Da-DUM!!!!

Law and Order's A.D.A. Jack McCoy would wipe the floor with Jack Bauer or Jack Osbourne?

Sam Waterston is a god...

P.S. If the "I already have a life" away from the computer person is so smugly occupied, why exactly is he/she commenting in the ONLINE letters section of an ONLINE magazine. Unless he/she is posting from a mobile internet device while soaking up nay-chuh out in the great outdoors, I smell a self-satisfied yet strangely delusional hypocrite.

Please.

It's just soft-core porn for ugly people to get off while watching...men who love the whole female bi/lez stuff and your typically fugly dykes who only wish their truly lesbian partners looked that hot.

Showtime's buzzier shows the past few years have been "The Cell," "Weeds," and "Dexter" -- and while Michael C. Hall played gay on "Six Feet Under" before "Dexter," I don't think you'd really call any of those shows "gay." Bravo is the cable network most aggressively courting the gay audience (it cancelled "Queer Eye" -- thank god -- but launched "Project Runway" and now "Top Design" and before that, "Boy Meets Boy"). And, you know, good for Bravo.

Not sure what TomReed's point is -- never really am, actually, or why he insists on being such a Havrilesky parasite -- but this seems particlarly sorta dumb. Go away, TomRingWorm.

Ok, funny, if neurotic, show. Which is exactly why so much of our social circle is gay. Gay Men? Outside of fashion speak, funny and concerned about interesting things. Gay women? Love to get out and always on our social calendar.

One thing though…, with rare exception, lesbians I encounter aren’t quite so “bisexual-hetro-babes-gone-wild”. Where are the short haired, big-boned girls with their adopted Asian girls? It suggests that a large portion of the audience is guys looking for sneak-peak of attractive girls grinding, or L-girls wishing their partner wasn’t a large beastie…..I know, TV is fantasy meant to entertain, but how about one, small bridge to reality? If it’s just fantasy, why not just give them wings and make small, furry lesbian hobbits….?

Regarding The L Word, some of my lesbian friends won't miss it (and some don't like it because it is not an accurate portrayal of the lesbian community they know), but I can tell you some of my straight male friends won't miss it either. Hot women having sex with each other? That doesn't sound like it would have a small niche market. :)

I can't really speak to whether Showtime has been able to "nurture" shows that are not gay-themed, since I am not in the U.S. and can't watch the channel (you can't even get on the website from outside the country).

However, the Wikipedia article lists almost 50 items under original programming. So three of them have gay themes; I'm not sure why that's a problem.

Also, Weeds is a show that comes to mind that's great, on Showtime, and doesn't have gay themes. (I hope it's still being aired!)

Perhaps the success of these shows and the failure of those that don't have gay themes (if that's what not being able to nurture them means) just means that there's an audience for these shows, even if they are bad? If it bothers someone that there's an audience for shows that are racy and are about gay people.....

Also, I think it's pretty clear that more than just gay people watch The L Word. I was responding in part to the idea that only gay people would want to watch a show about gay people, which doesn't really make sense and is a little offensive to me.

Well, I don't quite pick-up on Showtime's gay agenda, but I do notice their agenda to start producing quality original TV shows. Mary-Louise Parker's deliciously non-lesbian legs and alluring concealed breasts, not to mention her delicious, alluring eyes and non-lesbian (I don't know what that means either?) wit make Weeds a real pleasure. Dexter is a truly interesting and very non-network type of show that actually could be syndicated someday without too much editing. And I'm looking forward to the Tudors, a challenging and, I'd assume, mostly not-gay period drama with Jonathan Rhys-Myers, and, if it ever makes it into the lineup, the long-promised television version of This American Life, which, unfortunately for Tom Reed, may or may not feature that super-gay gay boy David Sedaris providing occasional pretty, witty, and gay observations on his outrageously homosexual life--and other funny, touching stories about, well, this American life.

My Showtime subscription has actually treated me fairly well, recently. Even if they seem intent on showing me the worst of the mid-90s romantic comedies (the pre-Brad Pitt Jennifer Aniston is in heavy rotation) every time I flip past.

I can't wait for the new episodes! I love this show--I wish Showtime would create a series for bisexuals too!

Anonymous, I don't think our armchair cultural critic Tomreedon was being homophobic. Why is it when criticizing anything to do with race or sexuality there is suddenly an "ist" or "obia" attached? I think all he was saying was, heck, Showtime can't nurture anything but lame, culturally irrelevent shows about gay people that use dirty words and graphic sex in place of meaningful dialogue. I noticed that too. (even though the new Showtime serial killer show seemed so good it almost made me subscribe. Almost.)

Your line of questioning sounds a little....homophobic to me. Who cares why Showtime has produced THREE (gasp!) shows about gay people?

It's not only gay people who watch these shows, by the way. I'm white and I've watched shows about black people, single and childless and watched shows about families, not an office worker and love The Office, etc., etc.

General Jack O' Neil could wipe the floor with those sissy Jacks any day of the week.

Well, my son's a royal brat--that's why I LOCK HIM IN THE CLOSET ALL DAY WHILE I WATCH REALLY BAD TV!!!

WTF does "on-the-nose" mean?