Oh bjesus - not the guns again - they are your King Charles' head, Cjhsa!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!
cjhsa wrote:OK, here's my serious 2-cents worth. There are nudist camps and beaches scattered all over the U.S. You want to go there, fine, that's your CHOICE. If you want to subscribe to cable or whatever so you can watch adult themed content, fine, that's your CHOICE. You want to go to strip clubs or shows, fine, that's your CHOICE.
This exhibition gave no one a choice, it was broadcast nationally over the airwaves, not only in San Francisco and Las Vegas, but in Peoria and Charleston. Some of these places are pretty damn uptight about such things, and they don't care what you think. You have boobs in your commercials in England? You also have no guns in your house, taken away by your government, and only one official religion. That makes you subjects, not citizens. That would be their argument. Now, do you see where I'm coming from here (and I agree with them).
The real boobs were Janet and Justin.
You really are detectable from miles away, predictable and boring.
Kicky
It is just the kind of sleaze that the media and unfortuneatly the American people thrive on. Crap like that always seems to take center stage.
au,
Yes, that's true. But I think the only reason it becomes a big issue is a) the media doesn't let it go, and b) there is always a very vocal minority that is actually offended by this kind of trivial crap. Yes, people talk about these things, but if the media would have just mentioned it that day and forgot about it, we probably would have too.
Wilso wrote:
You really are detectable from miles away, predictable and boring.
You as well are detectable from miles away, but for other reasons.
dlowan wrote:Oh bjesus - not the guns again - they are your King Charles' head, Cjhsa!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!
I'm pointing out the difference between the U.S. and your "liberalized" society, that's all. We have different rights than you do, but one of them is not to show off our boobs on network television during the Superbowl, the last time I looked.
Posted on this thread in error.
cjhsa wrote : "We have different rights than you do, but one of them is not to show off our boobs on network television during the Superbowl, the last time I looked." (now, let me first admit that i did NOT watch the superbowl - hope not watching is not a crime). it appears to me (from LISTENING to newsreports - i did not inhale !) that it is a right to do things that you and i might decide not to do. if the ratings of any show takes a beating because of something being shown, i'm sure it would not be shown again. i find it interesting that "this something" is being shown over and over again - and NOBODY wants to watch it ? hmm, the tv-executives must be reading the tea-leaves badly. isn't this all just some jock joke ? just wondering ! hbg ... it seems to me that it is not "in good taste", but is the superbowl meant to be in good taste ? does it matter at all ? still wondering !
I just saw some photos from the Super Bowl. Why is no one making a fuss about Kid Rock wearing a cut-up American Flag as a poncho during his performance? I would have thought that would have been the most distressing to a good American, something they wouldn't want their children to see.
Doesn't the flag matter anymore?
Now THERE'S a question! Is the superbowl MEANT to be in good taste??? LOL!
Can you use the words "Superbowl" and "taste" in the same sentence without generating an enormous karmic debt?
hobitbob : i'll have to look up "karmic debt". is it something one can do at the superbowl and have it re-played on all the news-shows ? is it "sinful" ? hbg
Did Janet Jackson become news in Iceland?
Not really.
What became news is that the most powerful nation actually goes insane debating about a pair of way-less-than-perfect boobs nobody is supposed to see but then everyone wants to see to express his/her shock and disgust once and again and again and again... oh mmmmm!!
Really hung up, people, really hung up.
ossobuco wrote:
Wrong again, kjv.
Common trait for that particular member.
So to fine tune my own pov, which I know you are all dying to hear about even though you despise all the commentary,
I am only slightly bemused by the episode, personally, primarily because I am interested in tv production, or used to be.
I do see it as an issue re programming regulation, and audience expectations. Wait, wait, let me finish - some fair portion of the superbowl audience well expects fairly gross commercials or halftime programming, but not quite that, because there is a fairly specific timing for when some matters are allowed on the main national tv channels.
This is a legitimate concern for that part of the audience (not me) who would not want their children seeing the episode, and for those who wield whatever mechanism is out there now re regulation of material as to tv hour. Whether worrying about hours re material on a country's main channels is a reasonable concern - I guess even I, the openminded one, think it is at least a discussible concern, but not to the apparent extent that the knife of justice may be coming down now on ... whomever.
I am sorry if my interest in all this seems icky to many not from the US. I am the first one on these threads, I think, to call us weirdly puritan as a nation, puritanical re sex but not violence. Interesting juxtaposition of all this noise re a boob in the midst of a fairly violent game.
I also posted that if this'all was orchestrated, which seems clear, then they should have practiced more.
i happened to listen to a few minutes of a NPR-phone-in re. THE ABOVE. of course, lots of outrage was expressed at THE SHOWING. a mother of two children phoned in. she wanted to know if people were also outraged at the "blood-and-guts" shows on TV, not all of which are shown at night-time only. she wanted to know if the OUTRAGED ones were as outraged about these mind-destroying shows. the short answer: NO RESPONSES ! (at least not during the few minutes that i listened). i was not surprised. hbg
