Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« February 2004 »
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
More Links
Rance wuz here...
Tuesday, 3 February 2004
Boobs and other agents
There was this talent agent at a Superbowl party the other day. Sort of guy whose tone, body language and facial expression make it seem he's lying everytime he speaks. You're at dinner with him and he says, "Pass the salt," and you're thinking, "this man is lying."

Anyway, within maybe 1.5 seconds of Justin outing Janet's breast, this agent bellows: "Pre-planned P.R. stunt, and a fucking triumph!"

Him being him, everyone reacted as if he was just blowing smoke, trying to lay claim to insider knowledge. Turns out he wasn't.

Immediately, a guest decried the singers' action on grounds of indecency, then lamented a society in which such exploitation of women exists. This party being in Hollywood, that guest was asked to leave (they weren't, really, but they might as well have been).

Then it occurred to someone else, a music industry exec, that the timing for Janet's career couldn't have be better as she has an album coming out this Spring. "I disagree with that," the agent said. "It could have been better timed. Her album could be coming out today."

But was it a smart move? Will their reputations suffer? Although the religious right noisily proclaims otherwise, we are far from a chaste society. Viagra and the like were among the Superbowl's top advertisers. Look in the yellow pages of any phone book in the United States. What business takes up the most pages? Escort services. (And is it just me, or do more religious right leaders wind up caught in hotel rooms with escort servicers than members of any other occupation per capita?) I know of a plot decision in a current movie in development that was made with an eye toward the huge bondage demographic. People are far more scandalized by lip-synching. In any event, does Janet and Justin's target audience share the religious right's morality? Next question, please. Justin and Janet (or at least their businessees), will face a fine. Even if it's $50K, paying that, to them, is less of a hassle than having to write 50 times on a chalkboard: "I will not reveal a breast at the Superbowl again." Her record sale figures will climb by an exponentially higher amount.

Would I participate in a stunt like this? I wouldn't want to contribute to the exploitation of women. It's very likely Janet and Justin felt the same way. But, as the agent, speaking for Hollywood, said: "That's the reason not to do it, and there are 87 reasons in favor of doing it, all business-related. The bottom line's the bottom line. With the extra $15 million she makes, she can write checks to a bunch of women's advocacy charities and advance the cause way more than it would've been otherwise."

The same presentation fo the Pros and Cons has induced me to do plenty of things I would have preferred not to. Is it pragmatism, or is it dealing with the devil? I guess I won't know for sure until I wind up at a party with that talent agent in Hell.



Posted by captainhoof at 12:37 PM CST
Updated: Tuesday, 3 February 2004 4:43 PM CST
Post Comment | View Comments (35) | Permalink

Tuesday, 3 February 2004 - 1:44 PM CST

Name: edna million
Home Page:

Are you aware of the fact that most people here think they know who you are?
I found your link on some site claiming they thought you were someone specific. I haven't read anything that completely refutes the idea but I am curious if you are aware of where your readers have come from and what they think they know.

Tuesday, 3 February 2004 - 1:54 PM CST

Name: Elizabeth

My opinion? It has two inputs?

First, let me tell you I did not see it in direct? But...

A friend send me an email the next day? By that time, I was allover the newspapers, and some tv stations? some would refrain to show it, just spoke about the incident?

OK? let?s be serious? that was not much? We see a lot more on Saturday night, on TV?

To me, the major blunder was to present this segment during prime time.. SuperBowl is the most watched TV show in USA? It?s not only adults? every young Junior High will wants to watch it, in order to talk about it at school the next day?

The major boo-boo here was to presume only adults would watch the Halftime show, therefore, not issuing the normal ?Parent advise? whatever?

Nothing more than a lack of judgment!!!


This is what really troubles me?

Who is the idiot that came up with the idea that the defense should be that it was not premeditated?

I don?t know about the rest of the world, but here in Canada, anybody that undresses a person without her consent, whether fully or just partly? is committing a criminal offence?

And, if we are following that first line of defense, Justin (when ripping off part of Janet?s dress without her consent) had committed a sexual assault in front of millions of people?

Of course, it was admitted afterward that it was agreed by both singers and the network?

But, it really disturbs me that someone thought it "ok" to plead that it was not premeditated?

Thinking that this was lesser than admitting a simple lack of judgment?

This is what troubles me?

Their first line of defense? agreed by all the moguls on those plushy offices?

I find that very disturbing?

Tuesday, 3 February 2004 - 3:07 PM CST

Name: johndoegirl
Home Page:

I was far more disturbed, during Stupid Bowl viewing, by the ad for erectile dysfunction meds that promised 36-hour relief from E.D. -- which included a warning at the end that one should seek immediate medical attention if one's erection lasts longer than four hours. That said, Janet's nipplegate landed above-the-fold on the front page today, with the "Ricin Scare" relegated to page 3. P.R.? Hell yeah.

Tuesday, 3 February 2004 - 3:28 PM CST

Name: kirker
Home Page:

Actually, to clarify slightly: her new album's not out yet, but the first single was indeed released yesterday. What a "coincidence." Also, not sure if you've heard, but MTV put out a press release prior to the Super Bowl promising that Janet would offer some "shocking moments" (a direct quote) during the performance. I thus have zero doubt that it was a publicity stunt, except Miss Jackson perhaps overestimated the number of people who'd be titillated by the sight of her exposed "middle-aged" (to employ the adjective used to describe her by The New York Times) mammary.


Tuesday, 3 February 2004 - 4:12 PM CST

Name: Nancy

When I saw the now famous incident on the superbowl, I thought I was seeing things, then I relegated the incident to the back of my mind, and went back to hoping my team would win the game. I too was more, "What the" with the commercials with Mike Ditka (also a Bud lite commercial with a dog offended me more than "Ms Jackson if you're Nasty"). Reading your new post made me think of several things.
1. I didnt know Ms Jackson was coming out with an album. I wouldnt have purchased it anyway, not because of this, but simply cause of the fact I stopped buying her music long ago.
2. They were more worried about her brother showing up.
3. No mention of the fact that the first surivor winner was nude for most of the telecast last night, yet from what I read this morning, it wasnt watched much anyway.
4. You are neither Janet or Justin Timberlake.

As with all things, this too will pass. At least I hope so, I'm sick of it already. I would just prefer to think I was seeing things, and move on with life.


Tuesday, 3 February 2004 - 4:22 PM CST

Name: Lara

Yeah, apparently (from what I've heard), the stunt was supposed to reveal a red lacy bra (like the one we all saw sticking up from underneath her black "gladiator" bodice). Of course, I doubt it, for two reasons. (1) If the red bra was not meant to tear right off (conveniently), it wouldn't have; and (2) her breast was covered by (according to news sources) a sun-shaped metal ornament. This means (for all practical reasons) that she was expecting to have her breast exposed.

That said, the only thing that bothered me about it was the stupidity of the "scandal" it caused (obviously PR/press-orchestrated) AND (and this one's more important) the fact that I was watching the Superbowl with a bunch of little kids, ranging in age from around 5 or 6 years old to 16 or 17. Their parents had to witness it being witnessed by their children, too. And these are church parents, mind you (it was a get-together of friends from church) -- people whose children hardly watch TV EVER, let alone PG-13+ rated TV. I was more concerned for them and their forced exposure to that than anything else, really.

Not to mention, the whole stunt was just downright NOT entertaining and served no purpose. And one of my HUGEST pet peeves is inefficiency, even (or maybe expecially) when it comes to entertainment. For instance, movies that go nowhere and take nearly 3 hours to do it (example: Hope Floats). Blah. Stupid and uncalled-for. :-P :-P

Whew! Long one...


Tuesday, 3 February 2004 - 5:34 PM CST

Name: Lezlee

I guess Justin now feels he bested Britney in this particular publicity stunt arena now after he watched her kiss Madonna...(or did she win with the quickie Vegas nuptials?)....I can't keep track anymore. All I know is that some of these people stick around for a long time (Madonna, Janet) while others.....well, it remains to be seen. I thought Britney and Justin's 15 mintues were going to be over about about a 1/2 hour ago but no luck yet.....

In other thoughts, I'm guessing Rance you have no young children, otherwise whatever your moral leanings you have a certain sense of outrage as a parent that children are being shown things that they might not be prepared to view.

But here's a question that your post begs, are there certain limitations that you set for yourself in what you will or will not do to promote yourself? You never really answered that particularly well.


Here's another question...Is the blog really a secret or will you out yourself at some point for the "publicity"?

Tuesday, 3 February 2004 - 6:15 PM CST

Name: Vallerie

I follow the entertainment industry closely, have been reading this blog almost since it started, and have no idea who Rance is (rumors I've read have been contradictory, and this guy seems more than smart enough to cover his tracks). I also don't want to know, because as soon as the secret's up, we lose out on reading this blog. Additionally, I would find it just as insightful it is truly written by a janitor in Rochester, NY, as opposed to a Hollywood hunk, maybe even more so.

Tuesday, 3 February 2004 - 9:34 PM CST

Name: Bonni
Home Page:

On the front page of, Janet's stunt shared space with an article about "older" butt-baring A-list Hollywood actors. How and where do you draw the line about what you will do on film?! We know (or should know) that the end doesn't justify the means, but is it really so bad to do something if you are just acting? For example, the actor who appears to smoke pot on screen isn't really smoking pot -- he or she is just acting. The actor who appears to take out a police officer on screen isn't really doing it -- he or she is just acting. Both are portrayals of illegal activities and, some would argue, immoral activities. But the actor's just acting!!

Maybe this leads to some reflection in your mind [it's a collective "your," not referring to you specifically, Rance]. Why are some things "bad" and others "not so bad"? Could you be holding back in areas where you would be justified? Or could it be painfully true that you have been making wrong choices from the start? At the very least, the Super Bowl incident should spark some serious meditation in all of us who entertain, whether on screen, on stage, on paper, or merely in our blogs.

Personally, I laughed. C'mon, who hasn't seen breasts before?! Hello, even if I was kept locked up for all my life, I still nursed!! Why the shock at seeing Janet's? Simply because it was unexpected. It's not exploitation, it's entertainment. The guys I was with rewound the halftime show (we'd been taping the game) and watched Janet's flash a total of six times, trying to see if she was wearing a pastie or not. Did I feel revolted? No....

....not because of Janet and Justin. Not trying to give them claim to victimhood here, but c'mon, the halftime show was slogging along in the gutter a long time before her breast fell out. Things had gone too far already, that night in the show and overall in American's expectations for entertainment.

Personally, I know that I have been encouraged to think more before I speak, write, or agree to appear on stage -- not just about the morality of one single act, but about what worldview it supports, what it implies about my character, and what it speaks about how I value myself.

And that's my two cents' worth. :-D

Tuesday, 3 February 2004 - 9:57 PM CST

Name: jamenta

I thought the whole thing really stupid. Is that the best Janet Jackson can do these days - is show her breast? And the NFL and half of America is all bent out of shape over an exposed breast??

Does anyone need proof positive that the mob is just as ignorant as it was back in the bread and circus days of the Roman Empire? Isn't it stupid enough that grown men physically damage themselves by chasing around a air filled ball, or beat themselves silly in a fist fight for everyone to view?

Now Gladiator was a good movie (Ridley Scott you know). There is a line in it when one of the Senators is commenting about being a proper leader. He said something like (and my memory isn't the best) - some leaders are OF the people, but other leaders are FOR the people.

Those who are OF the people cynically serve the people bread and have the gladiators kill themselves in a bloody entertainment show of death. Others, who are FOR the people, eventually banish gladiator fighting and instead, work on solving such problems as the plague or sanitary conditions.

It's the same thing in Hollywood. Some actors and directors are OF the people. And a few are FOR the people. And it usually is clear which is which.

Tuesday, 3 February 2004 - 11:04 PM CST

Name: Judy

Are they so insecure about their careers that they have to resort to this so called "shock" tactic to get our attention. What purpose did it serve except to get their names plastered all over every newspaper, magazine and TV station in America and probably around the world as well which is probably what they wanted anyway. I have two young boys who were watching with us as well. Stupid me, I thought that watching a sporting event and a half-time show was pretty safe viewing...WRONG!!! The thing that bothers me the most is that this was not the venue to display someones breast for whatever reason. I'd expect to see that on MTV or perhaps The Man Show...but come on...a halftime show at the superbowl. Ok, I'm getting off my soap box now.

Wednesday, 4 February 2004 - 2:15 AM CST

Name: eyeball

Maybe G.W.B rang up Ms Jackson and said, ?Get your tits out at the Superbowl, honey; I need something to distract them from the climbdown on the Iraq inquiry. Wouldn?t work here; in England there are publicly exposed tits everywhere you look. Maybe if it was the queen?

Wednesday, 4 February 2004 - 5:55 AM CST

Name: tricia

.....the whole thing (even posting a comment on it) has been idiotic.
i agree with rance on the entire pr slant.....and if you're gonna' dance with the devil.....

but no-one's commented on how "tacky" and stupid justin looked doing it........i like justin, but doesn't he seem a bit FOD to ya'll???

there didn't seem to be anything s@xy about it....just clumsy.....

oh well,.....tell me i didn't just suggest the scandal wasn't hot enough.....?
much ado......much ado......


Wednesday, 4 February 2004 - 1:06 PM CST

Name: Robyn
Home Page: http://You, too, can be an artist. Here's how .com

Hot dog! The controversy!

Agents... we who move and/or think are all agents to some in some(thing)(one) that produces or is capable of producing an effect. For professional agents and too many others, the desired effect is money, and the means are 'any necessary'.
I like to think of artists as the brand of agent who balances sustaining themselves with self sacrifice for the benefit of society. Artists take responsibility. Think of them as non-profits.

I think the main thing Janet/Justin revealed to me is the lengths to which they go for themselves. They are not artists, but that was evident long before this caper. I personally find it unfortunate that the tit-reveal was done in the context of Janet/Justin's routine which tries to be scandalous and treats women as sex objects. A breast is great, but very unflattering, to me, in that light.

But, the focus is in the wrong place and the responsibility placed on the wrong people. I think it is vital to turn the attention to ourselves and take responsibility for our reactions to the event. This is why free speech is great. For example: I think it is ok for someone to shout "nigger!", but there sure as hell better be a response. If we learn how to deal with these controversies responsibly, perhaps it won't be so beneficial to go down cheap paths for attention.

BTW, Rance... I believe actors are slightly above religious right leaders as most per capita caught in hotel rooms with escort services.



Wednesday, 4 February 2004 - 1:38 PM CST

Name: eyeball

Hi Rance
Big question time. The answers to any of these would really help me with something I?m working on. I appreciate, though, that you come here to write about what?s on your mind rather than on mine, so if don?t fancy them, fair enough.
To what extent do you think the perceptions the public have of a celebrity affect that person?s personality? Does it become difficult to be clear about your own reactions, emotions and self-image if you are constantly surrounded by comment on them? Celebrity seems like a massive case of projective identification, other people?s fantasies being constantly stuffed into your unconscious. Can you resist or deal with that? (You come across as pretty level-headed, which I think might be the result of being able to analyse something like this.)
If a celebrity has a particularly obsessive set of disciples, do you think he/she can be burdened by a sense of responsibility for any weird events or actions that might emerge from that obsession? Not suggesting that they should be held responsible, of course, but that there might be an inescapable pressure to feel responsible.

Wednesday, 4 February 2004 - 1:44 PM CST

Name: eyeball

Sorry, wrong email address

Wednesday, 4 February 2004 - 3:22 PM CST

Name: Susanna

Not having seen the incident in question (luckily?)I can only go by what I have read on here and other places but to me it just *sounds* like it was a planned occurrence that somehow went further than it should have done. A shock act that had the desired effect Janet & co wanted and got. Personally it doesn't surprise me but it does seem like the timing was a bit off. Its a bit like watching Corrie and knowing exactly what's going to happen at least three weeks in advance of the action. Its no surprise anymore.

They'll be having Johnny Rotten swearing on 'I'm a Celebrity next'!! ;0)


Wednesday, 4 February 2004 - 3:32 PM CST

Name: jamenta

Well, that's a good question. You can't take responsibility for the world or for other human beings - you didn't make them nor did you the world.

On the other hand, there does reside in many of us a sense of compassion and identification for and with other human beings (souls?) on earth, and if we exploit and/or ignore others who are suffering (even if they suffer due to their own poor choices in life or just plain stupidness) - then there is this thing of having to wake up the morning and look at oneself in the mirror - and say, do I feel good about myself? Am I a kind person? Do I bring good things to the world, and try to help others, or do I only take from others, ignore and shut out the ones who need help, while they suffer?

And can I feel my life is worthwile if I spend most of my time in the pursuit of possessing many material goods and land (while millions slave away for crap wages at Walmart) and I enjoy a luxurious life while many struggle? Do I ignore the obvious disparity of the rich and poor (especially in the US right now) because 1) I'm not really responsible for it 2) you better get what you can out of life before it's over

I guess I've taken some liberty with your original question and expanded and generalized it to the fundamental question of whether one should feel responsible or do anything about any of the struggling - mentally handicapped - misguided souls in the world.

How to deal with obsessed fans who probably are misguided and read too much into who you are and may in the end, cause damage to themselves through their misguided projection - can also fall into this category. Should you take responsibility for them - no. Should you feel compassion for them - yes.

I do what I can for those I think are suffering - especially in areas I think I can help. I often kick myself however for not doing enough. But part of my problem is that I'm also drowning in a sea of troubles. Hard to help someone get out of the quicksand if you're in it yourself.

Wednesday, 4 February 2004 - 3:55 PM CST

Name: jamenta

I think it was planned too. And I think MTV probably knew it was going to happen. Janet and Justin are now just covering their butts, and their doing it by lying and appearing deceptively apologetic. Janet's probably upset because she may not have realized how much negative PR she was going to get. But exposing her breast now - will be worth millions to her (and company).

My estimation of both artists has now decreased considerably. 1) They stooped to showing a breast for shock value, in order to entertain and for their own cynical money making purposes - yeah, so it's entertaining to the Roman Plebians of the world 2) Now all they can do is lie and apologize about what they did when frankly, they are probably jumping for joy for all the free press their getting and the controversy.

Good artistry doesn't depend on exposed breasts and the sexual mores of the mob to create excellence. One can even tell by the show the two of them put on that it was just blah blah blah anyway. Nothing more exciting than Janet's breast really. MTV has been putting out garbage for years now in my opinion. At it's heydey - now their was some great art being shown for awhile - in the eighties. Some really interesting, exciting, worth watching shows and videos. But what do we get now - an exposed breast? God - is America controlled by stupid corporations or what? Even Disney has gone downhill into the corporate abyss.

Wednesday, 4 February 2004 - 8:35 PM CST

Name: Nancy D.

My overwhelming desire to watch Justin and Janet caused me to be posting on a BB at the time of The Incident. It was my fellow BB denizens that alerted me to The Incident. My otherwise happy to catch a bare breast viewing spouse said "uh yea, I think that was what it was" when I inquired about The Incident by shouting down the stairs.

Good publicity? ABSOLUTELY. Unequivically a VERY good publicity stunt. And like your Talent Agent fellow, I'm not lying about THAT.

Pitiful? Oh yea. What I found even MORE disturbing than having to hear Janet's breast discussed ad naseum was how "I've gotten to the age to where I am required to have 'work' done but sadly employed my brother's plastic 'surgeon' to get it done" she looked.

I also hope, for her sake, it WAS a publicity stunt for her new album. Sadly, I'm afraid she may have been coerced in the name of "Family" to create a bigger media stir and take the heat of Michael.

Did children see this? Yea. But gadzooks... if you were letting your kids watching the gyrations of the two principles plus listen to Kid Rock's performance, your kid has seen a glimpse, if not a full on eyefull, of a bare female bosom. So quitcherbitchin if you let them watch the halftime show. The Erectile Dysfunction ads didn't bother you? The bare booby did? I'd rather explain naked booby to a kid than Erectile Dysfunction.

But that's me.

Wednesday, 4 February 2004 - 9:31 PM CST

Name: Lara

Gee, that's cynical. And you're not even American... Well, thank God for that. :-P

Lara (who likes GWB)

Wednesday, 4 February 2004 - 9:40 PM CST

Name: Lara

Well, it was a Superbowl party... so we couldn't be like, "OK kids, it's halftime... go off somewhere else for a bit and then come back when the game comes back on." And of course, for many the best part of the Superbowl are the commercials (though this year's were really not good at all). :-P


Wednesday, 4 February 2004 - 9:47 PM CST

Name: kirker
Home Page:

The fact that so many Americans have actually gotten riled up enough over Tittiegate to spur a FCC investigation is reason enough for me to move to Canada. This is the most dumb-ass controversy I've encountered in eons. I find it particularly rich that parents who have no qualms about buying their children videogames in which they can chop people's heads off and eviscerate their guts suddenly get their panties in a bunch over the sight of a partially exposed on network television. In most societies children spend the first year of their lives suckling on this vilified body part for nourishment, and outside the U.S. it is not the slightest big deal for a woman to go topless on a beach. In other words, it ain't that big a deal, folks.

This episode speaks volumes not about Janet or Justin's "shameful" behavior, but of the pathetic Puritanical attitudes so many Americans unfortunately hold about anything remotely related to natural human sexuality.


Wednesday, 4 February 2004 - 10:26 PM CST

Name: Bonni
Home Page:


I'm a bit surprised that all these comments aren't being screened as usual, but it sure-as-anything has been interesting to read what is here. Funny that breasts (over 50% of the world has 'em, you know) cause more of a stir than, say, the Iraq war or starving children in India or the massacre of Christians in Indonesia or corporate theft or anything else scandalous that is happening in the world today.

It's a strange world.

May your evening be safe and relaxing....

Wednesday, 4 February 2004 - 10:32 PM CST

Name: Judy

I assume you do not have children or at least if you do you're pretty much liberal about what you let your children watch.

Regarding violent video games....I personally don't buy that crap for my kids. Regarding topless beaches in Europe or anywhere have the choice whether you want to go there.

I don't give a flying leap if Janet wants to expose her breast to the world...but I do take offense of not having the choice as to if I do or do not want to see it. I don't consider myself prudish by any means...this whole thing was just in bad taste and didn't belong on a Superbowl half-time show.

Wednesday, 4 February 2004 - 10:46 PM CST

Name: tricia

the only thing

the ONLY thing that should be considered here is that parents usually feel the half time show is nice family entertainment.....Janet, Justin , MTV, CBS and all of America KNOW that......they did it knowingly....

giving the parents no choice or warning....

THAT'S IT!!!!!


Thursday, 5 February 2004 - 1:12 AM CST

Name: julie

I agree. I think its affecting kids' minds more by making a big deal of it. They really should have just slapped them on the hands, fined them, and gone on with life.

Personally, I was MUCH more disturbed by the last episode of ER. It was a repeat. It showed an elderly lady with shirt off (they were trying to recusitate her) and they removed her bra. I guess because she didn't have perfectly round cantaloupe breasts, they didn't feel the need to put a "parently advisory" warning or cover her breasts. Of course the effects of gravity had taken their toll, but she was still a woman. It really made me feel like they were saying it didn't seem to matter because she was old. It's sad.
Anyway.. sorry to ramble.

Thursday, 5 February 2004 - 1:29 AM CST

Name: eyeball

I see your point Jamenta, but I'm more interested in the effect this has on the celebrity than in what we should or shouldn't feel.
(Don't know if that is a separate issue, but it feels as if it is.)

Thursday, 5 February 2004 - 11:43 AM CST

Name: Leea

Publicity stunt or not, who truly cares about this except the networks, the people involved in the incident, and bunch of blow-hard right-wing viewers?

It happened, and it's done. If Janet sues Justin, that's their business.

Personally, I'm so sick of celebrities such as Justin, Britney, Christina, Janet, Michael, Bennifer, et. al., that I could vomit each time I see their photos in People and US, or pasted in whatever rag has a scoop this week.

Can we spend our time on artists who have less buzz and something vital and original to say?

As for Justin and Janet -- well cry them a rivier all the way to the bank...

Thursday, 5 February 2004 - 10:01 PM CST

Name: Carol
Home Page:

Hey Rance,

Have you heard about the woman suing Jackson/Timberlake over this whole debacle? She's claiming that she has "suffered serious injury" from viewing "sexually explicit conduct". And she's suing for BILLIONS! Damn, I wish I'd thought of that first...I'd like to become a billionaire too.

Friday, 6 February 2004 - 12:47 PM CST

Name: eyeball

I do. Frequently.
But no disrespect to the Bush-baby. It wasn?t a literal suggestion, just a reflection on how convenient it is for the powerful that outrage is directed at trivialities, such as Janet?s tit, rather than at more complicated matters. Others have made similar points here.

Friday, 6 February 2004 - 1:08 PM CST

Name: Lara

I heard about this. Totally baseless. I can't DEAL with people abusing the court systems like this. UGG. Makes me gag. Geez, I want money too! That is NOT the way to try to get it.


Friday, 6 February 2004 - 4:26 PM CST

Name: toodleoo

Rance wrote: less of a hassle than having to write 50 times on a chalkboard: "I will not reveal a breast at the Superbowl again."

i don't care much about this whole debacle (other than the fact that the MTV facet of the FCC investigation ruined my happily planned sushi dinner last night), but i would be extremely entertained if Janet and Justin had to stand in a room with the head of the FCC and write "i will not"'s for a day.

Saturday, 7 February 2004 - 10:45 PM CST

Name: Loren Annette

Hi, Rance!

Whoa! You got a lot of comments outta this one! I'll be quite honest with you. I could give a rats a$$ about Justin and Janet's little stunt, but I still see your comments as intelligent. I also appreciate your truthfulness about the way things really are. I forgot all about this crap until I read that a woman in Tennessee was fed up enough with the 'shock trend' to file a class action lawsuit to the tune of what could be up to $80 million if all American Superbowl viewers are to be compensated. I hate to say it, but I'm all for it if the suit comes through. Not because I dislike Justin and Janet, but because I'm bored with the shock therapy entertainers are trying to shove down my throat. Why should I buy merchandise that I was never interested in to begin with, just because Janet had a little 'mishap' with her wardrobe? Well, I agree with the woman in Tennessee. It's time for them to start paying ME to watch their phony baloney publicity stunts. My time is worth money, just like theirs...And every day that goes by, you can't get it back again. Thanks for starting this thread, Rance.

Tuesday, 10 August 2004 - 3:56 PM CDT

Name: corporate shill

Leaving aside questions about the connections between sex and sports and whether or not those who exploit sex for profit outweigh their evils by giving money to women's advocacy, Rance you know the answer to the pragmatism/deal with the devil conundrum. That's why you write this stuff, right?

View Latest Entries