| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
February 7th 04, 04:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: 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. I gotta get cable... They put them on late at night when the kids are in bed, and any viewing is strictly voluntary. No one harmed. I agree 100%, Mike, but I'd put it this way: The big problem isn't the content but whether it's expected or not when the viewer tunes in. Shows like "Sex in the City" and "Coupling" pretty much tell you what to expect by the name of the show. Other shows have warnings, ratings and writeups in the program guides. The problem with the "wardrobe malfunction" was that nobody expected it except Ms. Jackson. Yet she will not incur any fine or penalty. That's just wrong. Everything in it's time and place, and the superbowl isn't the time or place IMO. Agreed - particularly without any warning. Some may say this whole thing ahs nothing to do with amateur radio policy, but the exact opposite is true. The big problem with that "wardrobe malfunction" was its unexpected nature. Since amateur radio is unscheduled, crosses time zones and no licensee owns a frequency, the standards of all amateur on-air activity have to be "G-rated". 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. Well, it's just a different sort of "up"... I hope they realize that the "edgy" stuff was a miserable failure for the XFL. Who? ;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#2
February 7th 04, 08:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: 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. I gotta get cable... Even then, it isn't smarmy stuff. It's mostly educational, with an erotic undertone. It's the sort of thing that even if a youngster were to watch it, they wouldn't be affected negatively They put them on late at night when the kids are in bed, and any viewing is strictly voluntary. No one harmed. I agree 100%, Mike, but I'd put it this way: The big problem isn't the content but whether it's expected or not when the viewer tunes in. Shows like "Sex in the City" and "Coupling" pretty much tell you what to expect by the name of the show. Other shows have warnings, ratings and writeups in the program guides. Good point. The problem with the "wardrobe malfunction" was that nobody expected it except Ms. Jackson. Yet she will not incur any fine or penalty. That's just wrong. I'll bet she doesn't get on Prime-time TV without a tape delay, tho'! Everything in it's time and place, and the superbowl isn't the time or place IMO. Agreed - particularly without any warning. Some may say this whole thing ahs nothing to do with amateur radio policy, but the exact opposite is true. The big problem with that "wardrobe malfunction" was its unexpected nature. Since amateur radio is unscheduled, crosses time zones and no licensee owns a frequency, the standards of all amateur on-air activity have to be "G-rated". Agreed! Why some people have a problem understanding that is beyond me. Everything in moderation and in it's time and place. If Janet wants to go around with parts hanging out of her clothes, she is welcome to. (IMO) As long as as it is in the proper place. Otherwise, keep it clean. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#3
February 8th 04, 06:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Leo
writes: 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...star/Layout/Ar ticle_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid =1076022610517 Leo: I don't even have to bother to read it. I'm guessing it says that all of us hyper-conservative, redneck UhmurriKans are so backwardly non-progressive in our morality that we're shocked and outraged by the little act put on during Super Bowl XXXVIII by Jackson and Timberlake. Yada, yada, yada. I'm no prude, but I know obscenity when I see it, and that was obscene -- the whole half-time show, not just the Jackson thing. If it were being shown after 11 PM or on a cable channel, that would be a different matter, but this was shown on a major network during Prime Time, and during a high-profile sporting event with a maxxed-out audience, including young children. If there was anything that was designed to bring our culture "...one step closer to extinction," this was it. Fortunately, the negative reaction, while not understood by our ever-so-liberal neighbors to the North, had the effect of at least getting Janet Jackson booted from the Grammys, and forced CBS to change the Grammys from a real-time "live" broadcast to a delayed broadcast, so that any other such shennanigans can be edited out. Unfortunately, all the dumbed-down New-Age pop-culture idiots out there will probably buy Janet's new CD in record numbers, and that was her intention from the beginning. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
|
#4
February 8th 04, 01:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... Fortunately, the negative reaction, while not understood by our ever-so-liberal neighbors to the North, had the effect of at least getting Janet Jackson booted from the Grammys, and forced CBS to change the Grammys from a real-time "live" broadcast to a delayed broadcast, so that any other such shennanigans can be edited out. Unfortunately, all the dumbed-down New-Age pop-culture idiots out there will probably buy Janet's new CD in record numbers, and that was her intention from the beginning. 73 de Larry, K3LT Most of us northerners are also conservatives. Liberals are generally more noisy than conservatives so get noticed more. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
#6
February 8th 04, 04:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 08 Feb 2004 06:31:37 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote: In article , Leo writes: 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...star/Layout/Ar ticle_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&ci d=1076022610517 Leo: I don't even have to bother to read it. I'm guessing it says that all of us hyper-conservative, redneck UhmurriKans are so backwardly non-progressive in our morality that we're shocked and outraged by the little act put on during Super Bowl XXXVIII by Jackson and Timberlake. Yada, yada, yada. Not really - it was more of an editorial on the rather odd perception that any reference to sex is bad, yet violence is perfectly OK. It's worth a read, Larry - it does present an interesting perspective! I'm no prude, but I know obscenity when I see it, and that was obscene -- the whole half-time show, not just the Jackson thing. If it were being shown after 11 PM or on a cable channel, that would be a different matter, but this was shown on a major network during Prime Time, and during a high-profile sporting event with a maxxed-out audience, including young children. If there was anything that was designed to bring our culture "...one step closer to extinction," this was it. Fortunately, the negative reaction, while not understood by our ever-so-liberal neighbors to the North Um, you really should read the article before you draw the wrong conclusions here, Larry. Our society ain't that much different than yours, we just have this fundamental belief here that graphic violence is far more objectionable than sex....an odd concept, for sure....  Liberal? Hey, I voted Conservative.... , had the effect of at least getting Janet Jackson booted from the Grammys, and forced CBS to change the Grammys from a real-time "live" broadcast to a delayed broadcast, so that any other such shennanigans can be edited out. Unfortunately, all the dumbed-down New-Age pop-culture idiots out there will probably buy Janet's new CD in record numbers, and that was her intention from the beginning. Yup, I have no doubt that you are absolutely correct here - I'm certain this was done to market Ms. Jackson's CDs all right, and it didn't happen by accident either. Shock has become a valuable selling tool in the entertainment business. And, also no arguement that it was entirely inappropriate for the Super Bowl (I'd go as far as saying that the whole #$%^ halftime show should be scrapped, so that footcall fans like you and I can watch the game without unnecessary interruption....). 73 de Larry, K3LT |
|
#7
February 8th 04, 08:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes: In article , Leo writes: 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...star/Layout/Ar ticle_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&ci d=1076022610517 Leo: I don't even have to bother to read it. I'm guessing it says that all of us hyper-conservative, redneck UhmurriKans are so backwardly non-progressive in our morality that we're shocked and outraged by the little act put on during Super Bowl XXXVIII by Jackson and Timberlake. Yada, yada, yada. No, it's not like that at all, Larry. You should read it, because it's a perfect example of a bunch of good facts connected by a bit of muddle-headed illogic. I'm no prude, but I know obscenity when I see it, and that was obscene -- the whole half-time show, not just the Jackson thing. I didn't watch past the part where the psuedo-cheerleader-dancers took off their outfits. I flicked back briefly and saw some no-talent wearing the American flag like a poncho, and tuned away. If it were being shown after 11 PM or on a cable channel, that would be a different matter, but this was shown on a major network during Prime Time, and during a high-profile sporting event with a maxxed-out audience, including young children. It's even simpler than that: It was aired with no warning of the content, so that those who would be offended could not make an informed choice. That's what's really offensive - and a point totally missed by the above article. If there was anything that was designed to bring our culture "...one step closer to extinction," this was it. Fortunately, the negative reaction, while not understood by our ever-so-liberal neighbors to the North, had the effect of at least getting Janet Jackson booted from the Grammys, and forced CBS to change the Grammys from a real-time "live" broadcast to a delayed broadcast, so that any other such shennanigans can be edited out. Unfortunately, all the dumbed-down New-Age pop-culture idiots out there will probably buy Janet's new CD in record numbers, and that was her intention from the beginning. The article fails to note the difference between movies (which are rated) and live TV (which isn't). 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#8
February 8th 04, 10:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 08 Feb 2004 20:19:54 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
In article , ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) writes: In article , Leo writes: 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...star/Layout/Ar ticle_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&c id=1076022610517 Leo: I don't even have to bother to read it. I'm guessing it says that all of us hyper-conservative, redneck UhmurriKans are so backwardly non-progressive in our morality that we're shocked and outraged by the little act put on during Super Bowl XXXVIII by Jackson and Timberlake. Yada, yada, yada. No, it's not like that at all, Larry. You should read it, because it's a perfect example of a bunch of good facts connected by a bit of muddle-headed illogic. It was pretty accurate and intelligently written, actually! But I assume from your statement that it didn't agree with your own viewpoint, as it too is "wrong". I take it you're not a Robbie Burns fan: "Oh wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursel's as others see us!" The experience would do you a world of good, Jim.... snip 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo |
|
#9
February 8th 04, 09:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
I don't even have to bother to read it. I'm guessing it says that all of us hyper-conservative, redneck UhmurriKans are so backwardly non-progressive in our morality that we're shocked and outraged by the little act put on during Super Bowl XXXVIII by Jackson and Timberlake. Yada, yada, yada. I'm no prude, but I know obscenity when I see it, and that was obscene -- the whole half-time show, not just the Jackson thing. If it were being shown after 11 PM or on a cable channel, that would be a different matter, but this was shown on a major network during Prime Time, and during a high-profile sporting event with a maxxed-out audience, including young children. If there was anything that was designed to bring our culture "...one step closer to extinction," this was it. Fortunately, the negative reaction, while not understood by our ever-so-liberal neighbors to the North, had the effect of at least getting Janet Jackson booted from the Grammys, and forced CBS to change the Grammys from a real-time "live" broadcast to a delayed broadcast, so that any other such shennanigans can be edited out. Unfortunately, all the dumbed-down New-Age pop-culture idiots out there will probably buy Janet's new CD in record numbers, and that was her intention from the beginning. 73 de Larry, K3LT Jackson and that other idot singing with her keep trying to convince everyone it was accidental that her breast was exposed. She wore nipple decoration because she meant for her breast to be exposed. What a lovely upstanding example that Jackson family is....NOT!!! And the other moron wearing the flag with a hole in it as a cape screaming his junk they attempt to call music was just a bad. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Is Michael Jackson Innocent? | Policy | |||
| Response to "21st Century" Part Two (Communicator License) | Policy | |||
| Low reenlistment rate | Policy | |||
| There is no International Code Requirement and techs can operate HF according to FCC Rules | General | |||
| Hey CBers Help Get rid of Morse Code Test and Requirement | Policy | |||
Hybrid Mode
