Leo wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:26:10 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:


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 -


Actually, Mike, I don't disagree with you at all - what she did was
quite inappropriate for the venue. But it ain't really that big a
deal....

Read the article that I referenced, if you have time - it presents an
interesting perspective on what tends to constitute "obscenity". Sex
bad, violence good - you know. And, as always, Jack Nicholson's
comment is priceless
Ahh, smilin' Jack. Gotta admit, he's honest. Probably says what most of
us want to say and don't have the cojones for. See his comments re
Brittany Spears in GQ!

Example - I watched a bit of "Full Metal Jacket" on TBS a while back.
While all of the profanity and sexual references had been 'sanitized',
most of the gore and violence remained (it was funny, though, to see
Sgt. Hartman saying "Darn" and "Heck" and such, even though his lips
clearly had other intentions...).

Darn good movie that! I don't watch a lot of movies with violence in
them, but that one was worth it. I couldn't imagine it without the
profanity, though.

Where did society get the mistaken impression that sex is bad, but
violence is OK? Is that really what we want to teach our children?

Dunno! I don't allow kids to watch the nasty violent stuff either. I'm
talking about stuff like FMJ.As good as the movie was, it was plenty
disturbing. Three Stooges are fine, as well as the other tame stuff.
Normal kids are fully capable of figuring out that when Moe hits curly
on the head with a pipe wrench, and it makes a sound like a hammer
hitting a frying pan, or when Bugs bunny blows up daffy duck, and
Daffy's bill is then upside down and on the back of his head, that's all
just fun.

- Mike KB3EIA -