Leo wrote:
On 06 Feb 2004 03:17:13 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:


In article , Robert Casey
writes:


:-)

I think the call WH0RE fits her better.


An article in today's Toronto Star, which covers our amusement with
the Janet Jackson issue pretty well! Double standards abound......

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...=1076022610517

Here is my take on the whole thing, Leo. Ms Jackson is free to expose
herself under appropriate circumstances. If she wants to do a dance
routine and have Justin Timberlake tear off part of her outfit. That is
also okay - tho she might want to use a less weird presentation.

There are appropriate television venues for that, such as HBO, Cinemax,
etc. Late night TV kind of stuff.

But not on the super bowl halftime show. Not on Teletubbies or Barney
or Blues Clues or fishing shows. Those just aren't the places for that
sort of thing. Even my favorite, the History channel, has some shows
that deal with sex and show nudity. They put them on late at night when
the kids are in bed, and any viewing is strictly voluntary. No one harmed.

For some reason, some people don't want to watch simulated kinky sex
while their kids are watching the same.

Everything in it's time and place, and the superbowl isn't the time or
place IMO.

The NFL has been trying to pander to a different audience the last few
years. I remember when a sb halftime show was put on by "Up With
People", of all things. Now it's simulated intercourse and exposed body
parts. yawn.

I hope they realize that the "edgy" stuff was a miserable failure for
the XFL.

- Mike KB3EIA -