy, or it can lead to stimulating scientific discussion. You seem to enjoy the latter. If you do not enjoy the former, then perhaps you ought to try the diary section at a less controversial worldly-net address.

You know that old saw, "ignore them, and they'll go away?" It's good advice, but it doesn't always work.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
Star Trek (none / 0) (#76)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 09:51:07 PM PST
The actor is NOT the character (hint: the character isn't a real person). But then again, you watch Star Trek, so you're perception is way off to begin with.


 
I know exactly what you mean (none / 0) (#92)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 04:48:55 PM PST
I was hot for him too.


 
Whacked. (1.50 / 2) (#34)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 08:45:21 PM PST
I seriously hope you realize that the majority of you are majorly messed up in the head. Seek help...hurry.


thank god.... (none / 0) (#44)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 07:09:41 PM PST
I was beginning to think no one here had any sense....




 
rolleyes (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 11:30:42 PM PST
So hands up people who had the irony bypass? Leave Wil alone, he's a funny & intelligent guy. The lads' okay.


*waves hand wildly through air* (none / 0) (#42)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 07:05:56 PM PST
"ooh... ooh...
can i raise both hands?"

really though... some of these people are starting to scare me... theyre a trifle obssessed

have a sense of humor already!!!!!!!!!!


ditto (none / 0) (#91)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 12th, 2001 at 04:53:33 AM PST
make that "ditto enfinity" - lighten up people! get a sense of humor!

Oh, and I loved the Picard/UFP - Bush/UN analogy! Hilarious! ;-)


 
You all seriously need to chill (none / 0) (#41)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 06:17:03 PM PST
As a first timer to your forum, I have one thing to say: you people are freaks.

I can count the number of fair and reasonable comments on one hand; the rest are strange, illogical, alarmist and bizarre. Everyone seems to have a personal agenda (feminism, anti-communism, trekkism) and enjoys twisting everything around to conform to their preconceptions.

I sincerely doubt this site has much to offer me if the rest of the topics encourage such vitriol. "News for Grown-ups" indeed.


Thank you. (none / 0) (#80)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 10:46:42 AM PST
I totally agree with you all of your points. I don't think I could have said it better myself.

To the freaks - get a life! Wesley Crusher was gone years ago... and he wasn't even a real person!


 
get yourselves some FUCKING LIVES (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 09:32:24 PM PST
Hey, I don't see YOU on tv, or getting asked to do an interview, or being talked about in mindless message posts. Give him a break, he's human, just as I assume you are. How would YOU feel if someone said YOU were sexist, or an oaf, or couldn't act(or do whatever it is that you love to do)? It would make you feel kinda shitty, now, wouldn't it? The one thing we DON'T need is everyone hating each other for dumbass reasons. Get over yourselves and just be civil to each other.


 
Can you say, JOKE? (none / 0) (#48)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 11:30:50 PM PST
Apparently the vast majority of you don't understand the concept of humor. You all need to lighten up; don't take EVERY SINGLE WORD someone says as though it's the basis for judgement on that person. And for all of you that claim to "hate" Wil Wheaton because of his role on Star Trek, grow up. It's FUCKING TV.


oh yeah.... (none / 0) (#49)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 11:32:59 PM PST
And all that bullshit about Communism--COME ON! Are you really THAT warped?


 
I'm stoopified (3.00 / 1) (#50)
by Ryland Dot Net on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 12:34:16 AM PST
I came here because I'm a fan of Wil Wheaton, and I was looking forward to reading the interview, but it turned out to be a bear trap. I'm sorry Wil did it. When I first started reading, I was thinking that this must be a satire; nobody could seriously claim Star Trek was and "advertisement for Communism," much less blame an actor for it, or seriously discuss the sexist overtones of phallic warp nacelles... I kept looking for the nod and the wink, but it wasn't to be found. It was only when I had read the whole interview and all of the user comments after that I grasped the full scope of your insanity. You guys are loonies with a capital LOON.


aggression. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by nathan on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 12:41:42 AM PST
I came here because I'm a fan of Wil Wheaton...

We can't all be heroes, as Wil Rogers remarked; some of us have to devote our lives practicing to suck on the schlong of a pencil-necked geek in a laughable, brain-damaged space opera.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

sucking (none / 0) (#70)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 01:52:35 AM PST
hey Nate, must be a rough life for you, eh? btw - all of you who haven't been to Wil's site - please go. that will put this "interview" into perspective.


homf bomf (none / 0) (#71)
by nathan on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 02:52:46 PM PST
It's really more of a sesame rape.
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Wil Wheaton Interview. (none / 0) (#64)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 03:00:26 PM PST
Loved the interview.

Very funny. ;o)

Wish you well in all things mr. Wheaton.

Michael F.

myqel1960@a....




 
Sexist? Yes. Funny? Hell yes! (none / 0) (#72)
by FreemoreJohnson on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 06:31:35 PM PST
Personally, I think you people criticising Wil for being sexist are too uptight. You know what? Men and women are different, get over it! Wil making sexist comments is not going to dramatically impact your life, and you should realize that.

Variety is the spice of life folks, if we pretend like we are all shapeless drones and slam anyone for noting and joking about our differences what a boring godawful existence we would be relegated to. So learn to laugh.

Keep it up Wil, you peg-boy, spartan, you!


 
Sarcasm? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 10:46:46 PM PST
Mock me, everybody, for I am patently uncool! I actually LIKED Wesley Crusher! Horrors! I am failing to conform with the stereotype which says that "everyone must hate Wesley because he's smart and perky and annoying." Annoying to whom? He never annoyed ME. Frankly, I always sympathized with him fairly well (in part because he was the closest one on the show to my age at the time, and in part because he also often runs into the situation where people assume your incompetence solely on the basis of your age.) Yes, he's perky. It's an optimistic show, ya know. No black-leather clad vigilantes with questionable morals. Yes, he's smart. Is that such a crime? I must be missing some vital element of the WC character that makes him fundamentally unworthy.

Now I learn Wil Wheaton is a funny guy. Who'd have thought?


I don't think that anyone (none / 0) (#74)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 03:20:43 PM PST
would deny that Wil is as sexy as all heck, but I must oppose him for his communist agenda. What does he have against the polertariate that fills him with so much anger?

America was founded when America was founded there was no such thing as Big Oil. But there were such a thing as "horse monopolies." America was founded on the ideals of "Big Horses" if you want to think about it that way.

Now we have a president who supports Big Oil. Is that so different from "Big Horses?" I think NOT.


 
Wil Wheaton is a human being... (none / 0) (#78)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 09:32:23 AM PST
And lots of people have seemingly forgotten that.

Do you love to be insulted? Are you able to just let it all roll off your back when people who don't even know you make judgements about you because of something you wrote or said? Doesn't it just make you happy all day when you're completely misinterpreted? Isn't it great when people spew hatred at you all day long?

Or do you feel violated?

Let's get a grip on reality. Wil is a normal guy. So he has some viewpoints you disagree with. Don't most people? So he gets lippy with silly interview questions. Big Deal. If you don't like Wil, just don't make him part of your life. It's not like you really know him. It's not like his real life is impacting yours. He's a stranger. Just because you've seen him on TV and know his face and his acting roles doesn't mean he's not.

Oh, wait. Not many of us would go up to a someone on the street, maybe a celebrity, and verbally bash the hell out of them. Would we? Not many of us are callous enough to hurt people face to face. But, hey, on the internet, who cares? We can insult people from the safety of our anonymity. No consequences, right? Wrong.

Give the guy a break.




 
oh my god (none / 0) (#84)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 02:56:20 PM PST
please tell me this wasn't a serious interview. wil answered flipantly and haphazardly to what any sane person would assume were silly goofy-ass questions.

i'd not have taken any of it seriously either.

then again, truth can be stranger than fiction....and you people are definately strange.


 
Wesley Crusher is a Freak, but in a Good Way. (none / 0) (#86)
by boyblue on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 09:17:10 AM PST
The two most significant and important characters on Star Trek: Next Generation were Wesley and Data. Why? Because they were freaks (but I mean that in good way). Both these characters were 'out of the ordinary' people. Their existance represented a substantial break in normal continuity. That is, when Data and Wesley around, you could count on things not being normal. By being extraordinary people they opened the door for extraordinary things to happen, for extraordinary story lines.

True all the other characters had thier quirks and eccentricities, but for the most part within the boundaries of their quirks and eccentricities, their behavior and behavioral possibilites were normal. I mean, in the end, Wesley was able to overcome time and space. Who else on the show, was a big enough freak (in a good way) to be able to do that.

I love Wesley. True, he was desparately perfect, a mama's boy, and a genius with the social skills of an 8 year old, but that was the character he was suppost to play. Wesley was a geek, a nerd, a dweeb, and a wussy, but that is who he was suppost to be, and that fact that anyone hated him for that only proves the skill of Wil Wheaton as an actor because he made you believe it.

If you read Wil's posts at his website, you will find that he is an funny, humorous, intelligent, thoughtful, knowledgable, well spoken person who speaks his mind and does it well.

As far as the ' Hey, thanks for showing me your tits.' comment, GEEZ lighten up, it was a joke. And considering how rediculous and boarderline psychotic some of the questions were, I'm sure he was just trying to break the tension by ending with what he (I assume) viewed as a 'silly' humorous comment.

So let me end by saying again "GEEZ, lighten up".


unless (5.00 / 1) (#87)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 05:19:29 PM PST
perdida actually display her boobs. Then he would have been literally thankful instead of just metaphorically.

right?


 
Sarcasam is lost on you (none / 0) (#90)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 12th, 2001 at 04:46:31 AM PST
I'm amazed, after reading many of the comments here, how many people totally missed the sarcasam of WW's answers and of the questions themselves. To me they were blazingly obvious.

And, just so it's clear, sarcasam is stating the opposite of what you really mean in order to make it into a somewhat rude yet humorous statement.

Now, go back and read the interview in that light. And don't take the whole thing so seriously!

- JJ



 
cocks for everyone (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 12:49:07 PM PST
"The two thrusting phalluses on stilts that form part of the original Enterprise need no further interpretation. the phallic motif persists throughout the show."

Crackpots. Since the days of classical Greece, and maybe even before that, phallic shapes have been prominent in architecture and art as symbols of strength, masculinity and sexuality. That's just how we are as a species - we like our dicks. And if you think people these days are too righteous for stuff like that, go to Washington D.C. and you can see a great concrete dick sitting around somewhere, a great feat of architectural genius of modern man, immitating what mother nature came up with millions of years ago. :p


 
This isn't a real interview (none / 0) (#94)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Dec 13th, 2001 at 02:32:40 AM PST
If you know anything REAL about Wil Wheaton, you can plainly see that his responses here don't reflect his personallity. Give me a break. Though very funny!!! 4 thumbs up for such a funny piece.


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.