Super Bowl

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Soldier
Ah, thank you for re-stating it more clearly. Nudity, and even sexuality, are simply normal. So treat them that way; don't flaunt them, and don't get all shocked about them. Same thing for anything else natural, really. Flaming equine flatulence? I'm sorry, but I was laughing my @$$ off for that one. It's funny. Why's everybody so worked up about some lower forms of humor? Funny is funny; we can't be sophisticated 24/7.

I'm all for low brow humor, but I didn't even chuckle at that one.

Now, Kenny, on a dare from Cartmen, blowing himself up by lighting his f@rt on fire? Priceless.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Commercials were not that good this year anyways.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Soldier
Flaming equine flatulence? I'm sorry, but I was laughing my @$$ off for that one. It's funny. Why's everybody so worked up about some lower forms of humor? Funny is funny; we can't be sophisticated 24/7.

How the hell did this one get turned on its ear??Who's worked up about lower forms of humor??

I'm certainly not worked up about it. I don't care. I think the low brow commercials, the betting, the cheerleaders, the hard hits, the beer, the gluttony, AND Janet Jackson's breast are ALL fine, and perhaps even part of the fun. I was just pointing out the myriad of other supposedly immoral activities which the critics of the halftime show conveniently ignored.

I, also, thought that commercial was funny (I wasn't laughing my a$$ off, but i did find it mildly amusing. I actually thought the one with the donkey was funnier, but that's neither here nor there).

-m

[labouche]

Originally posted by epeemike81
I think you and achilleus are talking across each other here:

Achilleus is saying that while the ISSUE is clouding over the player's achievements, it is not the fault of the act itself, but rather the fault of the dumbass reaction to the events by moralistic prudes. Where it not for this holier than thou judging, it would not be an issue. Personally, I'm just amazed that they found time to ***** about it. Between checking the betting lines, placing bets in one of the 618 different ways you can bet on the Super Bowl, drinking, eating tons of food (gluttony), and ordering a copy of the "Making of the Patriots Cheerleader Swimsuit Calendar" DVD, I don't really know how they found the time. I guess, though, when morals are THAT important to you, you make the time.

So where do you draw the line? Next year if they openly film people having sex at half-time will that be okay? After all, there's nothing wrong with flaunting sexuality...It's the moral prudes that have it wrong, huh? I'm not saying that many other stuff that goes on in the media is right, but I would sure like to see it slowly get better rather than worse! Just a moral prude's oppinion.
-Elijah

[Soldier]

Originally posted by epeemike81

I, also, thought that commercial was funny (I wasn't laughing my a$$ off, but i did find it mildly amusing. I actually thought the one with the donkey was funnier, but that's neither here nor there).

-m

Re-insert comment about laughing one's "@$$" off here.

[pkt]

All,

Sorry to have started all this then disappear. I got better things to do like having dinner with my visiting friends. [It was a good Chinese dinner. We invited our High school Bible teacher who taught us in 1967.]

The first fault lies with whoever organised the half-time entertainment. By getting MTV with its emphasis on what one newspaper columnist calls 'ho-music' and the 'ho' way of female behaviour they're asking for a cultural clash:
The average age of the audience of football is over 16.
The average of the MTV audience is under 16.
What do they expect MTV to produce for the half-time show??? Pat Boone doing a show? A country & western show? [The CFL got Shania to do the half-time show for last year's Gray Cup show. Now THAT was safe.]

As someone pointed out already, the lyric of the Timberlake song is unsuitable for a family audience. As a non-native English speaker, I've always wondered about songs that include lyrics like "I want to make it with you..." and people don't find that offensive and yet they find, "Let's spend the night together" offensive. Can you say "D'oh!"

The source for all these commotion and for goodness' sakes, a congressional and FCC investigations!!! -
["Oooh," says once congressman to another, "I missed that! Let's summons the CBS tape and watch it over and over again in the Congressional chambers on those high tech HDTVs, or better yet plasma TVs and let's take a darn good, close-up look again and again..."] -
lies in the historiacl puritanical roots of the good ol' US of A.

As achelleus point out, that bit of Ms Jackson's female mammary gland on TV is nothing. They show them on ads, you can see them on the streets, not to mention the beaches.

For crying out loud, even in frosty Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada have ruled that a woman walking around on the street with her breast bared should not be prosecuted. If men are allowed to do it legally, then the women should too. that's the basic premise of the principle of the equality of the sexes as guaranteed under the Cdn Bill of Rights.

Do people these days in the 21st century still find a woman breast-feeding her infant in public discreetly an obscenity? So what if she doesn't cover up? Is that an obscenity?

I find a perfectly healthy, lactating woman feeding a baby a bottle an obscenity.
I find a perfectly healthy, lactating woman in a 3rd world country feeding a baby a bottle filled with formula made with polluted water an obscenity.

And, in Ms Jackson's case: Does the average female performer wear a sun-shaped "twist-on" pasty if she does not expect to expose her mammary gland?

Is what happened in line with that MTV shows most of the time?

Storm in a B cup?

PK

[pkt]

Oh, for those of us who don't get the US-version of the ads shown during the game, [in Canada, if you have cable, the cable provider subs Cdn ads in place of the US ads] here's a link:
http://www.ifilm.com/?sctn=collections&pg=superbowl2004

PK

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by labouche
So where do you draw the line? Next year if they openly film people having sex at half-time will that be okay? After all, there's nothing wrong with flaunting sexuality...It's the moral prudes that have it wrong, huh? I'm not saying that many other stuff that goes on in the media is right, but I would sure like to see it slowly get better rather than worse! Just a moral prude's oppinion.
-Elijah

well, if you object to flaunting sexuality, you already should have been boycotting the super bowl due to the cheerleaders. the intent is the same: marketing based on sexuality. Additionaly, you should be boycotting Budweiser and Pepsi, as they both used sex to sell products. Also Levitra and Viagra, though I imagine boycotting those products may not be a problem for you, given how embarrassed you are by sexuality. The only difference between Janet Jackson and a Cheerleader is that slightly more skin was exposed... check that... not more skin, less skin, actually, but different skin was exposed with Janet Jackson. So, do you object to the cheerleaders? for that matter, I don't think the players really need to wear pants THAT tight. I think they're just flaunting it to attract female viewers, so I think we have a problem there... [repeat argument til super bowl starts to resemble victorian era]. the problem with slippery slope arguments is that they end up with us on top of a hill, isolated from reality.

Frankly, I think the costs of repression FAR outweigh the costs of "moral decay". not your cup of tea? don't watch. not appropriate for children? well, that's really for each parent to decide. I know people whose parents didn't let them watch the Simpsons. should that mean that no children should be allowed to watch the simpsons? this slope ends with us in a fully censored society. Freedom has costs as well as benefits. If YOU don't feel that it's appropriate for kids, don't let your kids watch! If you feel it's reprehensible, don't watch! if "most americans" truly feel this strongly (which I doubt) then the ratings will force the media to put on something more palatable. the media reflects society, not vice versa.

-m

[Soldier]

So, back to basics. PARENT YOUR FREAKING KIDS!!! If people would simply do that, the vast majority of the problems facing us today would solve themselves. Corruption? Murder? Rape? Vandalism? Teen pregnancy? Drug use? Violence? Heck, even profanity? A decent parent can usually (please note, usually) solve these problems before they ever become such.

[achilleus]

How about that Brady guy, huh?

Do you guys really think it's fair to compare him to Montana?

He's young. He could totally surpass him.

He's young, he could get injured, bored, or just quit and that would be the end of it.

I think comparisons aren't fair just yet.

[pkt]

epeemike & soldier,

Both well considered replies.

===)--------------------

Here's one person's reaction to this bared mammary gland episode:
"That was the most disgusting thing that I have ever seen at a sports spectacle," said baseball coach Tommy Lasorda in Los Angeles.

===)--------------------

Which do you think is more "disgusting": a bared female breast or some baseball player - male - in tight "knickers" scratching his crotch, or spitting on national TV?

Depends on one's perspective, doesn't it?

===)--------------------

Here's BBC's take on this incident and the American public's reaction to it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3456497.stm
It all hinges on "Puritanical values" and Paradoxical.

"Maybe when we left the old country we somehow froze certain attitudes," explained Mr Thompson. [Robert Thompson, director of the Centre for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse University.]

"While other attitudes began to evolve elsewhere we held to many of them very carefully. There is this paradoxical part of the American character where we are simultaneously arguably the most obsessed about sex of anybody else in the entire planet and at the same time the most uptight about it."

Here's Reuter's piece:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4276653

===)--------------------

In spite of the 'public indignation, here are the real yardstick, IMHO:

"And the 180% spike in viewership, as recorded by TiVo users immediately after the Jackson moment, was hardly due to indignant and unimpressed viewers.

"Indeed, since Sunday, America's late-night TV comedians have had a field day making light out of the embarrassing Super Bowl concert.

""In spite of the controversy, how many guys are glad they bought that big screen, high definition TV now, yeah!" joked Jay Leno. "

Touché!

It's about ratings, stupid me!

The protestations of the CBS brass et al notwithstanding...

Now they have proof - not necessarily positive - but solid proof about the numbers that watch the SB, next year they can charge even MORE $$$ per second for those ads...

It's just business, but of course, stupid me!

No, I'm NOT a subscriber to the conspiration theory.

PK

[pkt]

The folks at Reuters have a sense of humour:
They showed fotos from BOTH the Super Bowl and the Lingerie Bowl
http://www.reuters.com/newsPhotoGall...otos=300&seq=8

Hey, I'm just trolling for fencing fotos...
I'm not a football fan : I only watched the last 2 min of SB.
Truth be told:
~ we went looking for my wife's scaredy cat who went AWOL at the handyman's banging.
~ I'm a Canucks fan.
~ This Super Bowl game is very much like a typical Cdn version of NA football game. The CFL has better kickers...

PK

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by achilleus
How about that Brady guy, huh?

Do you guys really think it's fair to compare him to Montana?

He's young. He could totally surpass him.

He's young, he could get injured, bored, or just quit and that would be the end of it.

I think comparisons aren't fair just yet.

The Montana comparison IS fair, because there are striking similarities to this point in his career. does it mean he'll end up there? no. it is a comparison of potential.

-m

[Soldier]

CNN decided that, just to be completely thorough in their news coverage, they had to show that clip, zoomed in, slowed down, again this morning...

[achilleus]

Originally posted by epeemike81
The Montana comparison IS fair, because there are striking similarities to this point in his career. does it mean he'll end up there? no. it is a comparison of potential.

-m

Talking about potential is one thing.

He could be much greater than Montana based on potential.
It's not fair to Brady to limit his potential to what Montana did.

Then again, the most common thing in this world is unrealized potential, so it's not fair to Montana to compare a talented young player who hasn't achieved as much to him.

Yeah, Brady has the potential to match or surpass Montana.

I mean, every year, that one coach (sorry don't know his name) compares one quarterback to Montana. He had said that Chad Pennington was the second coming for god's sake.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by achilleus
Talking about potential is one thing.

He could be much greater than Montana based on potential.
It's not fair to Brady to limit his potential to what Montana did.

I think you are underestimating just how good Montana was. he is regarded by many as the best to play the game. Also, Brady IS very similar to him. neither have incredible physical skills, like Manning, but both are better decision makers. they ALWAYS put their team in the best position to win. Both are also spectacular in the two minute drill and thrive in the west coast offense (or in Brady's case, something strikingly similar, but not QUITE the same). I would be absolutely shocked if Brady was "much greater" than Montana. In fact, I am at a loss in trying to imagine a career that would be "much greater" than Montana.

Then again, the most common thing in this world is unrealized potential, so it's not fair to Montana to compare a talented young player who hasn't achieved as much to him.

Well, considering that two of the main people making the comparison are Montana's longtime coach, Bill Walsh, and Montana himself, I think we can do it without considering fairness to him. Also, he's achieved half as many SB titles, and two thirds as many SB MVPs in only 3 years starting (4 in the league) as Montana did in his career, and he has the highest winning percentage (40-12, .769) of any quarterback in history. at what point do comparisons become fair???

I mean, every year, that one coach (sorry don't know his name) compares one quarterback to Montana. He had said that Chad Pennington was the second coming for god's sake.

True, but Brady has now backed up "potential" with achievement. In fact, in Brady's case, the achievement came FIRST. He never REALLY had "potential" prior to 2001. he was a seventh round pick, and backup his first year. people only started talking about potential once he started achieving.

Comparisons are the life's blood of sports talk, and it will become very boring if we can never compare active players to the old greats. I certainly don't think I need to wait til Brady is at the end of his career to make comparisons. otherwise, by a similar argument, we shouldn't predict the outcomes of games, but rather wait til they're played. After all, predicting a 32-24 game would have been unfair to the Panthers, who could potentially be greater than the Pats, and to the Pats who could potentially be EVEN better than that and shut the Panthers out.

despite their lack of relevance to the real world, I believe I will still continue to make predictions, and entertain myself by seeing how close they are.

-m

[darius]

I think you are underestimating just how good Montana was. he is regarded by many as the best to play the game. Also, Brady IS very similar to him. neither have incredible physical skills, like Manning, but both are better decision makers.

Not taking anything away from Brady, but if you gave Manning the New England defense and O-line, he'd put up even crazier numbers. (Of course, to be fair, if you gave Edge and Harrison to Brady, he probably wouldn't cry too hard either.)

darius

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by darius
Not taking anything away from Brady, but if you gave Manning the New England defense and O-line, he'd put up even crazier numbers. (Of course, to be fair, if you gave Edge and Harrison to Brady, he probably wouldn't cry too hard either.)

darius

numbers? maybe. wins? no way. Manning already puts up MUCH better numbers than Brady, in terms of passing. I think if you put the two of them on identical teams, Brady wins more. he's a better field general, though not a better passer. a better playmaker.

Manning can't throw on the run. what he does, he does INCREDIBLY well, but he just doesn't manage an offense as well as Brady. That is the problem with the modern era. we judge QB's by fantasy football standards. not just a problem with how we judge QB's. The pats' defense this year was, imo, EASILY the best in the league. according to the stat that they call "Total Defense", it was seventh. The fact that we judge defenses on yardage instead of points, judge quarterbacks on QB rating is ridiculous.

btw, manning's o-line is actually VERY good. can't say the same about Colts D, but....

-m

[darius]

numbers? maybe. wins? no way. Manning already puts up MUCH better numbers than Brady, in terms of passing.

Yes, but he *has* to. Even when the Colts went 8-8, Manning scored over 25 TDs, passed for over 4K yards. That season, the Colts averaged about 30 points/game. Unfortunately, their opponents averaged 32. Once the offense is off the field, the defense has to be able to hold -- that happened in KC, where Indy made 1 stop and 1 turnover. Otherwise, everybody was scoring at will.

Manning can't throw on the run. what he does, he does INCREDIBLY well, but he just doesn't manage an offense as well as Brady.

I don't necessarily agree with that. Both of those QBs, along with McNair, are the best 2 minute QBs in the NFL. All 3 can spread the ball around. All 3 make good decisions.

Manning doesn't throw well on the run, but Brady can't throw a 50 yard bullet, and neither of them can pretend to be a halfback like McNair.

The only statistic that means anything is wins. And there, the Pats are tops. But having that defense makes Brady's job much easier - he's in a position where he has to play to not lose the game, rather than light up the scoreboard.