MTV Apologizes For Shit Shower
Ron Turner
From Sacramento Bee
MTV apologized Thursday to two 14-year-old girls who said they were splattered
with feces when an act defecated on stage during a taping of the music
channel's "Dude, This Sucks" show.
"This is a terrible incident. It was unintended and we regret that it
happened," Brian Graden, the cable channel's president for programming, said in
a statement.
He added that the episode would never be aired and that he had taken steps to
see that such an event never happens again.
"We are sorry if these women were hurt. It is certainly never our intention to
hurt anyone," he said.
Graden said the network had just learned that the girls are suing MTV, adding
that the company "will respond accordingly through the legal process."
The teen-agers said they were standing next to a stage on Jan. 21 at the Snow
Summit Ski Resort in the San Bernardino Mountains east of Los Angeles, watching
a two-man act called Shower Rangers during videotaping of a "Snowed In" segment
of the MTV show.
"Without warning or explanation the two Shower Rangers turned their backsides
to the audience, both opened a flap on the back of their shorts, exposing their
naked buttocks," the girls' attorney Gloria Allred said.
"Before they could say or do anything, the Shower Ranger whose buttocks faced
them bent over, spread the cheeks of his buttocks and emitted a spray of fecal
matter," the lawyer said.
Monique Garcia and Kelli Sloat of Big Bear Lake are seeking unspecified
general, compensatory and punitive damages, claiming intentional infliction of
emotional distress, negligence and battery.
"All of a sudden I was smelling something disgusting and I started to gag. I
looked around at my friends. They were covered in something. As I looked down
at myself, I realized I was, too," Garcia said during a news conference at
Allred's office.
"We believe that subjecting children without their knowledge and consent and
without notice to their parents to such an outrageous and indecent act is
completely unacceptable and intolerable," Allred said.
The teen-agers "want to send a message that this type of act goes far beyond
the bounds of decency and that neither MTV nor any television network should
ever allow any similar disgusting incident to take place in the future," Allred
said.
**************************************************
Those ALF scandal pics are freaky.
Reading "A Storm of Swords" by George R. R. Martin (epic fantasy)
Bashar Alef Burzmali
Ron Turner wrote:
> I'd sue their pants off. Disgusting.
Yucko Freako! Not to mention the health concerns!
Sam (the poop on the poop) Sands
kenny mcduff
If anyone knows fecal matter, it's Gloria Allred.
Checkmate
On 06 Apr 2001 02:27:29 GMT, Ron Turner put forth the notion that:
MTV is getting so gross and disgusting it's unbelievable. If Viacom
had any sense at all, they'd do some major housecleaning. They need
to get rid of the current crop of assholes who select shows like
Jackass, Tom Green, Andy Dick, and this newest sick and perverted
attempt at "humor." Hopefully, the publicity from this latest stunt
will be the impetus that finally gets cable and satellite operators to
drop the whole disgusting package. It used to be fun... now it just
sucks.
--
Checkmate
mhm 29x6
KotAGoR XXXIV
Copyright 2001
all rights reserved
alt.checkmate
chec...@MYPANTSkotagor.com
(remove my pants to reply)
Marshall Hughes
not last and they are wasting their time going after anything controversial,
Tom Green and Jackass to name 2. I have to be honest, even though I find
Andy Dick unbearable on anything but NewsRadio so far, I actually liked his
first MTV show episode . His Kid Rock imatation was spot on. Oh god, they
are starting to convert me .....
"Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in message
news:MPG.1536f08cd...@news.alt.net...
G. M. Watson
opening act.. an actual shower of shit followed by a metaphorical one.
----------
In article <20010405222729...@ng-ma1.aol.com>, rbt...@aol.com
Ambrose
getting from the music industry is that while their ratings have never
reflected their importance, their influence has been in serious decline. At
the center of the problem is the conflict between the people who are
involved in presenting music that is making money selling records (The
Britnay's, Christina's, etc), or their opponents who cling desperately to
the worn-out notion that music retains power as a cultural influence.
Influence, has morphed into the idea that if it offends some real or
imagined social mainstream that it's achieving it's goal. Because they are
locked in a framework of political correctness, "MTV" feels the gross-out
factor is one of the few remaining avenues to express "youthful rebellion."
Yawn. :-) Whatever. I just wish they'd go back to showing all videos.
Ambrose
Ron Turner <rbt...@aol.com> wrote in article
<20010405222729...@ng-ma1.aol.com>...
.. Amy ..
I'm so old, I actually remember when it was "MUSIC".
Yep, kiddies, it was nothin' but videos, 24 hours a day.
--Amy
BuZZard
newsfroup matter! alt.poop? :)
"Ron Turner" <rbt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010405222729...@ng-ma1.aol.com...
--
BuZZard
Sook321
>From: ".. Amy .." avo...@uswest.net
>Date: 4/6/01 5:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3ACD8BD0...@uswest.net>
Those were great days. And when MTV was young it was the radio stars who made
vidoes. Personally I think that the line being crosses can be seen in two
Romantic videos. When they came out with "That's what I like about you", they
looked like normal guys. Then when they came out with "Secrets that you keep"
or whatever the name of that song was they looked like aliens from the planet
Hair.
And apparently there weren't enough videos to play 24/7, so they would just
show the MTV flag changing colors with the little theme song playing for a
while.
I know I'm showing my age, MTV was so sweet back then. I wish it would show
more videos, I think some of their shows are just way out of hand and I hope
those girls sue the pants off them (no pun intended) . No body deserves that
kinda crap. (OK so that pun was sorta intended..I'm so very sorry!)
All your base are belong to us!
Poliwhyrl
actually - *gasp!* - plays music videos. All the time. That's all they do.
And a pretty good variety of stuff, relatively speaking (that is, compared
to the variety of videos that MTV plays).
me
Ron Turner <rbt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010405222729...@ng-ma1.aol.com...
Kent
> consent and without notice to their parents to such an outrageous and
> indecent act is completely unacceptable and intolerable," Allred said.
So, it would've been fine to shit on them WITH their parents' consent...
Kent
squi...@echelon.alias.net
essay "Who Rules America" at http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america
> "We believe that subjecting children without their knowledge and consent and
> without notice to their parents to such an outrageous and indecent act is
> completely unacceptable and intolerable," Allred said.
>
TerribleTomm...@resist.com
Thomas L. C.
screw MTV, but how could they have controlled what this dink did?
but of course if you sued the dink you probably wouldn't get much
that's sue happy America for you
--
Thomas L. C.
---------------------------------------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"
-HST
Mozeman
news:KAoz6.1506$aq5....@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
> how stupid...
> screw MTV, but how could they have controlled what this dink did?
> but of course if you sued the dink you probably wouldn't get much
> that's sue happy America for you
>
If MTV hired the act and knew what the act entailed, then they are
responsible.
Thomas L. C.
"Mozeman" <tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote in message
news:FMoz6.44231$z4.78...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
I really don't think they knew he was going to take a dump on stage, now.
:P
Aozotorp
Thomas L. C.
> > > responsible.
> > >
> >
> > I really don't think they knew he was going to take a dump on stage,
now.
> > :P
>
>
> --
> Checkmate
why? that's stupid! if they didn't have any knowledge of what the guy was
going to do, they had no way of anticipating it and couldn't do anything to
stop it then how the hell can they be responsible for it? sometimes PEOPLE
have to be responsible too, ya know.
Mozeman
> why? that's stupid! if they didn't have any knowledge of what the guy was
> going to do, they had no way of anticipating it and couldn't do anything
to
> stop it then how the hell can they be responsible for it? sometimes PEOPLE
> have to be responsible too, ya know.
If a store employee accidentally drips water on the floor and a customer
slips and falls, the store is still responsible. If you go to the hospital
and a nurse gives you the wrong medication, the hospital is still
responsible. MTV is not any different.
People complain about frivolous lawsuits right up until the time they have
to sue someone.
The Avocado Avenger
>> > > If MTV hired the act and knew what the act entailed, then they are
>> > > responsible.
>> >
>> > I really don't think they knew he was going to take a dump on stage,
>> > now. :P
>>
>> I think they're still liable.
>why? that's stupid! if they didn't have any knowledge of what the guy was
>going to do, they had no way of anticipating it and couldn't do anything to
>stop it then how the hell can they be responsible for it? sometimes PEOPLE
>have to be responsible too, ya know.
MTV had a responsibility to know the reputation and the act of those
they hire, especially since they funded and hosted the event and allowed
people under 18 to attend. It's not very plausible that MTV hired a group
who just decided to take a dump on stage that day and that day only, and
up until then had been a band with no reputation for anything unseemly.
In the legal sense, MTV was the boss, and the band were employees. MTV
is liable.
Stacia * The Avocado Avenger * Life is a tale told by an idiot;
http://www.io.com/~stacia/ * Full of sound and fury,
There is no guacamole anywhere. * Signifying nothing.
Sawfish
>"Mozeman" <tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote in message
>news:FMoz6.44231$z4.78...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>> "Thomas L. C." <iza...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:KAoz6.1506$aq5....@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
>> > how stupid...
>> > screw MTV, but how could they have controlled what this dink did?
>> > but of course if you sued the dink you probably wouldn't get much
>> > that's sue happy America for you
>> >
>>
>> If MTV hired the act and knew what the act entailed, then they are
>> responsible.
>>
So you think it was an act, then?
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Wha's yo name, fool?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thomas L. C.
"Mozeman" <tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote in message
news:Thqz6.44461$z4.79...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> "Thomas L. C." <iza...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:8Ypz6.1522$aq5....@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
>
> > why? that's stupid! if they didn't have any knowledge of what the guy
was
> > going to do, they had no way of anticipating it and couldn't do anything
> to
> > stop it then how the hell can they be responsible for it? sometimes
PEOPLE
> > have to be responsible too, ya know.
>
> If a store employee accidentally drips water on the floor and a customer
> slips and falls, the store is still responsible. If you go to the
hospital
> and a nurse gives you the wrong medication, the hospital is still
> responsible. MTV is not any different.
it wasn't an MTV employee, it was an independent act...thats like if i went
into a wallmart and shot someone, blaming them instead of me for their death
> People complain about frivolous lawsuits right up until the time they have
> to sue someone.
well, responsible ethical people are opposed to it either way...i see you
are a supporter of frivolous lawsuits though
China Kate Sunflower
cannonballs, "Thomas's motto is:
>
>how stupid...
>screw MTV, but how could they have controlled what this dink did?
>but of course if you sued the dink you probably wouldn't get much
>that's sue happy America for you
Could they have the guy arrested?
--
The Dude abides.
Sawfish
>> > > If MTV hired the act and knew what the act entailed, then they are
>> > > responsible.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I really don't think they knew he was going to take a dump on stage,
>now.
>> > :P
>>
>> I think they're still liable.
>>
>> --
>> Checkmate
>why? that's stupid! if they didn't have any knowledge of what the guy was
>going to do, they had no way of anticipating it and couldn't do anything to
>stop it then how the hell can they be responsible for it? sometimes PEOPLE
>have to be responsible too, ya know.
I agree with you about the personal responsibility part, but the legal
underpinnings amount to saying that the person you hired is acting as your
agent, and therefore the act in question was performed by you.
I think, ultimately, the logic is that if you didn't know what the guy
would do onstage, you didn't ask enough questions. I agree that all this i
silly, and the Shower Rangers, in topping Sid Vicious' firing blanks into
a live audience (ever see the tape? It was an amazingly effective
stunt...), should be well, spanked, I guess...
Thomas L. C.
> they hire, especially since they funded and hosted the event and allowed
> people under 18 to attend. It's not very plausible that MTV hired a group
> who just decided to take a dump on stage that day and that day only, and
> up until then had been a band with no reputation for anything unseemly.
> In the legal sense, MTV was the boss, and the band were employees. MTV
> is liable.
>
>
> Stacia * The Avocado Avenger * Life is a tale told by an idiot;
> http://www.io.com/~stacia/ * Full of sound and fury,
> There is no guacamole anywhere. * Signifying nothing.
wow...never underestimate the power of rationalizing
I don't think this was a band or a group that performed normally...i think
it was one of those spring break style things where different nobodies got
onstage and did something funny..not sure on that but "the shower rangers"
doesnt sound like a band that had lots of gigs that MTV could do much
research on. they probably though they were gonna be silly and tom greenish
and spray water into the audience or something and these dinks wanted to
pull a prank to make themselves known...to get their 15 minutes...so if you
were in charge how would you have stopped it? if they booked barbara
streisand and she did it (as some political protest no doubt) would they
still be liable? if a bar booked a gig and the band happened to distress the
audience in some way or open up on them with automatic weapons would the bar
owner be the one responsible or the people?
i know you must hate big corporations and want to kill them all, but
please...do you always have to sacrifice ethics, responsibility, and logic
to do so?
I can't believe I'm actually having to defend this..how idiotic
Dave Barak
equipment with plastic sheets prior to the show. That seems to be a good
indication that they knew _something_ was going to be messy.
"Mozeman" <tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote in message
news:FMoz6.44231$z4.78...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Joe Myers
[snips]
>
> I don't think this was a band or a group that performed normally...
> ..not sure on that but "the shower rangers"
> doesnt sound like a band that had lots of gigs that MTV could do much
> research on.
"The *Shower* Rangers"?
Here's MTV's defense:
"We thought they'd merely piss on the audience."
I think it's time for someone (Weller?) to fill us in on the details of the
French Vaudeville performer, at the turn of the 20th Century, whose act
consisted of fart tricks. For a while he was the biggest star in Europe,
played command performances before royalty, etc. The guy went on stage,
blew (ahem) out candles, I think he played a flute or trumpet, other
stuff...all through his posterior orifice. I don't remember his name.
Joe Myers
"What's a guy gotta do to impress me?"
John Savard
<kmpREM...@paREMOVEgesz.net> wrote, in part:
And if they had known what to expect, and actually went there wanting
to participate in such a performance.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
Chris Pierson
Thomas L. C. <iza...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>it wasn't an MTV employee, it was an independent act...thats like if i went
>into a wallmart and shot someone, blaming them instead of me for their death
Sorry -- that false analogy won't fly. This was a show taping, the MTV
folks moved the girls within firing range, and they clearly knew
_something_ was up, as they covered the cameras and such in plastic.
To make your analogy work, the Wal-Mart manager would have had to invite
you to the store and stood you next to the guy, knowing he had a gun. MTV
isn't trying to hide behind this "independent act" nonsense for a reason.
>well, responsible ethical people are opposed to it either way...i see you
>are a supporter of frivolous lawsuits though
The girls got SHAT on, for fuck's sake. What isn't frivolous in your
little world?
--
Chris Pierson ** 12 favorite films of 2000: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,
** Traffic, Blood Simple (dir. cut), Chuck & Buck, Best in
Game Designer ** Show, You Can Count On Me, High Fidelity, Almost Famous,
Author ** Quills, Ghost Dog, Mr. Death, Requiem for a Dream
Thomas L. C.
> about things which you clearly don't understand.
>
lots of maturity and knowledge there..thanks for enlightening me
Mozeman
> > People complain about frivolous lawsuits right up until the time they
have
> > to sue someone.
>
> well, responsible ethical people are opposed to it either way...i see you
> are a supporter of frivolous lawsuits though
No one thinks their lawsuit is frivolous. Remember this next time you have
to sue someone.
Mozeman
> i know you must hate big corporations and want to kill them all, but
> please...do you always have to sacrifice ethics, responsibility, and logic
> to do so?
Wow, a giant erroneous assumption followed by dismissive condescending.
You're not a conservative by any chance, are you?
>
> I can't believe I'm actually having to defend this..how idiotic
Yes, your defense is idiotic. It's okay to defend corporations sometimes,
but don't be ridiculous. MTV is not unduly criticized in this case. If
they were not responsible at all, why would they apologize? Kindness?
Corporations do not apologize unless there's a reason to do so. Any
implication of guilt opens them up immediately to this very kind of lawsuit,
so they do it judiciously. And they would NEVER do it unless they were
responsible in some way.
Richard Anderson
like the director?
-Rich
On 6 Apr 2001 17:52:06 -0000, TerribleTomm...@Resist.com
wrote:
douglas...@hotmailnospam.com
Anderson) wrote:
>Does anyone know the name of the person who oversees the show,
>like the director?
>-Rich
No Rich, I'm sorry I don't know the actual name of the guy, but he'd
probably be the one taking the shit now.
Doug
Just a virtual guy... in a virtual world.
Richard Anderson
to provide "acts" for a show.
-Rich
On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 00:19:26 GMT, douglas...@hotmailNOSPAM.com
wrote:
Gary Pollard
news:9alf4k$572$1...@nnrp2.phx.gblx.net...
> I think it's time for someone (Weller?) to fill us in on the details of
the
> French Vaudeville performer, at the turn of the 20th Century, whose act
> consisted of fart tricks.
He was Louis Pujol.
More on him here.
http://www.suitcase.net/pujol.html
Gary
Craig Smith a.k.a. Olaf Mindrimmer
>In the account I read of the incident, crewmembers were seen covering
>equipment with plastic sheets prior to the show. That seems to be a good
>indication that they knew _something_ was going to be messy.
Not that I even remotely agree with those who don't think
MTV is liable, but in their defense, perhaps the camera crew
thought they were going to spray plain 'ol water (hence the
"showers") on the crowd. If Gallagher had told everyone to
expect they'd be covered with watermelon juice, and then
turned around and shat on them instead, I can see how his
crew would have been very surprised---even if they had
covered their cameras beforehand in anticipation.
That said, I think that the Shower Rangers and MTV are
"jointly and severally liable" for whatever damages those
girls suffered. That means that their parents can and
should sue both parties, and will probably get judgments
from them both.
Craig
remjr4
There are WAY worse things than being sued....
If that had been MY daughter.. those animals would be trying to file a PPO
against an unknown assailant and they would be having WORLD class bad luck
with anything they touched.-My kind MAKES their own justice sometimes..
I am not a fan of the legal community OR frivolous lawsuits but MTV is
liable for that stunt-
Do the girls deserve millions-hell no-
But MTV(or their insurance Co.) ought to cough up something.
Chip
Gary Pollard
news:3acf0608.6282421@news...
> I'm just curious what kind of person would sink to such a level
> to provide "acts" for a show.
> -Rich
Someone with diarrhoea?
Gary
Thomas L. C.
> Wow, a giant erroneous assumption followed by dismissive condescending.
> You're not a conservative by any chance, are you?
nope :) but thanks for replying with an erronous assumption and
condescention, it made my day :)
Thomas L. C.
you
> >are a supporter of frivolous lawsuits though
> The girls got SHAT on, for fuck's sake. What isn't frivolous in your
> little world?
it wouldn't be frivolous if they sued the guys that actually did it
(and IF MTV knew they were planning on shitting on stage it would have been
the equivalent of Wal-Mart knowing that I'm bringing a gun...so your false
analogy)
Thomas L. C.
news:scrz6.56727$BB5.4...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
> In the account I read of the incident, crewmembers were seen covering
> equipment with plastic sheets prior to the show. That seems to be a good
> indication that they knew _something_ was going to be messy.
>
troo dat, im just assuming that MTV was told it would be water...they did
have a shower on stage and that somehow was sposed to be part of their
act..i mean think about it, if you got a bunch of spring breakers or
whatever together for a show to do funny skits and one of em told you they
were gonna do a funny thing with a shower and spray the audience or
something, but then they gave you the middle finger and pulled a stupid
prank before you had a chance to do anything about it, i don't see how
someone can be held responsible for that...
they'll probably get something from MTV out of court, and there may even be
a law that enforces MTV's responsibility in the matter, but logically they
didn't have much control over the matter
other then saying its the organizers responsibility to put up a glass wall
for every live performance on the off chance that the people decide to poop
onstage
The Avocado Avenger
>> MTV had a responsibility to know the reputation and the act of those
>> they hire, especially since they funded and hosted the event and allowed
>> people under 18 to attend. It's not very plausible that MTV hired a group
>> who just decided to take a dump on stage that day and that day only, and
>> up until then had been a band with no reputation for anything unseemly.
>> In the legal sense, MTV was the boss, and the band were employees. MTV
>> is liable.
>wow...never underestimate the power of rationalizing
You're searching for the word "rationalization". I'm not sure what you
read, because I don't think you read what I actually wrote. Nothing I
said was a personal opinion on the subject, and therefore there was no
rationalization.
>I don't think this was a band or a group that performed normally...i think
>it was one of those spring break style things where different nobodies got
>onstage and did something funny..not sure on that but "the shower rangers"
>doesnt sound like a band that had lots of gigs that MTV could do much
>research on. they probably though they were gonna be silly and tom greenish
>and spray water into the audience or something and these dinks wanted to
>pull a prank to make themselves known...to get their 15 minutes...so if you
>were in charge how would you have stopped it?
You're assuming the entire situation. This scenario is completely
fictitious, a product of your ravings about how this situation is simply
two teens being litigious. MTV had a responsibility and they shirked it,
for whatever reason. While they may not have asked the band to poop on
the stage, legally that's not much of an issue (although if they did ask
the band to do so, or if they knew beforehand that it would happen, it
makes MTV more culpable.)
>if they booked barbara
>streisand and she did it (as some political protest no doubt) would they
>still be liable? if a bar booked a gig and the band happened to distress the
>audience in some way or open up on them with automatic weapons would the bar
>owner be the one responsible or the people?
This is a tough concept for you, isn't it?
>i know you must hate big corporations and want to kill them all, but
>please...do you always have to sacrifice ethics, responsibility, and logic
>to do so?
Again, you've made up entire opinions, situations, and arguments just to
argue against them. I'm not as bored as you; if you refuse to understand
American law and how it works, that's your business, I'm done explaining
it to you. Maybe the other half dozen people who have explained the same
thing to you will be willing to try again.
Sawfish
>On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 23:53:59 GMT, rande...@aol.com (Richard
>Anderson) wrote:
>>Does anyone know the name of the person who oversees the show,
>>like the director?
>>-Rich
>No Rich, I'm sorry I don't know the actual name of the guy, but he'd
>probably be the one taking the shit now.
This made my day....
Mozeman
>
> > Wow, a giant erroneous assumption followed by dismissive condescending.
> > You're not a conservative by any chance, are you?
>
> nope :) but thanks for replying with an erronous assumption and
> condescention, it made my day :)
No, I replied with a question. You seem to be over your head in this little
debate. Glad it made your day, though. As they say, ignorance is bliss.
Sawfish
>"Dave Barak" <DBA...@INSIGHT.RR.COM> wrote in message
>news:scrz6.56727$BB5.4...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
>> In the account I read of the incident, crewmembers were seen covering
>> equipment with plastic sheets prior to the show. That seems to be a good
>> indication that they knew _something_ was going to be messy.
>>
>troo dat, im just assuming that MTV was told it would be water...they did
>have a shower on stage and that somehow was sposed to be part of their
>act..i mean think about it, if you got a bunch of spring breakers or
>whatever together for a show to do funny skits and one of em told you they
>were gonna do a funny thing with a shower and spray the audience or
>something, but then they gave you the middle finger and pulled a stupid
>prank before you had a chance to do anything about it, i don't see how
>someone can be held responsible for that...
Thomas, I sympathize with your simple, naive ass, but it's time to learn
about how the law actually sees stuff. I agree: in a perfect world, it
wouldn't see stuff the way it does, but it's seen stuff in this light for
maybe 500 years.
>they'll probably get something from MTV out of court, and there may even be
>a law that enforces MTV's responsibility in the matter, but logically they
>didn't have much control over the matter
The fact that MTV is named in the complaint and is apologetic tells you
that they paid money to the Shower Rangers, making them, legally, their
agents. This means the Shower Rangers represented MTV. (Oh, jesus. This
just gets worse and worse, doesn't it?)
MTV also has money and I'd be willing to bet a bottle of Kaopectate that
the Rangers have none. This is where the concept of "deep pockets",
introduced to every law student in his/her first year, comes into play.
End of story.
>other then saying its the organizers responsibility to put up a glass wall
>for every live performance on the off chance that the people decide to poop
>onstage
That, or be more selective in chosing your acts. If you don't feel that
you can discern a potential stage-shitter in an interview with them, then
you'd better call a glazer, just to be on the safe side.
So to speak...
Thomas L. C.
2: I never argued a point of law..just of responsibility...if MTV had no
control they had no responsibility
I'm getting tired of explaining that to you
:)
groove on
--
Thomas L. C.
---------------------------------------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"
-HST
".
NEON NAPPI
> to the audience, both opened a flap on the back of their shorts, exposing
their
> naked buttocks," the girls' attorney Gloria Allred said.
>
Well well well, old Gloria must feel right at home with naked buttocks and a
flying shit storm.
Barbara
Thomas L. C.
fact that I keep on trying to explain people that I'm not arguing law or
which way the lawsuit friendly judges and juries of this land lean...I'm not
a law student...I'm just talking logic here...ethical responsibility, not
legal
bb
Nothing new about that.
> > "Without warning or explanation the two Shower Rangers turned their
backsides
> > to the audience, both opened a flap on the back of their shorts,
exposing
> > their
> > naked buttocks," the girls' attorney Gloria Allred said.
> >
KING B MAN
>>
>
>Well well well, old Gloria must feel right at home with naked buttocks and a
>flying shit storm.
>
Does anybody watch that show Power of Attorney?
Why would Gloria Allred submit to such a piece of shit show?
Money?
Fame?
Tod Friendly
Mozeman <tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote in message
news:Thqz6.44461$z4.79...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...> news:8Ypz6.1522$aq5....@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
>
> > why? that's stupid! if they didn't have any knowledge of what the guy
was
> > going to do, they had no way of anticipating it and couldn't do anything
> to
> > stop it then how the hell can they be responsible for it? sometimes
PEOPLE
> > have to be responsible too, ya know.
>
> If a store employee accidentally drips water on the floor and a customer
> slips and falls, the store is still responsible. If you go to the
hospital
> and a nurse gives you the wrong medication, the hospital is still
> responsible. MTV is not any different.
If someone is hired as a postman and goes on a rampage on his route and
shoots 10 people, the post office is not liable. If the employee acts in a
way totally outside the realm of what they are being paid to do, then the
employer is not responsible. So the question is: what was MTV paying these
people for and what did they expect them to do?
The posts about them covering cameras with plastic obviously raises
suspicions, but the suggestions that they believed water or perhaps food
matter was to be dispatched seem plausible to me. If MTV really believed
shit was to be used why are they now apologising and not showing it - makes
no sense. The question then is if you are paying someone to perform an act
which involves the discharge of water and they discharge faeces is that
unforeseeably outside the realm of their employment?
My educated opinon is that in the absence of other evidence it is and MTV
are not liable.
--
Tod
"If you had returned my calls, I could have warned you. I just want
you to know, I was the one who got Gus to turn it into a blind item."
- Tama Janowitz, "A Certain Age"
Sawfish
>other then calling me a simple naive ass, I agree with you...except for the
>fact that I keep on trying to explain people that I'm not arguing law or
>which way the lawsuit friendly judges and juries of this land lean...I'm not
>a law student...I'm just talking logic here...ethical responsibility, not
>legal
OK.
I take back the part about "simple, naive ass". My plea: it was Friday
night and I'd had a couple of beers, and so I slipped easily to this mild
colloquial insult.
If it's any consolation, from a legal standpoint, the Rangers will get
their collective pee-pees whacked, as well; it's just that it will
probably not involve much money, and so the big newstory is the MTV
connection.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we use Occam's Razor, whose razor will *he* use?" --Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
james jorden
>If someone is hired as a postman and goes on a rampage on his route and
>shoots 10 people, the post office is not liable. If the employee acts in a
>way totally outside the realm of what they are being paid to do, then the
>employer is not responsible.
The Postal Service is not an organization producting outdoor entertainment
events, so the parallel is not strictly applicable.
The act was hired with the intention of shocking or at least titillating the
audience; as such it can be argued that MTV had a reasonable expectation
that *something* untoward might happen. There's also a pattern of behavior
here: Spring Break and similar MTV events generally include some unexpected
or unpredictable onstage activity: bleepable language, nudity, sexual or
violent acts. And so it could be argued that MTV *encourages* such
behavior.
Suppose the guy on JACKASS during one of his stunts accidentally knocked
down an old woman and injured her. Wouldn't MTV be liable?
jj
Tod Friendly
james jorden <jjo...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:pSFz6.12155$jL4.3...@typhoon1.ba-dsg.net...
> Tod Friendly wrote
>
> >If someone is hired as a postman and goes on a rampage on his route and
> >shoots 10 people, the post office is not liable. If the employee acts in
a
> >way totally outside the realm of what they are being paid to do, then the
> >employer is not responsible.
>
> The Postal Service is not an organization producting outdoor entertainment
> events, so the parallel is not strictly applicable.
I was addressing the issue of agency where some people seemed to be under
the impression that *anything* done by an employee during the course of
their employment was at least in part the responsibility of their employer.
I just used an extreme example to illustrate the fallacy of that belief.
> The act was hired with the intention of shocking or at least titillating
the
> audience; as such it can be argued that MTV had a reasonable expectation
> that *something* untoward might happen. There's also a pattern of
behavior
> here: Spring Break and similar MTV events generally include some
unexpected
> or unpredictable onstage activity: bleepable language, nudity, sexual or
> violent acts. And so it could be argued that MTV *encourages* such
> behavior.
>
> Suppose the guy on JACKASS during one of his stunts accidentally knocked
> down an old woman and injured her. Wouldn't MTV be liable?
To be honest I've never seen either of these shows so cannot really comment
precisely. The primary issue must be one of reasonable foreseeability. In
the latter context it sounds like such an accident might be reasonably
foreseeable. In the context of Spring Break foreseeing "something untoward"
and foreseeing public defecation might not be considered to be comparable.
If one of the acts had pulled a gun and shot someone that would be
"something untoward" but would it be reasonably foreseeable and should MTV
be liable for it? In the absence of other evidence I'd have to say no.
The question of encouragement can be looked at in a similar light as the
foreseeability - could the act have reasonably believed they were being
encouraged to perform in this way? Well MTV's business is to produce
broadcastable material and it seems unlikely that anyone could have thought
this would be broadcastable. A side issue could be raised about the
possibility that MTV may have wanted to generate publicity as opposed to
broadcastable material so might have encouraged the act towards that end;
and that is more difficult to refute by virtue of mere common sense bearing
in mind that "all publicity is good publicity". Nonetheless my feeling
remains that there is insufficient evidence to say that the defecation was
not outside the realm of reasonably foreseeable behaviour and that MTV are
not liable.
I don't in truth have v. strong feelings on the matter. I was just
surprised at the venom directed at those who were criticising the lawsuit,
as if they were unthinking corporate shills and there could be no doubt that
MTV were liable. The reality is that there is more than mere doubt. And if
I was a practising lawyer being asked to pick a side to represent, all
things being equal, I'd pick MTV.
Toni
>I'm so old, I actually remember when it
>was "MUSIC". Yep, kiddies, it was
>nothin' but videos, 24 hours a day.
Those were the "Good Ole Days" as I like to call them. I remember that
fondly. I wish MTV was still like that.
Anyone remember when the used to show the british comedy "The Young
Ones" on MTV? I think it was on Sunday Nights. I loved that show.
Toni
Violet Blue
yes, I remeber when they actually showed music videos on MTV.
---
Regards,
Violet Blue (aka xrayz)
Chris Pierson
Tod Friendly <babie...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>The question of encouragement can be looked at in a similar light as the
>foreseeability - could the act have reasonably believed they were being
>encouraged to perform in this way? Well MTV's business is to produce
>broadcastable material and it seems unlikely that anyone could have thought
>this would be broadcastable.
If you haven't seen Jackass, I can see why you might think so. But
Jackass has a history of Feces Is Fun stunts, including one where the
show's main idiot gets inside a full portable toilet and has it turned
upside-down. With a camera inside. If MTV not only thinks this kind of
stuff is broadcastable, but also touts Jackass as a high-profile "outrageous"
show, I think it's actually quite possible that these Shower Rangers
idiots might have decided that taking a dump on stage would fit into MTV's
plans. It also makes me more inclined to believe that the plastic over the
cameras indicates that MTV may well have known it was going to happen, and
may have even encouraged them.
>I don't in truth have v. strong feelings on the matter. I was just
>surprised at the venom directed at those who were criticising the lawsuit,
>as if they were unthinking corporate shills and there could be no doubt that
>MTV were liable. The reality is that there is more than mere doubt. And if
>I was a practising lawyer being asked to pick a side to represent, all
>things being equal, I'd pick MTV.
I would too, if it weren't for Jackass.
--
Chris Pierson ** 12 favorite films of 2000: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,
** Traffic, Blood Simple (dir. cut), Chuck & Buck, Best in
Game Designer ** Show, You Can Count On Me, High Fidelity, Almost Famous,
Author ** Quills, Ghost Dog, Mr. Death, Requiem for a Dream
Gerry
> 1: you haven't explained anything that resembles fact to me
>
> 2: I never argued a point of law..just of responsibility...if MTV had no
> control they had no responsibility
>
> I'm getting tired of explaining that to you
Hmmm... I would think they would have to accept responsibility as MTV is a
business enitity and responsible for those of whom they employ in their
course of business. For example, if I as a consultant decided to squat and
shit on the client's desk rather than lead the design team, the company
wouldn't even bother with me and instead sue the company I happened to be
consulting through at the time, and the consulting company can go after me
in turn if they should choose to do so. This is because it is the
consulting company's responsibility to screen prospective applicants to
avoid these things. Note the word "responsibility".
Gerry
KING B MAN
were
in no particualr order,
CALLING ALL GIRLS- Hilly Michaels
PRESSURE Billy Joel
ALLENTOWN Billy Joel
ADAM ANT TITLES
I was the biggest fan of Adam Ant aka Adam and the Ants.
Billy Idols Dancing with Myself.
Mike Shields
bob jones
broadcast and call music.
--
An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine,
but because people refuse to see it. --James Michener
Patricia Holtby
--
Mozeman <tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote in message
news:FMoz6.44231$z4.78...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> "Thomas L. C." <iza...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:KAoz6.1506$aq5....@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
> > how stupid...
> > screw MTV, but how could they have controlled what this dink did?
> > but of course if you sued the dink you probably wouldn't get much
> > that's sue happy America for you
> >
>
> If MTV hired the act and knew what the act entailed, then they are
> responsible.
>
>
I'm not a lawyer but was once suckered into taking some constitutional and
civil tort law classes and in the State of California, if the person or
entity that committed the actionable offense was acting as the agent of
another individual or entity, that parent individual or entity can be held
civilly liable for the acts of their agents even if they had no
foreknowledge of the wrongdoing.
The example given by the law professor was that of a paperboy who threw a
newspaper from his bicycle and broke someone's window and did do so with the
deliberate intent of breaking that window (maybe the customer stiffed him???
Who knows?). The newspaper company was held liable for damages.
Patricia Holtby
"I will permit no man to narrow and degrade my soul by making me hate
him." -Booker T. Washington
Jaime Jeske
Checkmate <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in message
news:MPG.15387d351...@news.alt.net...
>On 07 Apr 2001 07:03:28 GMT, KING B MAN put forth the notion that:
>>>attorney Gloria Allred said.
>Gloria's like Jesse Jackson... neither of them can resist a photo op.
I lost respect for Gloria after the Hunter Tylo debacle. I was so disgusted with that
case that any time I saw her after that, the first thing I thought was: "Remember Hunter
Tylo!"
Jaime
--
"If the whole human race lay in one grave, the epitaph on its headstone might well be: 'It
seemed a good idea at the time.'" -- Rebecca West (1892-1983)
How I Spent My Summer Vacation: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/jaimej78/
Dennis J. & Gloria A. Chada, St. Paul, MN
p.ho...@worldnet.att.net says...
Patricia,
Saw an article about this on the Mr Showbiz page and it said that the MTV
crew was putting plastic over cameras and equipment just before the "act"
so I think "foreknowledge" might be fairly easy for the lawyers!
A noted by another post: How did MTV tell the difference beween this and
the usual programing?
Just a thought
Dennis
spam]@world.std.com Blair P. Houghton
>A noted by another post: How did MTV tell the difference beween this and
>the usual programing?
This had a music-video component to it.
--Blair
"Lawda mussy."
ZoomZoom
>broadcast and call music.
>
Speaking of "fecal matter", I happened to catch the Andy Dick show on
MTV last night. It won't happen again. That show was really, really bad.
Sandy.
Tod Friendly
Chris Pierson <cpie...@tiac.net> wrote in message
news:9angjr$i...@news-central.tiac.net...
> In article <9anbqk$8h7$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Tod Friendly <babie...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >The question of encouragement can be looked at in a similar light as the
> >foreseeability - could the act have reasonably believed they were being
> >encouraged to perform in this way? Well MTV's business is to produce
> >broadcastable material and it seems unlikely that anyone could have
thought
> >this would be broadcastable.
>
> If you haven't seen Jackass, I can see why you might think so. But
> Jackass has a history of Feces Is Fun stunts, including one where the
> show's main idiot gets inside a full portable toilet and has it turned
> upside-down.
Point taken.
V. Yim
> it wasn't an MTV employee, it was an independent act...thats like if i went
> into a wallmart and shot someone, blaming them instead of me for their death
Someone already did that. A guy's wife was raped in murdered in a
Walmart parking lot and Walmart was held partially responsible because
of the lack of surveilance in the parking lot.
Peace,
Vince Yim
Icebreaker
Tod Friendly <babie...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9aq1rt$bk6$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Chris Pierson <cpie...@tiac.net> wrote in message
> > If you haven't seen Jackass, I can see why you might think so. But
> > Jackass has a history of Feces Is Fun stunts, including one where the
> > show's main idiot gets inside a full portable toilet and has it turned
> > upside-down.
>
> Point taken.
The upside down port-a-potty was child's play. Don't forget the episode
where Knoxville went snorkeling in a torrent of raw sewage at a waste
treatment facility. Then there's the times he's wrestled in manure.
What would Sigmund Freud say if he were alive today?
--
Icebreaker
Where all other websites end...this one begins!
http://www.fandom.com/james_bond
Now cyberspace belongs to 007Forever!
Hot talk! James Bond that is:
http://messageboard.fandom.com/James_Bond/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro
David Elliot's bad day at the office begins here:
www.vertical-run.com
Peggy Bundy: "Look, if I stopped your father from doing everything he was
bad at...well, we never would have had you kids."
Craig Smith a.k.a. Olaf Mindrimmer
>On my way home from my sister's wedding, I caught a program hosted by
>April Winchell where this was discussed (disgust?) I got to laughing
>so hard I almost got into a collision. :) Her partner, "Roy," said
>something baout the potential charge of battery. April said it was
>probably because the mess was intentional, evidenced by the use of
>enemas. Roy countered with the theory that using enemas changes it
>more to "splattery" than anything due to the reduction of solids.
Okay, ew.
Funny, but ew.
Craig
Bashar Alef Burzmali
Icebreaker wrote:
> Tod Friendly <babie...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9aq1rt$bk6$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > Chris Pierson <cpie...@tiac.net> wrote in message
>
> > > If you haven't seen Jackass, I can see why you might think so. But
> > > Jackass has a history of Feces Is Fun stunts, including one where the
> > > show's main idiot gets inside a full portable toilet and has it turned
> > > upside-down.
> >
> > Point taken.
>
> The upside down port-a-potty was child's play. Don't forget the episode
> where Knoxville went snorkeling in a torrent of raw sewage at a waste
> treatment facility. Then there's the times he's wrestled in manure.
>
> What would Sigmund Freud say if he were alive today?
He'd probably say, "Damn, I'm old. Roll me over to the food bowl."
Sam (and wonder if that thing on the floor was really just a cigar) Sands
Venus-i...@webtv.net
Writrblock
>made
>vidoes. Personally I think that the line being crosses can be seen in two
>Romantic videos. When they came out with "That's what I like about you", they
>looked like normal guys. Then when they came out with "Secrets that you
>keep"
>or whatever the name of that song was they looked like aliens from the planet
>Hair.
For me, it all went downhill when they introduced the unnecessary vee-jays.
China Kate Sunflower
cannonballs, "Thomas's motto is:
>it wouldn't be frivolous if they sued the guys that actually did it
They are probably doing that, as well. I imagine the police would also be
getting involved at this stage.
>(and IF MTV knew they were planning on shitting on stage it would have been
>the equivalent of Wal-Mart knowing that I'm bringing a gun...so your false
>analogy)
Your original analogy is false. Wal-Mart is not responsible for the behavior of
their customers; they are responsible for the behavior of their employees and
contractors, and this act would fall into the "contractor" category.
K.
--
The Dude abides.
China Kate Sunflower
>I am not a fan of the legal community OR frivolous lawsuits but MTV is
>liable for that stunt-
>Do the girls deserve millions-hell no-
>But MTV(or their insurance Co.) ought to cough up something.
They probably don't expect to get millions either, even if the judgement was
found in their favor. Asking for millions gives them a nice high number from
which they can then settle at an appropriately embarassing amount for MTV, but
not so huge that MTV can't appeal it.
China Kate Sunflower
>
>1: you haven't explained anything that resembles fact to me
>
>2: I never argued a point of law..just of responsibility...if MTV had no
>control they had no responsibility
They did have control. They have nothing *but* control in investigating their
acts and finding out just what the hell they do *before* they pay them money and
put them in front of an audience.
Thomas L. C.
we don't know if they were paid...and if you looked at this acts history
(which is probably non existent) or the members criminal records how much of
a chance do you put on finding "shat on stage" as part of their resume? cmon
now >:)
--
Thomas L. C.
---------------------------------------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"
-HST
"China Kate Sunflower" <norac...@stealthisspamblocker.celticweb.com>
wrote in message news:9asqv...@drn.newsguy.com...
Excitable Boi
producing television shows that show fecal matter (usually of the
canine variety though) being used as props in comedy (The Tom Green
Show) shows, or as stunts or in practical jokes (Jackass). You have
to have a VERY strong stomach to be a die-hard fan of MTV-produced
shows these days, not to mention that most of their programs are pure,
100% shit anyways. I feel sorry for the girls, and MTV SHOULD be
liable for their momentary shock & horror, but they shoulda known
going in that fecal audience participation might be involved, because
that's what MTV is all about.
Excitable
Remove SERPENT to reply via email
Dumps Truck
sue the shower ranger that shit on them.
I suppose the obvious answer is that MTV have the money, whereas a 'two bit'
performer who has to shit on people to get noticed is a highly unlikely
candidate to have a great deal of cash.
Have the girls lodged a complaint to the police? Was the ranger arrested for
his actions? Or has he been left to go free while the girls (and their
families and lawyers) chase MTV for $$$? Does anybody know?
The cynic in me sees that the girls families are using the situation to make
money, and hence set their sights on MTV - not on the person who actually
committed the offence in the first place!
Just my $0.02 worth!
Dumps Truck
Skip Press
dum...@yahoo.com (Dumps Truck) wrote:
> Question - Why are the girls sueing MTV in the first place? Surely they
> should sue the shower ranger that shit on them.
I think they should have been armed with shotguns and used them. Then
their defense lawyer could've claimed - "Hey, what's the big deal with a
couple of dead musicians and MTV corpses? The girls were just sittin'
around shootin' the shit."
;-)
--
Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen
and thinking what nobody has thought.
-- Albert Szent-Gyorgyi (1893-1986)
All the Best,
Skip Press, the Duke of URL, with Latest Hollywood & Other News --
http://home.earthlink.net/~skippress/wsnBDFB.html
bgj...@webtv.net
Herman McClain
Liam Devlin
> >
> > I don't think this was a band or a group that performed normally...
> > ..not sure on that but "the shower rangers"
> > doesnt sound like a band that had lots of gigs that MTV could do much
> > research on.
>
> "The *Shower* Rangers"?
>
> Here's MTV's defense:
> "We thought they'd merely piss on the audience."
>
> I think it's time for someone (Weller?) to fill us in on the details of the
> French Vaudeville performer, at the turn of the 20th Century, whose act
> consisted of fart tricks. For a while he was the biggest star in Europe,
> played command performances before royalty, etc. The guy went on stage,
> blew (ahem) out candles, I think he played a flute or trumpet, other
> stuff...all through his posterior orifice. I don't remember his name.
"Le Petomane" (The fart in French)
The same "Le Petomane" as the governor in "Blazing Saddles", i.e., The
Honorable William J Le Petomane.
LiamD
Liam Devlin
>
> Goddamn, well I declare! Have you seen the like? Their walls are built on
> cannonballs, "Thomas's motto is:
> >
> >1: you haven't explained anything that resembles fact to me
> >
> >2: I never argued a point of law..just of responsibility...if MTV had no
> >control they had no responsibility
>
> They did have control. They have nothing *but* control in investigating their
> acts and finding out just what the hell they do *before* they pay them money and
> put them in front of an audience.
Control is immaterial (not to say MTV shouldn't have acted as you
describe), MTV is responsible. They hired the act & put on the show.
LiamD
Liam Devlin
Okay, then your issue is with our (USA) tort system.
LiamD
Len Sciandra
I have no idea what you mean?????????