Re: Erin Andrews Snaps
BillyZoom
Del .net> wrote:
> Erin-Poo went off on the poor misguided gentleman that was trying to
> make her into a movie star and help her.
>
> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4998324
>
> "You violated me and you violated all women," Andrews told Barrett. "You
> are a sexual predator, a sexual deviant and they should lock you up."
>
> After the sentencing, she said, "Thirty months isn't enough."
> --
> All of Usenet is in a psychological, emotional, and antisocial free fall
> into an abyss and fully immersed in a drowning pool of mental illness.
I only opened this because I thought it said Erin Andrew's Snatch.
Pauli G
> On Mar 16, 9:06 am, Ctrl /Alt /Del <Ctrl /Alt /Del @Ctrl /Alt /
>
> Del .net> wrote:
> > Erin-Poo went off on the poor misguided gentleman that was trying to
> > make her into a movie star and help her.
>
> >http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4998324
>
> > "You violated me and you violated all women," Andrews told Barrett. "You
> > are a sexual predator, a sexual deviant and they should lock you up."
>
she says that like it's a bad thing.
mianderson
Del .net> wrote:
> Erin-Poo went off on the poor misguided gentleman that was trying to
> make her into a movie star and help her.
>
> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4998324
>
> "You violated me and you violated all women,"
no erin, he just violated you......not all women.
Andrews told Barrett. "You
> are a sexual predator, a sexual deviant and they should lock you up."
>
Google Beta User
¤®.net> wrote:
> Erin-Poo went off on the poor misguided gentleman that was trying to
> make her into a movie star and help her.
>
> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4998324
>
> "You violated me
Fair enough
> and you violated all women," Andrews
Why do some women say that?
Cyclone Ranger
Del .net> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:16:10 -0700 (PDT), Google Beta User
> is exclusive of men, I suppose. Plain stupidity may also explain it.
Sweet Jesus. Any of y'all have kids?
BillyZoom
> Why all the hate for Erin Andrews?
Look, are we gonna talk about her snatch or not?
Unclaimed Mysteries, powered by Sparkling Garmonbozia(TM)
> Why all the hate for Erin Andrews?
>
Seriously.
-cls
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
What Does A Yellow Light Mean?
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net/blog
sam
theLetterKandt...@unclaimedmysteries.net says...
>
> A. Jones wrote:
> > Why all the hate for Erin Andrews?
> >
>
> Seriously.
>
> -cls
9th grade loser hates popular girl. It never
gets old.
s
Cyclone Ranger
> 9th grade loser stalks popular girl. It never gets old.
> s
IFYPFY
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
¤®.net> wrote:
> Erin-Poo went off on the poor misguided gentleman that was trying to
> make her into a movie star and help her.
>
> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4998324
>
You didn't mention her upcoming soft porn gig:
"Andrews has agreed to appear on the new season of ABC-TV's "Dancing
with the Stars" - an offer she said ABC made before the stalking
allegations. She said she doesn't want to seclude herself from the
public eye because other victims would get the wrong message."
And she won't subsequently make as much without guys slobbering for
her to be at sporting events. The guy apparently stalks women, that
is wrong and he should be punished. However, Miss "I'm going to make
a living advertising my tits and ass to the men who watch sports" is
going a bit overboard in her righteousness.
Seriously, her "job" consists of asking coaches and players the in-
depth question "what did you think of the first/second half?" and
selling her sexual appeal to guys who watch sports.
Jim Brown
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>I'd have to see the video to do that.
>
>I'm asking why laugh at her objection to being stalked and recorded
>nude through a hotel room peephole by some sicko stranger. That in
>itself is pretty sick.
If one doesn't want to take the chance of being photoraphed naked,
maybe one shouldn't undress.
As soon as I send this I will want it back unsent.
Hugh
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:54:04 -0700 (PDT), "tom_sawye...@yahoo.com"
>
>
>
> <tom_sawye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 16, 9:06 am, Ctrl /Alt /Del <Ctrl /Alt /Del @Ctrl /Alt /Del
> > .net> wrote:
> >> Erin-Poo went off on the poor misguided gentleman that was trying to
> >> make her into a movie star and help her.
>
> >>http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4998324
>
> >You didn't mention her upcoming soft porn gig:
>
> >"Andrews has agreed to appear on the new season of ABC-TV's "Dancing
> >with the Stars" - an offer she said ABC made before the stalking
> >allegations. She said she doesn't want to seclude herself from the
> >public eye because other victims would get the wrong message."
>
> >And she won't subsequently make as much without guys slobbering for
> >her to be at sporting events.
>
>
> >The guy apparently stalks women, that is wrong and he should be punished.
>
> basically a whore...
Without diving into specific technicalities, whores go a little
further than showing their stuff. That being said, even they have a
right to privacy and what the guy does is wrong. To play the
"shocked" card is basically an attention grab.
>
> >However, Miss "I'm going to make
> >a living advertising my tits and ass to the men who watch sports" is
> >going a bit overboard in her righteousness.
>
> >Seriously, her "job" consists of asking coaches and players the in-
> >depth question "what did you think of the first/second half?" and
> >selling her sexual appeal to guys who watch sports.
>
> My friend, she's not even that sexy. She's pleasant to look at, and
> only mildly sexual. And, her questions are often very well thoughtout
> and interesting.
Well, to each their own. I think she is sexy and pleasant to look at,
but she does dress the part of the sophisticated, milf-type that
targets the middle-aged male sports viewer. Not too cutesy, not too
drab, nice features, she hasn't let herself go, etc.
>
> Are you saying you would rather see some idiot ex-football jock in her
> place?
"Rather" isn't the right word, I have no problem with her being in the
role she's in. But I understand it for what it is. Many television
personalities are placed strategically in particular roles and there
is no doubt why the majority of women in high-profile roles look the
way they do.
> What does that really say about you and others who have a
> hangup with women in sports broadcasting.
I don't know what it might say, because I have no problem with women
as sports broadcasters, newscasters, weather forecasters, etc., just
as I have no problem with actors and actresses. Further, I think it's
actually cool to find out things like that Suzi Kolber played football
as a young girl and is a true sports fan, and Andrews might be of a
similar mould given her family background. The issue isn't with women
being sportscasters or even that her privacy was violated (it was).
But when you're in the public eye and part of your position is as eye-
candy, attempting to make a "statement" with a guy who has obvious
mental issues while ignoring your own career decisions that blatantly
flaunt your sexuality is ridiculous. She could be a great
sportscaster without wearing tight sweaters that show off her tits
(not my opinion, just Google images and see what pictures are posted),
high heels and going on nationally-televised dance shows, right? You
don't see ... oh, what's her name ... you know, the one who does the
games besides Andrews, doing it.
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
> What is wrong with being attractive? She's sophisticated and "She
> hasn't let herself go..." Well by god let's stone her to death right
> here and now!
Nothing's wrong with being attractive. Why are you trying to twist
this into an argument? Some sportscasters have let themselves go and
you don't see them as often as a result. It's part of being in such a
position.
> >"Rather" isn't the right word, I have no problem with her being in the
> >role she's in. But I understand it for what it is. Many television
> >personalities are placed strategically in particular roles and there
> >is no doubt why the majority of women in high-profile roles look the
> >way they do.
>
> Look "the way they do" ???
>
Really?
Is it not obvious that most television personalities are well-groomed,
well-dressed and pleasant looking, and that there is more scrutiny for
females than males due to the target demographics?
Is this really foreign to you?
>
>
> >> What does that really say about you and others who have a
> >> hangup with women in sports broadcasting.
>
> >I don't know what it might say, because I have no problem with women
> >as sports broadcasters, newscasters, weather forecasters, etc., just
> >as I have no problem with actors and actresses. Further, I think it's
> >actually cool to find out things like that Suzi Kolber played football
> >as a young girl and is a true sports fan, and Andrews might be of a
> >similar mould given her family background. The issue isn't with women
> >being sportscasters or even that her privacy was violated (it was).
>
> >But when you're in the public eye and part of your position is as eye-
> >candy, attempting to make a "statement" with a guy who has obvious
> >mental issues while ignoring your own career decisions that blatantly
> >flaunt your sexuality is ridiculous. She could be a great
> >sportscaster without wearing tight sweaters that show off her tits
> >(not my opinion, just Google images and see what pictures are posted),
> >high heels and going on nationally-televised dance shows, right? You
> >don't see ... oh, what's her name ... you know, the one who does the
> >games besides Andrews, doing it.
>
> No woman should be stalked for her sexuality, period. It's just plain
> wrong whether she is on TV or not. I don't care what she does for a
> living, the woman should NEVER be blamed for the stalking.
Who "blamed" her for the stalking? Where did I write that she forced
the guy to stalk her?
You evidently missed the first time I wrote that what he did was wrong
and the second time that I wrote (see above) that her privacy was
violated.
Actually, I guess that is incorrect, you did see my first post and
somehow decided to twist the text saying that what he did was wrong to
mean that I was trying to sound "better" after calling her a whore. I
did not call her a whore (making a living being attractive is
different than actually being a whore) and certainly did not try to
reverse the perception of what I was saying because what the guy did
is wrong.
>
> I'm sorry but this is some pretty twisted stuff I'm hearing. She's "a
> milf-type..." Are you 12 years old?
Well, I don't know what you're hearing, but it's apparently affecting
what you reading. "Milf" is a slang term used on the internet to
describe an older female who is considered attractive, which would
cater to the sports-watching male population.
Chris Berman is probably the most-known ESPN sportscaster and started
there in 1979. Google his name and you get about 157,000 hits,
through his career on ESPN and ABC sports.
Erin Andrews has almost 2 million hits, as a personality who joined in
2004. There's a reason she has comparatively astronomical numbers.
>
> Damming a woman for being sexy and on TV...unbelievable...
Come on, what is wrong with you? I did not "damn" her for anything,
much less what you suggest. If one is the the public eye of millions,
they're going to run into a freak or two. It's not right and it's not
they're fault, but it's the way it is.
If they're naive to it, they can look to the other thousands of people
who have the same fan issue. If they're still oblivious, then maybe
they're in the wrong line of work. This isn't a condemnation of them,
but they need to be aware of the risk involved in their chosen
profession.
Be sure to tune in to Dancing with the Stars to see her in a parka.
¤~Îñ©üßu§~¤ @ WHO DAT NATION
<damon...@gmail.com>wrote:
I have never owned a goat
¤~Îñ©üßu§~¤ @ WHO DAT NATION
<tom_sa...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>> I'm sorry but this is some pretty twisted stuff I'm hearing. She's "a
>> milf-type..." Are you 12 years old?
>
>Well, I don't know what you're hearing, but it's apparently affecting
>what you reading. "Milf" is a slang term used on the internet to
>describe an older female who is considered attractive, which would
>cater to the sports-watching male population.
No
MILF = Mother I'd Love/Like to Fuck
Erin Andrews can not be a MILF until she has a kid
GregoryD
> Erin-Poo went off on the poor misguided gentleman that was trying to
> make her into a movie star and help her.
>
> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4998324
>
> are a sexual predator, a sexual deviant and they should lock you up."
>
> After the sentencing, she said, "Thirty months isn't enough."
Says a woman who only has her job because she's a piece of eye candy.
She's just angry that someone photographed her "Math is hard" pull string.
GregoryD
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
NATION " <sckf...@lycos.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:09:28 -0700 (PDT), "tom_sawye...@yahoo.com"
> <tom_sawye...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> >> I'm sorry but this is some pretty twisted stuff I'm hearing. She's "a
> >> milf-type..." Are you 12 years old?
>
> >Well, I don't know what you're hearing, but it's apparently affecting
> >what you reading. "Milf" is a slang term used on the internet to
> >describe an older female who is considered attractive, which would
> >cater to the sports-watching male population.
>
> No
>
> MILF = Mother I'd Love/Like to Fuck
>
> Erin Andrews can not be a MILF until she has a kid
It's descriptive of a 30+ year old female, many of which have kids,
but in this case it was more relative to the style of some of her
outfits.
Cyclone Ranger
NATION " <sckf...@lycos.com > wrote:
> I have never owned a goat- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Have you rented one?
¤~Îñ©üßu§~¤ @ WHO DAT NATION
<damon...@gmail.com>wrote:
>On Mar 16, 5:10 pm, "¤~Îñ©üßu§~¤ @ WHO DAT
Who told?
Huck Kennedy
¤®.net> wrote:
> Erin-Poo went off on the poor misguided gentleman that was trying to
> make her into a movie star and help her.
>
> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4998324
WAT A DUMNAS5 ART1CL3!!!@!11 1T NEV3R 0NCE EV3N G4VE TH3 URL T0
L0OK AT TH3 V1DE05!!@!1!!
HUK
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
> I apologize to a fellow Big East fan for my tone. Some of my comments
> were not necessary. I'm sincerely sorry.
>
I appreciate the apology and am not sure where we got off track. But
I'm glad we're not still butting heads.
> In the most friendly way possible, I do not agree with mitigating the
> circumstances because the woman was 1) attractive, 2) on TV, and 3)
> "was dressed like she wanted it".
Just to be clear, I was not insinuating that she "wanted it," or was
at fault. The guy was at fault.
My issue was how she came across as being "holier than thou" while at
the same time taking a paycheck in part because of her attractiveness
and apparently, has decided to flaunt it. I don't care if "Dancing
with the Stars" is articulated as some type of show of dancing and
physical education or talent, people watch to watch attractive people
move in provacative ways.
>
> Enough said by me. I apologize for the bumping of heads. I will now
> shut up. :)
If I could, I would. But my wife has suggested that this is a bit
much to ask of me, so I will try to not belabor the point ... it's all
I have to offer.
I can't wait for Friday.
Jim Gysin
Google Beta User sent the following on 3/16/2010 9:16 AM:
I think her point is that it gave women one more thing to think about or
to be concerned about, especially if they travel alone. You and I may
not understand it or agree wit it, but that doesn't make it any less
real for them, and I'm sure as heck not gonna be the one to tell them
that they're wrong to be concerned about the pervs out there.
This all reminds me of just how much I've changed over the years. I can
distinctly remember a time when, as an undergrad, I did some studying
with a female friend of mine (not a girlfriend at the time) until late
into the evening. When we left the undergrad library, I had no
intention of escorting her back to her dorm because we lived on opposite
ends of a large campus. Plus, as a guy, I had far fewer reasons to be
concerned about walking alone in the dark than my friend had.
My point is that it really is different for women than for us guys, and
looking like Andrews does just ratchets up the differences even further.
Just because you and I may be harmless doesn't mean that there aren't
a lot of pervs out there. And each one who gets busted just confirms it
and drives home the point to the women in the audience.
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
Jim Gysin
tom_sa...@yahoo.com sent the following on 3/16/2010 12:54 PM:
Wow. All I can guess is that some of you guys really struck out in high
school and/or college. For starters, there's no comparison between DwtS
and "soft porn." For another thing, she doesn't make her living by
"advertising [her] tits and ass," even if that might be all that you see
in her. And lastly, there's no justification for what this perv did, no
matter how bitter other guys are about their high school dating failures
or rejections by girls who were as attractive as Andrews.
And it's self-righteous for her to be upset? Why? Because she's
attractive and should just accept the abuse and let losers peep at her
naked? Jeebus. Yeah, at least you acknowledged that the guy was wrong
and should be punished, but how you could find her at fault in any way
is beyond me. It just reminds me of how close some guys really are at
times to the "she was dressed like she wanted it" business.
Jim Gysin
Jim Gysin sent the following on 3/16/2010 5:09 PM:
> Google Beta User sent the following on 3/16/2010 9:16 AM:
>> On Mar 16, 9:06 am, Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤ <Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤®@Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del
>> ¤®.net> wrote:
>>> Erin-Poo went off on the poor misguided gentleman that was trying to
>>> make her into a movie star and help her.
>>>
>>> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4998324
>>>
>>> "You violated me
>> Fair enough
>>
>>> and you violated all women," Andrews
>> Why do some women say that?
>
> I think her point is that it gave women one more thing to think about or
> to be concerned about, especially if they travel alone. You and I may
> not understand it or agree wit it, but that doesn't make it any less
> real for them, and I'm sure as heck not gonna be the one to tell them
> that they're wrong to be concerned about the pervs out there.
>
> This all reminds me of just how much I've changed over the years. I can
> distinctly remember a time when, as an undergrad, I did some studying
> with a female friend of mine (not a girlfriend at the time) until late
> into the evening. When we left the undergrad library, I had no
> intention of escorting her back to her dorm because we lived on opposite
> ends of a large campus. Plus, as a guy, I had far fewer reasons to be
> concerned about walking alone in the dark than my friend had.
I should quickly point out that as soon as she clued me in on my
ignorance, I was more than happy to walk her home and felt like a
complete idot for being so clueless and naive.
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
> Wow. All I can guess is that some of you guys really struck out in high
> school and/or college. For starters, there's no comparison between DwtS
> and "soft porn." For another thing, she doesn't make her living by
> "advertising [her] tits and ass," even if that might be all that you see
> in her. And lastly, there's no justification for what this perv did, no
> matter how bitter other guys are about their high school dating failures
> or rejections by girls who were as attractive as Andrews.
You need to learn to comprehend what is written. Public figures are
subject to physical appeal. It's not a secret. I didn't write that
she "only" made her livelihood from it, but her attractiveness does
factor into the equation. Popularity sells and there's a big money
difference between Erin Andrews asking "Coach, what adjustments do you
need to make in the second half" and many of the other female
sportscasters.
As for what the perv did, please read what was written. I did not
justify it, I did not transpose blame, I did not suggest that it was
"her" fault. Good lord, if I walk in a bad neighborhood, part of the
problem is putting myself in that position. And if you're in front of
millions, yeah, there is probably going to be a freak or two among
them. To ignore it is naive, to try to rationalize with them is
futile.
>
> And it's self-righteous for her to be upset? Why? Because she's
> attractive and should just accept the abuse and let losers peep at her
> naked? Jeebus. Yeah, at least you acknowledged that the guy was wrong
> and should be punished, but how you could find her at fault in any way
> is beyond me. It just reminds me of how close some guys really are at
> times to the "she was dressed like she wanted it" business.
>
I didn't her at fault ... please show me where I found her at fault,
because you're the second poster with that misconception.
She uses her attractiveness as an asset and thus, attracts all types,
even the freaks. She didn't accept Dancing with the Stars before the
incident to go on with a parka, she and her agent knew very well what
they're doing with that engagement.
As I wrote before, if she's not interested in attracting public
attention (the good, the bad, and the ugly), then don't lead a public
life.
I'd bet that she has viable suitors who she does not mind who found
her because of her attractiveness on television.
Antonio Veranos
[<hnovqa$kk7$1...@news.eternal-september.org>]
[Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:13:14 -0500]
: Wow. All I can guess is that some of you guys really struck out in high
: school and/or college.
In TS's case, I've assumed he's fishing, as he doesn't seem to me to be the
special kind of stupid to write what he wrote while meaning it.
--
Antonio Veranos
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run
out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
--Margaret Thatcher, 'This Week', 5 February 1976
¤~Îñ©üßu§~¤ @ WHO DAT NATION
John Rogers
the change, you filthy animal.
>After the sentencing, she said, "Thirty months isn't enough."
Pretty nice bod, Erin, but it wasn't THAT great.
John M. Rogers
AU Class of 1985
The Al Del Greco of Atlanta
"And all the time - such is the tragi-comedy of our situation - we continue
to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can
hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our
civilization needs is more "drive", or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or
"creativity". In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand
the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and
enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.
We castrate and bid the geldings to be fruitful."
(C.S. Lewis, 'The Abolition of Man')
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
> [jimgy...@geemail.com | Jim Gysin]
> [<hnovqa$kk...@news.eternal-september.org>]
> [Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:13:14 -0500]
>
> : Wow. All I can guess is that some of you guys really struck out in high
> : school and/or college.
>
> In TS's case, I've assumed he's fishing, as he doesn't seem to me to be the
> special kind of stupid to write what he wrote while meaning it.
>
Can you cite your reference, because my words were twisted into
something I did not write.
Not denying that I'm not a special kind of stupid, but I'd at least
like a shot at defending what I wrote and not some twisted
misinterpretation.
The BorgMan
september.org:
> For another thing, she doesn't make her living by
> "advertising [her] tits and ass," even if that might be all that you see
> in her.
If she looked like Rosie O'Donnell but had the same sport knowledge and
skills, would she have the job?
If the answer is no - then she is at least partially selling her tits and
ass.
...and it ain't only women this applies to. There is a reason your average
male TV news anchorman isn't ugly. It's because looks sell. Same reason
they use swimsuit models in beer commercials.
--
Aaron
Va Beach Hokie
> Jim Gysin <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote in
> news:hnovqa$kk7$1...@news.eternal- september.org:
>
>> For another thing, she doesn't make her living by
>> "advertising [her] tits and ass," even if that might be all
>> that you see in her.
>
> If she looked like Rosie O'Donnell but had the same sport
> knowledge and skills, would she have the job?
Nope, she would be Nanci Donellan.
BillyZoom
> On Wed 17 Mar 2010 10:52:52a, The BorgMan (m...@me.net) wrote
>
> >news:hnovqa$kk7$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> >> For another thing, she doesn't make her living by
> >> "advertising [her] tits and ass," even if that might be all
> >> that you see in her.
>
> > If she looked like Rosie O'Donnell but had the same sport
> > knowledge and skills, would she have the job?
>
> Nope, she would be Nanci Donellan.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yagzrle
Erin Andrew's Snatch? Hello?
Jim Gysin
tom_sa...@yahoo.com sent the following on 3/16/2010 5:34 PM:
> On Mar 16, 6:13 pm, Jim Gysin <jimgy...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Wow. All I can guess is that some of you guys really struck out in high
>> school and/or college. For starters, there's no comparison between DwtS
>> and "soft porn." For another thing, she doesn't make her living by
>> "advertising [her] tits and ass," even if that might be all that you see
>> in her. And lastly, there's no justification for what this perv did, no
>> matter how bitter other guys are about their high school dating failures
>> or rejections by girls who were as attractive as Andrews.
>
> You need to learn to comprehend what is written. Public figures are
> subject to physical appeal. It's not a secret. I didn't write that
> she "only" made her livelihood from it, but her attractiveness does
> factor into the equation. Popularity sells and there's a big money
> difference between Erin Andrews asking "Coach, what adjustments do you
> need to make in the second half" and many of the other female
> sportscasters.
>
> As for what the perv did, please read what was written. I did not
> justify it, I did not transpose blame, I did not suggest that it was
> "her" fault. Good lord, if I walk in a bad neighborhood, part of the
> problem is putting myself in that position.
I'm assuming that you realize just how Utterly Wrong this analogy is on
at least two levels.
> And if you're in front of
> millions, yeah, there is probably going to be a freak or two among
> them. To ignore it is naive, to try to rationalize with them is
> futile.
I'm doing neither.
>> And it's self-righteous for her to be upset? Why? Because she's
>> attractive and should just accept the abuse and let losers peep at her
>> naked? Jeebus. Yeah, at least you acknowledged that the guy was wrong
>> and should be punished, but how you could find her at fault in any way
>> is beyond me. It just reminds me of how close some guys really are at
>> times to the "she was dressed like she wanted it" business.
>>
> I didn't her at fault ... please show me where I found her at fault,
> because you're the second poster with that misconception.
You're finding fault with her reaction. That's the part that got my
attention. I mean, really. If it had been your wife or daughter
instead of Andrews, would you seriously have told them that they were
overreacting, or anything remotely like that?
> She uses her attractiveness as an asset and thus, attracts all types,
> even the freaks. She didn't accept Dancing with the Stars before the
> incident to go on with a parka, she and her agent knew very well what
> they're doing with that engagement.
>
> As I wrote before, if she's not interested in attracting public
> attention (the good, the bad, and the ugly), then don't lead a public
> life.
Wow. So if she wants to make a career for herself as a competent and
attractive female sports-type person, then she should just shut up and
accept it when people peep at her? Seriously? This is what you really
think?
> I'd bet that she has viable suitors who she does not mind who found
> her because of her attractiveness on television.
So what?
Jim Gysin
The BorgMan sent the following on 3/17/2010 10:52 AM:
> Jim Gysin <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote in news:hnovqa$kk7$1...@news.eternal-
> september.org:
>
>> For another thing, she doesn't make her living by
>> "advertising [her] tits and ass," even if that might be all that you see
>> in her.
>
> If she looked like Rosie O'Donnell but had the same sport knowledge and
> skills, would she have the job?
This is irrelevant to the question of whether or not her response to the
perv was justified. Or are you suggesting that pretty women should be
more tolerant when their privacy is invaded than ugly women?
> If the answer is no - then she is at least partially selling her tits and
> ass.
So as long as her body is part of the *package* that she's selling,
she's overreacting when she gets angry at some loser peeping her?
Really? Or are you just going off on another tangent?
Again, this just reeks of guys who got burned by the pretty girl in high
school.
> ....and it ain't only women this applies to. There is a reason your average
> male TV news anchorman isn't ugly. It's because looks sell. Same reason
> they use swimsuit models in beer commercials.
And when the genders are reversed and some pathetic female perv starts
peeping on a good-looking guy, I'll be just as quick to challenge anyone
who tries to suggest that the guy is overreacting and unjustified in his
response to the invasion of *his* privacy.
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
>
> > As for what the perv did, please read what was written. I did not
> > justify it, I did not transpose blame, I did not suggest that it was
> > "her" fault. Good lord, if I walk in a bad neighborhood, part of the
> > problem is putting myself in that position.
>
> I'm assuming that you realize just how Utterly Wrong this analogy is on
> at least two levels.
I'm game ... please explain how a) putting yourself in positions to
capitalize on attractiveness does not provide more exposure to more
people and b) when you find yourself the object of someone who is not
well-adjusted, it is ridiculous to argue with them.
The guy was being punished by the court, not the victim. The victim
was right to be mad, but her responsibility starts with herself.
>
> > And if you're in front of
> > millions, yeah, there is probably going to be a freak or two among
> > them. To ignore it is naive, to try to rationalize with them is
> > futile.
>
> I'm doing neither.
I didn't say you were, she was.
> > I didn't her at fault ... please show me where I found her at fault,
> > because you're the second poster with that misconception.
>
> You're finding fault with her reaction. That's the part that got my
> attention. I mean, really. If it had been your wife or daughter
> instead of Andrews, would you seriously have told them that they were
> overreacting, or anything remotely like that?
If my wife or daughter put themselves out for public consumption ...
chose a predominantly male-oriented profession, knew their popularity
was based primarily on male audiences, exploited that attractiveness
for-profit in their job, posing in suggestive situations such as GQ,
decided to dress in a provacative manner on national television shows
(DwtS), then I would tell them to be thankful that nothing worse
happened and to understand that there are loonies in the world.
It's not much different than telling my daughter today to not hang out
with bad kids or to not keep in contact with us when she's out, and to
make wise decisions by being with friends instead of alone when out,
etc. I can't control the crazies, but I can hopefully get her to not
be a victim.
I would be pissed, but to argue with a mentally challenged criminal is
not going to give anyone peace of mind or prevent the next challenged
guy from reasoning from it. Well, at least not in rsfc.
>
> Wow. So if she wants to make a career for herself as a competent and
> attractive female sports-type person, then she should just shut up and
> accept it when people peep at her? Seriously? This is what you really
> think?
I was amazed at the first instance of someone completely missing the
mark to the extent that I had to spell it out, but I have to say that
having to do it in the same thread again is off-the-chart.
If she wants to make herself a career as a sports announcer, that is
fine. If she wants to increase her popularity and her salary by
putting herself on display, that is fine as well but when you're in
front of millions of people, don't be "shocked" when a freak appears.
It wasn't right what he did, but he's unstable and is being punished
by the law.
It's like a hooters girl complaining about guys staring at her T&A
while complaining that she's really a "professional waitress," or a
guy complaining about having women stalk him when he's a star athlete
and hangs out in bars all hours of the night.
When you willingly expose yourself to millions based on your
attractiveness ... I mean, this guy is photographing her because of
her halftime questions ... then you're going to run into a freak or
two. It's not right that the guy did what he did and I'm not saying
it's her "fault," but she needs to understand that of the millions who
watch her, there are going to be some freaks.
And when she flaunts herself in GQ ... she wasn't exactly being an in-
depth reporter in those photos ... she further exposes herself. And
when she decides to continue to flaunt herself under the guise of "not
secluding" herself from what's happened and instead, using it as
leverage to not only expose herself in a sexual way but as a
"righteous" girl now, it's going to attract more people and thus, more
freaks.
The likelihood of not encountering at least one freak when you subject
yourself to multiple photo shoots to capitalize on your attractiveness
to millions of people is pretty remote.
>
> > I'd bet that she has viable suitors who she does not mind who found
> > her because of her attractiveness on television.
>
> So what?
>
So your position is that it's all right for her to attract as many
viewers as possible as long as its who she likes, but if she garners
attention from someone she doesn't like, it's "his" fault?
Ok. That's like blaming the wrong fish to take the cast bait.
The BorgMan
september.org:
> You're finding fault with her reaction. That's the part that got my
> attention. I mean, really. If it had been your wife or daughter
> instead of Andrews, would you seriously have told them that they were
> overreacting, or anything remotely like that?
>
Overreacting? No.
Misdirecting their reaction? Yes.
If my kid gets punched, and punches the kid who hit him... it's not an
overreation.
...but this is more like my kid getting punched, and claiming the attacker
injured everyone he attends school with.
--
Aaron
The BorgMan
>
> The BorgMan sent the following on 3/17/2010 10:52 AM:
>> Jim Gysin <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote in
>> news:hnovqa$kk7$1...@news.eternal- september.org:
>>
>>> For another thing, she doesn't make her living by
>>> "advertising [her] tits and ass," even if that might be all that you
>>> see in her.
>>
>> If she looked like Rosie O'Donnell but had the same sport knowledge
>> and skills, would she have the job?
>
> This is irrelevant to the question of whether or not her response to
> the perv was justified. Or are you suggesting that pretty women
> should be more tolerant when their privacy is invaded than ugly women?
More tolerant, no.
More expecting, yes.
...and it ain't just women. If you're famous - you'd better expect to
have your privacy invaded and draw crazies. It's almost inevitable.
...and even more likely when you make your living as an attractive woman.
>> If the answer is no - then she is at least partially selling her tits
>> and ass.
>
> So as long as her body is part of the *package* that she's selling,
> she's overreacting when she gets angry at some loser peeping her?
> Really? Or are you just going off on another tangent?
I wouldn't say she is overreacting - but I would say:
1) She shouldn't be surprised.
2) She's misdirecting her reaction with the whole "you violated all
women" crap.
>
> Again, this just reeks of guys who got burned by the pretty girl in
> high school.
>
>> ....and it ain't only women this applies to. There is a reason your
>> average male TV news anchorman isn't ugly. It's because looks sell.
>> Same reason they use swimsuit models in beer commercials.
>
> And when the genders are reversed and some pathetic female perv starts
> peeping on a good-looking guy, I'll be just as quick to challenge
> anyone who tries to suggest that the guy is overreacting and
> unjustified in his response to the invasion of *his* privacy.
No one is saying their overreacting or unjustified. We're just saying
they should expect it.
It ain't fair that some looney shot the President to try and get down
Jodie Fosters pants - but that is the kind of stuff that happens when
you're famous.
--
Aaron