Never was a fan of Superbowl, but now...?!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:31 pm

American football never had much of my interest, but after reading the past days' papers I might change my mind...

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_s ... 450553.stm, including the following picture:

They all said it was an unfortunate accident, and Janet even made a videotaped apology. But later it appeared that it was all planned. Hence the beautiful silver star on Janet's nipple.

CBS has now a 5 minute lapse on the broadcast of the Emmy Awards, so that they can still cut if something similar might happen.

Those poor prudent Americans...

**Sponsor:**

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:51 pm

I'd be more pissed off if I was an American seeing Kid Rock wearing their national flag as a poncho. I don't have time to look right now but it seemed to be an actual U.S. flag with a tear in it. I think the U.S. Code is quite clear on this.

The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:57 pm

Yep, it was an actual flag. A lot of dust there, too!

Those poor Americans

jcooper · Post by **jcooper** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 10:46 pm

I mean the suoperbowl and the "sport" it represents is the most mind numbing experience I could imagine, a bunch of fat gits, knockinh other fat gits down with only 2 /3 players with any skill. It has stats so maybe the US public likes that sort of thing.

But this whole Janet thing is a storm in a tea cup, I mean its a breast...maybe the US public should see more...like some Dutch post 10.30pm SBS treatment or Veronicas Webcam girls.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 11:21 pm

Veronica or SBS would probably be sued for severe mental trauma

Slothrop · Post by **Slothrop** » Wed Feb 11, 2004 12:41 am

BOO... HISS... WE WANT LITIGATION!

Janet Jackson Super Bowl Lawsuit Dropped
February 10, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MND Newswire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tennessee plaintiff Terri Carlin has filed a motion to dismiss her class action lawsuit against Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake, Viacom, MTV, and CBS nearly a week after filing it to protest Jackson's "shocking moment" of nudity during the Super Bowl Halftime show.

Carlin, a bank employee from Knoxville, filed her suit on February 4, just days after the incident, charging that the defendants had caused her and "all Americans who watched the Super Bowl...to suffer outrage, anger, embarrassment and serious injury." Her suit sought damages not to exceed "the gross annual revenues of each defendant for the last three years" - a sum surely in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Both Jackson and Timberlake have apologized for the incident, calling it an unintentional "wardrobe malfunction." MTV and CBS have denied any foreknowledge of the event.

MTV announced Monday that it had moved some of its most provactive videos into late-night rotation.

Any ideas what provactive means? Pro-actively provocative? Prophylactically reactive?

By the way, there was a nice piece about this in The Economist. Not sure if it is subscription only, but there's a delicious sense of irony in there that nearly but not quite redeems my faith in the paper...

http://www.economist.com/printedition/d ... ID=2405081

It was even more effective in the print edition, since the picture was placed immediately below the final sentence for added bite.

PeterF · Post by **PeterF** » Wed Feb 11, 2004 1:53 pm

WLM wrote: It was even more effective in the print edition, since the picture was placed immediately below the final sentence for added bite.

I am of the opinion that the "malfunction of the wardrobe" was in fact that, what was supposed to happen was; that after her breast flopped out the star thingy on her nipple was supposed to rotate and play "the star spangled banner..."...

eashton · Post by **eashton** » Wed Feb 11, 2004 6:33 pm

WLM wrote:BOO... HISS... WE WANT LITIGATION!

It was even more effective in the print edition, since the picture was placed immediately below the final sentence for added bite.

The woman dropped the suit but can you imagine, a woman, someone who HAS TO FACE HER OWN NIPPLES AT LEAST ONCE A DAY UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL on the premise that she removes her clothing to bathe, suing for the trauma caused by seeing Janet Jackson's breast flesh and nipple adornment from several hundred feet away via telecast?! Greedy brain damaged sheephumpers these folks are.

I was considering that the US should immediately close its borders and start removing participants in any class action suit like this from the gene pool, forcibly if necessary.

Hef Tauto · Post by **Hef Tauto** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 8:52 am

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:08 am

Hehehe... Touching...

Hef Tauto · Post by **Hef Tauto** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:35 am

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Autch!

Did you notice how terribly similar she looks like Michael Jackson?

Finland Forum

Find information about moving to, living in and life in Finland