Janet Jackson's Superbowl - Page 9

Space05us · February 4, 2004, 04:39

I grew up watching topless African women with thier breasts hanging out and men with thier balls flapping in the wind. Its called PBS.

as far as Janet's boob goes, Im glad I missed it. I was watching a special on Sports Illustrated swimsuit models when that happend. Much more attractive IMHO

The Mad Monk · February 4, 2004, 11:33

One theory goes that she did this to take the heat off Michael.

CharlesBHoff · February 4, 2004, 14:39

I am thinking of writeing to FCC in support of Janet breast bareing just to upset the Christian Fundie. I will also ask then to look into Pat Robson make remarks attacking Islam on his TV show may-be his club 700 needed to be taken off the air for teaching hater.

Koyaanisqatsi · February 4, 2004, 15:06

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
No. Rather, parents may not want to knowingly put them into a situation where they will be tempted to watch material that they can't handle very well. This is more of "an occasion of sin" theory.

So why is the method of removing them from such a situation tied to paying for anything else?

MrFun · February 4, 2004, 15:08

Are you guys really that interested in the incident with Janet Jackson still??

Koyaanisqatsi · February 4, 2004, 15:11

Go knock over a garbage can or something.

MrFun · February 4, 2004, 15:12

nah -- I will leave that for you

DanS · February 4, 2004, 15:13

Quote:

So why is the method of removing them from such a situation tied to paying for anything else?

I don't know what else you want me to say. The difference is that paying money requires additional action (an additional expression of choice).

Quote:

Are you guys really that interested in the incident with Janet Jackson still??

Sure. Why not?

Koyaanisqatsi · February 4, 2004, 15:14

I'm wondering about the default states, I guess. Why should broadcast channels not be open to air anything they want, while parents have to pay to restrict their television to whatever they consider acceptable?

I don't particularly want you to say anything, it's just an interesting bias.

DanS · February 4, 2004, 15:36

Quote:

I'm wondering about the default states, I guess. Why should broadcast channels not be open to air anything they want, while parents have to pay to restrict their television to whatever they consider acceptable?

It's just the way it has developed society-wide, not just TV. For instance, the porn section at your local video rental place is in a separate room behind a curtain or whatever. Porn mags have black plastic covering, etc.

Koyaanisqatsi · February 4, 2004, 15:40

Which is reasonable if you want a culture in fail-safe mode (definitions of safe may vary). I just wonder if we've gotten to the technological point where there are alternative models. Although 'safe' may be the lowest common denominator, it's not the mode that a majority of people want.

Tiamat · February 4, 2004, 16:49

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
One theory goes that she did this to take the heat off Michael.

This is what I've been saying. Really how much would it cost her to get the kind of publicity she is receiving now...millions. IIRC I read that she has a new album due out shortly. Timing is everything in that business.

And again what better way to remove the spotlight from Michael for a while then this. Family should stick together after all

chequita guevara · February 4, 2004, 17:01

Why are children allowed to watch tv?

DanS · February 4, 2004, 17:01

Quote:

I just wonder if we've gotten to the technological point where there are alternative models. Although 'safe' may be the lowest common denominator, it's not the mode that a majority of people want.

Well, don't you think that CBS would have labeled their program for general audiences? I think you can control this stuff nowadays through the v-chip, although I haven't tried it out myself. But anyway, a lot of people have old TVs.

Quote:

Why are children allowed to watch tv?

Good question. I guess it's because most children have been allowed to watch TV in the past and so there's an expectation that they will be allowed to in the future.

MrFun · February 4, 2004, 17:02

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why are children allowed to watch tv?

To indoctrinate them with capitalist propaganda -- duh.

Docfeelgood · February 4, 2004, 17:50

Globbs of sagging fat and plastic that may or may not produce milk for offspring.

go figure

Koyaanisqatsi · February 4, 2004, 17:52

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Well, don't you think that CBS would have labeled their program for general audiences? I think you can control this stuff nowadays through the v-chip, although I haven't tried it out myself. But anyway, a lot of people have old TVs.

Well, there's no systematic way to account for an unplanned live event like that on the client side, CBS would have to run it on delay, I was more thinking about media channels in general. Is this such a critical public issue that we need to be stuck in fail-safe mode?

Docfeelgood · February 4, 2004, 17:56

Bann a boob but they will show a guy getting his neck/arm broke over and over

Good clean bone breaking fun

The Mad Monk · February 4, 2004, 22:59

Quote:

Originally posted by dv8ed

Well, there's no systematic way to account for an unplanned live event like that on the client side, CBS would have to run it on delay, I was more thinking about media channels in general. Is this such a critical public issue that we need to be stuck in fail-safe mode?

Is it such a critical public issue that we need to change it?

Alexander's Horse · February 4, 2004, 23:23

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
Are you guys really that interested in the incident with Janet Jackson still??

Yes - can you just go away to wherever fags go when they aren't wanted?

Ogie Oglethorpe · February 4, 2004, 23:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Docfeelgood
Globbs of sagging fat and plastic that may or may not produce milk for offspring.

go figure

I eat scrapple too. Your point?

Ogie Oglethorpe · February 4, 2004, 23:49

** Reposted after thread closure **

You know. My wife hit me up with a compelling question (at least it was to me). Why is that Janet gets the bad press.

Suppose the roles were reversed and Janet ripped off a Timberlakes codpiece, would the press be all over Timeberlake for exposing his penis. Probably not. It would be all over Jackson for pulling a huge stunt. Why is that Timberlake gets a free pass?

OTOH who gives a rats a$$?

Alexander's Horse · February 4, 2004, 23:50

Ming is a bastard, ask him.

Dis · February 5, 2004, 04:05

Isn't anyone bothered by the fact that Tivo knows what americans are watching and replaying?

Well I don't Tivo, so I guess I shouldn't care

And Mr. Fun, we aren't discussing Janet's breast here. I can care less about those. I have seen thousands of breasts, and hers doesn't impress me that much.

There is a bigger issue at hand here Mr. Fun. And that is what effect this will have on society.

I for one am concerned about the FCC with this religious goverment we have in power now. They are already cracking down on profanity, now they will crack down on nudity.

As I mentioned before, there were only 230 murders nationwide 100 years ago. Now a small city has that many murders. Shouldn't we be enouraging nudity on television and not violence?

We have already lost live broadcasting for the near future. If not forever. The grammys will not be live. They will have a 5 second + delay. Who knows what those fanatics at the FCC will do next. I wish americans would stand up and say they support seeing breasts on tv. Because I am convinced most americans support this, but they allow religious fanatics to push them around. There was nothing sexual about Janet's breast, I can see no reason why a 5 year old kid shouldn't be allowed to see that. You know why I believe most americans support this. The proof is in the fact that this incident had more web hits than 9/11. This proves that most americans have no problem seeing Janet's breast.

Supposedly the superbowl had a time delay as well. But it was designed only to filter out audio profanity, not anything visual. Could that explain why it looks like the singers are lip syncing? I find it hard to believe anyone would lip sync in the post Milli Vanilli era.

The Mad Monk · February 5, 2004, 05:00

Quote:

There was nothing sexual about Janet's breast, I can see no reason why a 5 year old kid shouldn't be allowed to see that.

In and of itself, perhaps not.

In context, with the song, the style of dance, the dress, and the method in which it was revealed, it was very sexual.

Dis · February 5, 2004, 05:03

he wasn't actually touching it though

Atahualpa · February 5, 2004, 05:31

HOW ON EARTH CAN SOMEBODY CARE ABOUT THIS AND STILL CLAIM TO BE SERIOUS????

The Mad Monk · February 5, 2004, 05:31

I didn't notice a handle on the outside of that cup.

Dis · February 5, 2004, 05:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Atahualpa
HOW ON EARTH CAN SOMEBODY CARE ABOUT THIS AND STILL CLAIM TO BE SERIOUS????

you have to address this to the FCC chairmen.

I'm still talking about this because I'm against the FCC regulating television in this way.

CharlesBHoff · February 5, 2004, 14:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
Isn't anyone bothered by the fact that Tivo knows what americans are watching and replaying?

Well I don't Tivo, so I guess I shouldn't care

And Mr. Fun, we aren't discussing Janet's breast here. I can care less about those. I have seen thousands of breasts, and hers doesn't impress me that much.

There is a bigger issue at hand here Mr. Fun. And that is what effect this will have on society.

I for one am concerned about the FCC with this religious goverment we have in power now. They are already cracking down on profanity, now they will crack down on nudity.

As I mentioned before, there were only 230 murders nationwide 100 years ago. Now a small city has that many murders. Shouldn't we be enouraging nudity on television and not violence?

We have already lost live broadcasting for the near future. If not forever. The grammys will not be live. They will have a 5 second + delay. Who knows what those fanatics at the FCC will do next. I wish americans would stand up and say they support seeing breasts on tv. Because I am convinced most americans support this, but they allow religious fanatics to push them around. There was nothing sexual about Janet's breast, I can see no reason why a 5 year old kid shouldn't be allowed to see that. You know why I believe most americans support this. The proof is in the fact that this incident had more web hits than 9/11. This proves that most americans have no problem seeing Janet's breast.

Supposedly the superbowl had a time delay as well. But it was designed only to filter out audio profanity, not anything visual. Could that explain why it looks like the singers are lip syncing? I find it hard to believe anyone would lip sync in the post Milli Vanilli era.

Than 5 year old child would mostly likely not notice this at all or react like than adult will. I think when we get than other president who doesnot own the rightwing christian fundie any flavor we can get the FCC out of bussien. It these Christian fundie cannot handle than naked breast they are inmature to handle anything also.