Are Wings fans mostly female?

[Meade]

I was just wonderin' because it seems like more ladies on this board than men. But I'm a guy, and I love Wings. I was thinking maybe the show tried to appeal more to women towards the later Seasons.

Anyways, its a great show.

[TripperFan]

I'm female too and loved the show, but my husband liked it as well (whenever he got a chance to see it - usually business got in the way).

I think it should appeal to both sexes.

Another great show brought to us by the late David Angell!

[barwars]

I'm a guy, but it seemed to lean more towards women than men. The whole romantic angle is perfect proof of this. Although I really think it's a show that's pretty much 50/50.

[Meade]

Originally Posted by barwars

I'm a guy, but it seemed to lean more towards women than men. The whole romantic angle is perfect proof of this. Although I really think it's a show that's pretty much 50/50.

Romantic angles are common though in a lot of Sitcoms. But I like this show because I think its a classic show with interesting characters.
Also, I think a man(a heterosexual man) can appreciate Romantic Comedy just as a woman can, although in lighter doses. I think for me, I prefer the earlier episodes because it wasnt so much about Helen and Joe, but the whole cast in general.

Thats why the later episodes seem to attract more female fans. I suppose the women watch the show because they are attracted to Brian or Joe. And the guys like Helen or Casey. I have a slight crush on Crystal Bernard myself.

[Meade]

Originally Posted by barwars

I'm a guy, but it seemed to lean more towards women than men. The whole romantic angle is perfect proof of this. Although I really think it's a show that's pretty much 50/50.

Im sorry but I totally disagree with your Terry Shiavo sig.
Starving a woman to death is not dying in peace.

[barwars]

I didn't really find any of the woman on Wings to be breathtakingly beautiful, whereas other series of the time had knockout stars.

[barwars]

Originally Posted by Meade

Im sorry but I totally disagree with your Terry Shiavo sig.
Starving a woman to death is not dying in peace.

To each their own.
Starving her to death isn't the right thing to do, but keeping her alive isn't either.

[Meade]

Originally Posted by barwars

To each their own.
Starving her to death isn't the right thing to do, but keeping her alive isn't either.

Excuse me, what gives you the right to decide when she dies? Thats up to the Lord. Taking away her feeding tube, she will starve to death. Its almost like Nazi Germany, where we just get rid of or dispose of the disabled. I find it appaling, that you can even support this. I just pray the Lord will use this for the greater good and that something good can come out of this travesty.

And Crystal Bernard was gorgeous by the way, as was Amy Yasbeck.

[barwars]

Originally Posted by Meade

Excuse me, what gives you the right to decide when she dies? Thats up to the Lord. Taking away her feeding tube, she will starve to death. Its almost like Nazi Germany, where we just get rid of or dispose of the disabled. I find it appaling, that you can even support this. I just pray the Lord will use this for the greater good and that something good can come out of this travesty.

And Crystal Bernard was gorgeous by the way, as was Amy Yasbeck.

Excuse me, what gives you the right to play God and keep her alive?? If it were 100 years ago, she would have been dead 15 years earlier. She's alive, but she's not living. Keeping her alive is just as much playing God as not giving a feeding tube.

It boggles me how someone can believe in God, but feel that living braindead on a feeding tube is better than being in heaven.

Ahh yes, God really wants it that way.

[Meade]

Originally Posted by barwars

Excuse me, what gives you the right to play God and keep her alive?? If it were 100 years ago, she would have been dead 15 years earlier. She's alive, but she's not living. Keeping her alive is just as much playing God as not giving a feeding tube.

It boggles me how someone can believe in God, but feel that living braindead on a feeding tube is better than being in heaven.

Ahh yes, God really wants it that way.

But guess what? Its not 100 years ago. Its today ! And God gave us this technology for a reason. She is not in a coma. Shes not even on a resperator. She just uses a tube for nourishment. To deny a functioning, living, human breathing nourishment is cruel beyond all reasoning.

What we are doing by removing the feeding tube is hastening her death.
And thats an enirely different situation than letting her die naturally.

[barwars]

Originally Posted by Meade

But guess what? Its not 100 years ago. Its today ! And God gave us this technology for a reason. She is not in a coma. Shes not even on a resperator. She just uses a tube for nourishment. To deny a functioning, living, human breathing nourishment is cruel beyond all reasoning.

What we are doing by removing the feeding tube is hastening her death.
And thats an enirely different situation than letting her die naturally.

God didn't "give us technology".... humans discovered it. Ever heard of free will??
There is a HUGE difference between being in a coma and being braindead. People can snap out of comas.... there is no reversing being braindead.

She uses the tube for nourishment.... for what?! To be alive for the next feeding? Let her die, let her be with God.

[Janice]

Get your facts straight. Terri is not brain dead. She's brain damaged. Some babies are born that way. Maybe we should kill them off at birth...or kill
Alzheimer patients. They don't know what's going on either.

[barwars]

If I had a child who was brain damaged, who would have to be fed through a feeding tube the rest of their life, just to sit there and literally watch the world go bye as they can do nothing. Can't talk, can't react. I would want them to die peacefully.

I know the two of you believe in God.... why can't she be with him??

[Janice]

Originally Posted by barwars

If I had a child who was brain damaged, who would have to be fed through a feeding tube the rest of their life, just to sit there and literally watch the world go bye as they can do nothing. Can't talk, can't react. I would want them to die peacefully.

I know the two of you believe in God.... why can't she be with him??

Employing your logic, anyone who is severely mentally disabled should be done away with. Where do you draw the line, the mentally ********, Alzheimer, cerebral palsy victims?

Feeding tubes aren't the end of the world. My father had one during his illnesses off and on for years. You're not "hooked up" to a feeding tube. It's in your stomach and actually has a cap on it that is opened when the food is poured in twice a day. It's not even a machine. It's similiar to an IV.

Some people walk around with a colostomy bag because they've had to have their colon removed. Your feces go into this bag which is clipped outside your pants, under your shirt. Otherwise perfectly healthy and working people have these bags.

If I had a brain damaged child who needed assistance with nourishment, I wouldn't want that child starved to death or put down like a dog. It's as if Terri is mentally ********. She could have been born that way. She's not terminally ill. All she needs is nourishment to live, the same as all of us.

[barwars]

Originally Posted by Janice

Get your facts straight. Terri is not brain dead. She's brain damaged. Some babies are born that way. Maybe we should kill them off at birth...or kill
Alzheimer patients. They don't know what's going on either.

Alzheimer patients can have lives though. They can talk, they can eat on their own, they can react. My grandfather has Alzheimer's.... there's no reason in the world why he would need to die. Whereas my cousin was born with brain damage in 2003 and passed away within two hours because my aunt and uncle made the decision that it would be better for her to be in heaven, than be on earth only waiting to die.