Cowell believes photos showing nudity should not be grounds for dismissal.
daveparks
Barba, 'Idol' are hot topics at Hugh Hefner bash
USA TODAY
Story Chat Post Comment
More and more, it seems, the pasts of young reality star hopefuls are
threatening their shots at stardom.
"American Idol" contestant Antonella Barba, 20, has become the latest
to don the scarlet letter as photos of her with her top dropped have
led to speculation that the Fox network may drop her.
Hugh Hefner, who knows a thing or two about nudity in photos, calls
such condemnation "hypocritical and dumb."
At a party Tuesday night at his Playboy Mansion to celebrate the third-
season premiere of his E! reality show, "The Girls Next Door" (10 p.m.
Sunday), Hefner said, "I think in America we have a very strange
attitude toward sexuality and nudity, and it makes no real sense."
Hefner, 80, spoke these words while seated on a sofa next to his
famous grotto, the site of many an infamous sexcapade. At his side
were girlfriends Holly Madison, 27, Bridget Marquardt, 33, and Kendra
Wilkinson, 21, all roped of from the riffraff and protected by
security.
Hef was soon joined by Ryan Seacrest, producer of E!'s newest reality
series, Paradise City, which makes its debut right after Hef's show
and focuses on singles trying to make it in Las Vegas. The "Idol"
host, along with show judges Randy Jackson and Simon Cowell, were
among the very few men allowed into Hefner's inner sanctum.
Cowell believes photos showing nudity should not be grounds for
dismissal. "These people haven't done anything illegal; that's their
private life," he stressed. He believes that the racy photos of Barba
should "not affect her standing on the show, and if the public wants
to keep her in, they'll keep her in." (Barba performs with the
remaining female singers on tonight's show; two men and two women will
be eliminated Thursday.)
"Nobody's clean in the entertainment business," seconded Jackson,
recalling Frenchie Davis, who was famously booted from Idol in Season
2 when it was revealed that she had worked for an adult website.
"There are definitely some moral things that go on with this show."
It is the morals of the person who leaked the Barba photos that
Seacrest finds most repugnant. "It's just tacky, disgusting," said
Seacrest. "You've got a girl who's trying to make it on a show where
she needs a vote, and someone's trying to tear that away from her."
Though he said he had not yet seen the photos, Seacrest added that he
would "absolutely let (Barba) stay on. If American Idol is a true
representation of American youth, we're going to find imperfections.
And it's OK to be imperfect."
___ end
And there ya' have it; direct from the horses mouths whilst hanging at
the Playboy Mansion - it's not Barba's fault she was photographed with
her hoots half hanging out; it's whoever released the photos.
The Usual Suspect
> On 28 Feb 2007 12:59:33 -0800, "daveparks" <daveparks...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > it's not Barba's fault she was photographed with
> >her hoots half hanging out; it's whoever released the photos.
>
> she knew that the pictures were being taken.
>
> It is *not* her fault that these private photos were released on the
> internet. And without the photos being published on the internet we
> would not be having this discussion.
>
> I completely agree with Ryan S on this matter despite what the "moral
> police" have to say.
>
> Ryan
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> 2006 ATAI Bragging Rights Champion
The only thing that this Moral Deputy Sherrif has to say is: If you
kick one out, kick them all out. Didn't they do that to a black
girl? Why does the white girl get a break? Consistency or
hypocrisy. This is akin to those infamous AP photos after hurricane
Katrina, captioned "looting" for Black people "finding food" for
whites.
daveparks
> On 28 Feb 2007 12:59:33 -0800, "daveparks" <daveparks...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >her hoots half hanging out; it's whoever released the photos.
>
> she knew that the pictures were being taken.
You're right - I guess she could have mistaken those camera
'flashbulbs' for something else while she bounced around in a wet tee-
shirt in a fountian.
> It is *not* her fault that these private photos were released on the
> internet. And without the photos being published on the internet we
> would not be having this discussion.
I don't believe anyone has stated that the releasing of the photos
'were' her fault - I know I haven't.
> I completely agree with Ryan S on this matter despite what the "moral
> police" have to say.
Two stupid-assed wrongs don't make a right.
flkofcguls
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well for one, Frenchie's flab-bags were unsheathed and out there for
all the world to see. I have yet to see a real nude photo of Barba
from all the different things that have been posted of her or
purporting to be her, so quit trying to stir up a race war where there
isn't one.
fille
wrote:
> The only thing that this Moral Deputy Sherrif has to say is: If you
> kick one out, kick them all out. Didn't they do that to a black
> girl? Why does the white girl get a break? Consistency or
> hypocrisy. This is akin to those infamous AP photos after hurricane
> Katrina, captioned "looting" for Black people "finding food" for
I agree with you and you beat me to it. I didn't watch back in Season
2 but if Frenchie was booted for a similar thing then they either need
to boot Antonella or give Frenchie another chance to win on another
season (unless, of course, she's doing better WITHOUT benefit of their
help).
Orwell
>
>
> The only thing that this Moral Deputy Sherrif has to say is: If you
> kick one out, kick them all out. Didn't they do that to a black
> girl? Why does the white girl get a break? Consistency or
> hypocrisy.
>
No, it's completely different. Frenchie was a paid model on a porn
site and failed to tell the AI producers. Had she disclosed that in
the first place, she probably would have not been allowed on the
program. That was the problem -- she did something that would have
kept her off the show in the first place and lied about it. She
deserved to be kicked off.
Antonella, on the other hand, simply had a "friend" make private
pictures public. None of them are particularly extreme, and really
shouldn't be a big deal. Now, if the blow job pictures were real, and
it turned out she was a nude model or did a porno film... well, that
would be a different case and she's be long gone. But I'm sure the AI
producers spent most of this weekend making sure that she was *NOT*
involved in anything other than being a smoking hot, sort of wild, and
very stupid college girl.
fille
> No, it's completely different. Frenchie was a paid model on a porn
> site and failed to tell the AI producers. Had she disclosed that in
> the first place, she probably would have not been allowed on the
> program. That was the problem -- she did something that would have
> kept her off the show in the first place and lied about it. She
> deserved to be kicked off.
Herein lies my problem with this issue:
Cowell believes photos showing nudity should not be grounds for
dismissal. "These people haven't done anything illegal; that's their
private life," he stressed. He believes that the racy photos of Barba
should "not affect her standing on the show, and if the public wants
to keep her in, they'll keep her in."
>
Was what Frenchie did on the porn site, or being on the porn site to
begin with, illegal? If not then what Simon is saying is a bit
hypocrital, I think. Take a stand and stick with it - either you boot
all these people or you don't. I don't think the fact that Frenchie
didn't reveal this info to the producers should be the factor as
apparently Antonella didn't divulge that she too had posed for
pictures, private or otherwise.
Nathan Sanders
"The Usual Suspect" <ludmil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The only thing that this Moral Deputy Sherrif has to say is: If you
> kick one out, kick them all out. Didn't they do that to a black
> girl?
There's a difference between X and R. Frenchie showed boobs.
Antonella showed skimpy clothing. (I'm not counting the BJ pics,
because there is strong evidence that that isn't her.)
Of course, there was a rather strong outcry when Frenchie was booted,
so perhaps Ai learned their lesson and their regulations have evolved
in light of the backlash they received the first time around. Why
should we expect them to apply certain rules now, when we deplored the
very same rules as unnecessary and illogical in the past?
Nathan
--
alt.tv.survivor Certainty Contest: Fiji
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/atscc/index.html
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
The Chris
news:1172696373.2...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
> Though he said he had not yet seen the photos, Seacrest added that he
> would "absolutely let (Barba) stay on. If American Idol is a true
> representation of American youth, we're going to find imperfections.
> And it's OK to be imperfect."
> ___ end
>
Here's proof that he's Gay right here... EVERY straight male in America has
seen these photos.... MANY times :)
The Chris
> On 28 Feb 2007 12:59:33 -0800, "daveparks" <davepa...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> it's not Barba's fault she was photographed with
>>her hoots half hanging out; it's whoever released the photos.
>
> Not quite. It *is* her fault that she was photographed assuming that
> she knew that the pictures were being taken.
>
> It is *not* her fault that these private photos were released on the
> internet. And without the photos being published on the internet we
> would not be having this discussion.
>
> I completely agree with Ryan S on this matter despite what the "moral
> police" have to say.
>
> Ryan
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> 2006 ATAI Bragging Rights Champion
Who cares... Are you that against the personal rights of somebody wanting
to do what they want with their body?? Do you want to be told what to do
with YOUR body??
The Chris
@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 28, 4:14�pm, "The Usual Suspect" <ludmillia...@hotmail.com>
If you think it was for a similar thing... You haven't done your
homework...
jewahe
> "Nobody's clean in the entertainment business," seconded Jackson,
> recalling Frenchie Davis, who was famously booted from Idol in Season
> 2 when it was revealed that she had worked for an adult website.
> "There are definitely some moral things that go on with this show."
I wasn't around for the original scandal, but this smacks of a double-
standard. I thought Frenchie just exposed her breasts on that
website...was there more to it?
If "raciness" is ground to terminate Frenchie, it should be grounds to
terminate Antonella.
Of course, Antonella is considered hot, so I guess that makes all the
difference in the world.
As someone said on CNN last night, "Image is the new racism."
Vandar
> On 28 Feb 2007 13:15:33 -0800, "daveparks" <davepa...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Feb 28, 3:06 pm, r...@idol.com wrote:
>>
>>>On 28 Feb 2007 12:59:33 -0800, "daveparks" <daveparks...@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>it's not Barba's fault she was photographed with
>>>>her hoots half hanging out; it's whoever released the photos.
>>>
>>>Not quite. It *is* her fault that she was photographed assuming that
>>>she knew that the pictures were being taken.
>>
>>You're right - I guess she could have mistaken those camera
>>'flashbulbs' for something else while she bounced around in a wet tee-
>>shirt in a fountian.
>>
>>
>>> It is *not* her fault that these private photos were released on the
>>>internet. And without the photos being published on the internet we
>>>would not be having this discussion.
>>
>>I don't believe anyone has stated that the releasing of the photos
>>'were' her fault - I know I haven't.
>
>
> True, but you will notice that most of the criticism is directed at
> Antonella for having the pictures taken and very little criticism
> directed at the jerk who posted the pictures without her permission.
> And considering that her "crime" was quite trivial and the other
> "crime" quite serious, I don't think it is very fair of how harshly
> she is being judged. I guess she is an easy target since her identity
> is known.
>
>>>I completely agree with Ryan S on this matter despite what the "moral
>>>police" have to say.
>>
>>Two stupid-assed wrongs don't make a right.
>
>
> That may be true but I think that one needs to compare the "wrongs".
>
> I hardly think that the "wrong" of her having the pictures taken
> privately
They weren't taken privately. You don't get much more public in this
country than a national monument.
> compares with the "wrong" of posting them on the internet in
> order to trash her.
There is no indication the person who owns that website is trying to
trash her.
PeterL
wrote:
> On Feb 28, 1:06 pm, r...@idol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 Feb 2007 12:59:33 -0800, "daveparks" <daveparks...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > it's not Barba's fault she was photographed with
> > >her hoots half hanging out; it's whoever released the photos.
>
> > Not quite. It *is* her fault that she was photographed assuming that
> > she knew that the pictures were being taken.
>
> > It is *not* her fault that these private photos were released on the
> > internet. And without the photos being published on the internet we
> > would not be having this discussion.
>
> > I completely agree with Ryan S on this matter despite what the "moral
> > police" have to say.
>
> > Ryan
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> > 2006 ATAI Bragging Rights Champion
>
> The only thing that this Moral Deputy Sherrif has to say is: If you
> kick one out, kick them all out. Didn't they do that to a black
> girl?
Huh? Which black girl are we talking about?
> Why does the white girl get a break? Consistency or
> hypocrisy. This is akin to those infamous AP photos after hurricane
> Katrina, captioned "looting" for Black people "finding food" for
PeterL
> On Feb 28, 1:14 pm, "The Usual Suspect" <ludmillia...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 1:06 pm, r...@idol.com wrote:
>
> > > On 28 Feb 2007 12:59:33 -0800, "daveparks" <daveparks...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > it's not Barba's fault she was photographed with
> > > >her hoots half hanging out; it's whoever released the photos.
>
> > > Not quite. It *is* her fault that she was photographed assuming that
> > > she knew that the pictures were being taken.
>
> > > It is *not* her fault that these private photos were released on the
> > > internet. And without the photos being published on the internet we
> > > would not be having this discussion.
>
> > > I completely agree with Ryan S on this matter despite what the "moral
> > > police" have to say.
>
> > > Ryan
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > 2006 ATAI Bragging Rights Champion
>
> > The only thing that this Moral Deputy Sherrif has to say is: If you
> > kick one out, kick them all out. Didn't they do that to a black
> > girl?
>
> Huh? Which black girl are we talking about?
Never mind. I wasn't watching that season.
>
>
>
> > Why does the white girl get a break? Consistency or
> > hypocrisy. This is akin to those infamous AP photos after hurricane
> > Katrina, captioned "looting" for Black people "finding food" for
> > whites.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Giggles
"jewahe" <jew...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172699374....@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
The person that owns the camera/film owns the right to do as they please
with it without a written document stating the intentions of the person in
the picture. That's what I was told when a friend wanted to enter a picture
of her kid and mine in a contest. The pictures are proof that Antonella
allowed her picture to be taken. She certainly looked all too happy to show
anything they wanted to take a picture of. The pictures are also evidence
that she committed a crime by posing almost naked in the fountain at the
WWII memorial. What Frenchie did was not illegal. What Antonella did is.
Neither told AI about their photos that would cause embarrassment to the
show. So far only Frenchie was kicked off. If Frenchie looked like Halle
Berry, I bet she would have remained on the show. If I were her, plus all
the others who committed crimes and were kicked off, I'd sue.
Gertrude Rainey
<ry...@idol.com> wrote in message
news:chrbu2pvbjmrmf8al...@4ax.com...
> On 28 Feb 2007 12:59:33 -0800, "daveparks" <davepa...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> it's not Barba's fault she was photographed with
>>her hoots half hanging out; it's whoever released the photos.
>
> she knew that the pictures were being taken.
>
> It is *not* her fault that these private photos were released on the
> internet. And without the photos being published on the internet we
> would not be having this discussion.
>
> I completely agree with Ryan S on this matter despite what the "moral
> police" have to say.
I think it's irrelevant, especially if AI is indeed "a singing contest".
Antonella can't sing.
Nathan Sanders
"Giggles" <laug...@you.com> wrote:
> So far only Frenchie was kicked off. If Frenchie looked like Halle
> Berry, I bet she would have remained on the show.
What if she looked like Janet Jackson?
Ron
Oh course Seacrest hasn't seen them, they're pictures of a FEMALE.
fille
> "fille" <filledep...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1172697527.800754.25470
> > I agree with you and you beat me to it. I didn't watch back in Season
> > 2 but if Frenchie was booted for a similar thing then they either need
> > to boot Antonella or give Frenchie another chance to win on another
> > season (unless, of course, she's doing better WITHOUT benefit of their
> > help).
>
> If you think it was for a similar thing... You haven't done your
> homework...
True, haven't done my homework cause frankly I don't really care what
they do off the show if it's not illegal and isn't hurting anyone. The
question is - can they sing or not?
fille
> On 28 Feb 2007 13:18:47 -0800, "fille" <filledep...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I agree with you and you beat me to it. I didn't watch back in Season
> >2 but if Frenchie was booted for a similar thing
>
Care to elaborate on that?
fille
> You presume that Frenchie's elimination was, in some way, Simon's
> doing. Despite popular belief, Simon is not American Idol
I wasn't trying to presume anything - just using his quote to show a
double-standard way of thinking.
Itoshi
Others - flkofcguls, Orwell, Nathan Sanders, etc. - had already elaborated
before I even posted.
The Chris
@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Pretty much so.... there are exceptions... But, I don't think a pop singer
taking sexy shots is that out of character..
Starbuck
>
> I don't know about the person who *owns* the website but certainly
>the person who *posted* those pictures on that site did not have
>Antonella's best interests in mind IMO:-)
>
The "moral police" doesn't to care. Its always the girls
fault, hers and hers alone. Shame on her for wearing a
t-shirt without a bra. The bra is sacred. And then to have
the nerve to get wet too... Oh my GOD !
Oh the shame, the absolute SHAME.
I do believe I saw some nipple through that wet t-shirt.
Well, at least the outline of nipples. I fear my eyes may be
permanently damaged by what this little whore has done.
Rot in hell Antonella, rot in hell !
As to these anonymous upstanding characters who would
use these pictures to slam this little bitch, well, they're actually
heros for showing us all the true side of Antonella. They get a pass.
*$
daveparks
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:05:36 -0800, "Gertrude Rainey" <S...@Ma.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> ><r...@idol.com> wrote in message
> >news:chrbu2pvbjmrmf8al...@4ax.com...
> >> On 28 Feb 2007 12:59:33 -0800, "daveparks" <daveparks...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> it's not Barba's fault she was photographed with
> >>>her hoots half hanging out; it's whoever released the photos.
>
> >> Not quite. It *is* her fault that she was photographed assuming that
> >> she knew that the pictures were being taken.
>
> >> It is *not* her fault that these private photos were released on the
> >> internet. And without the photos being published on the internet we
> >> would not be having this discussion.
>
> >> I completely agree with Ryan S on this matter despite what the "moral
> >> police" have to say.
>
> >I think it's irrelevant, especially if AI is indeed "a singing contest".
> >Antonella can't sing.
>
> singing is a major component. And I believe that Antonella can sing
> fairly well if she can overcome her nerves and pick the right song. To
> win AI you don't necessarily need to be the best singer as past years
> have shown IMO.
>
> We shall see tonight if she can rise to the occasion especially in
> light of the ongoing controversy.
She failed miserably. The kid is lucky there are so many shallow
little girls and horny little boys out there with the ability to dial
a few numbers.
> You can be sure that the ratings for tonight's show will be quite high
> due to the Barba controversy. And American Idol's success depends on
> ratings.
AI was already, if not 'the', 'one of the' highest rated programs in
tv history - while TPTB may welcome a few more curious perv viewers,
they really didn't need them to achieve "quite high" ratings.
daveparks
> On 28 Feb 2007 13:15:33 -0800, "daveparks" <daveparks...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > it's not Barba's fault she was photographed with
> >> >her hoots half hanging out; it's whoever released the photos.
>
> >> Not quite. It *is* her fault that she was photographed assuming that
> >> she knew that the pictures were being taken.
>
> >'flashbulbs' for something else while she bounced around in a wet tee-
> >shirt in a fountian.
>
> >> internet. And without the photos being published on the internet we
> >> would not be having this discussion.
>
> >'were' her fault - I know I haven't.
>
> True, but you will notice that most of the criticism is directed at
> Antonella for having the pictures taken and very little criticism
> directed at the jerk who posted the pictures without her permission.
I thought that was simply the exercising of poster's freedom of
speech. Some prefer to complain about Barba, others the 'uploader',
and others both - as my ealrier comment suggests, I'll take both -
with the understanding that; if the girl doesn't allow herself to be
photographed in such a position - the photos would not exist.
> And considering that her "crime" was quite trivial and the other
> "crime" quite serious, I don't think it is very fair of how harshly
> she is being judged. I guess she is an easy target since her identity
> is known.
Interesting distinction - but again, "two wrongs ..."
That someone posted the photos, in no way lessens Barba's stupidity
for allowing them to be produced to begin with.
> >> I completely agree with Ryan S on this matter despite what the "moral
> >> police" have to say.
>
> >Two stupid-assed wrongs don't make a right.
>
> That may be true but I think that one needs to compare the "wrongs".
>
> I hardly think that the "wrong" of her having the pictures taken
> privately compares with the "wrong" of posting them on the internet in
> order to trash her. IOW the respective "wrongs" are hardly morally
> equivalent. One could be considered a minor peccadillo; the other a
> serious transgression.
The way I see it - the woman/girl has the power to simply say, "No".
'No' to unwanted advances.
'No' to drinking alcohol.
'No' to having her photo taken in compromising positions.
Do you not agree?
> Ryan
daveparks
> On 28 Feb 2007 19:22:48 -0800, "daveparks" <daveparks...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> I hardly think that the "wrong" of her having the pictures taken
> >> privately compares with the "wrong" of posting them on the internet in
> >> order to trash her. IOW the respective "wrongs" are hardly morally
> >> equivalent. One could be considered a minor peccadillo; the other a
> >> serious transgression.
>
> >The way I see it - the woman/girl has the power to simply say, "No".
> >'No' to unwanted advances.
> >'No' to drinking alcohol.
> >'No' to having her photo taken in compromising positions.
>
> >Do you not agree?
>
> pictures put her in a compromising position unless she realized that
> they would be posted on the internet.
Posted to the 'net or not - the photos are what they are; Barba in
various compromising positions or situations.
> You see I bet there are countless women who have equally provocative pictures
> taken that never end up on the internet.
That doesn't negate the original point - that if Barba, or countless
women, don't want provocatie photos of them made public; then they
shouldn't submit themselves to having the photos taken to begin with.
Again, no consent - no photos.
> So your comparison to unwanted advances and drinking alcohol is not a
> fair one IMO. The pictures were no more compromising than pictures
> taken for SI swimsuit edition. They became compromising in the context
> in which they were posted on the internet especially along with the
> bogus fellatio photos.
I must have missed the Sport Illustrated edition where the readers
could clearly see the model's nipples through her wet tee-shirt.
IIRC, SI goes to great lengths to esure that no such thing happens -
I've worked for publications specifically to remove unwanted or
revealing items; bruises, wrinkles, razor stubble, deodorant, and yes
'nipples'.
But I'm open to viewing any published SI nipple examples you have -
feel free to post links.
> Antonella made a mistake in having the pictures taken but the mistake
> was mainly seen in retrospect and could not reasonably be predicted.
> Whoever posted those pictures did it with malice and evil intent.
Regardless of the uploader's intent - it doesn't change the fact that
Barba willingly posed for those photos. Stupid things happen to
stupid people.
> So one was a silly mistake seen best in retrospect. The other was
> arguably criminal conduct and the person who did it could be held
> liable in a court of law.
Barba's was a stupid mistake - but unless you have specific
information about the original uploader, you're just "assuming" about
his motives for doing so.
Do you have specific information about the original uploader?
> You don't agree?
I agree that Barba was very foolish for allowing herself to be
photographed in such compromising positions - and the original
uploader(s) could be held responsible if Barba can prove that any
damages have been incurred; since she's still on the show, no mention
of the photos have been made on the show, and her singing seems to be
more damaging than any of the photos - I really don't think she'll
have a case. Do you see any indication that the photos have caused
her damage?
Starbuck
>> Shame on her for wearing a
>>t-shirt without a bra. The bra is sacred. And then to have
>>the nerve to get wet too... Oh my GOD !
>>Oh the shame, the absolute SHAME.
>
>You forgot about doing it in front of a WWII monument. That was an
>unforgivable crime.
Oh yes, Now the monument is forever tainted.
Damn that girl, damn her !
I guess the only thing left to do is to tear it down, and build
a McDonalds in its place.
*$
Bigolhomo
wrote:
>> So your comparison to unwanted advances and drinking alcohol is not a
>> fair one IMO. The pictures were no more compromising than pictures
>> taken for SI swimsuit edition. They became compromising in the context
>> in which they were posted on the internet especially along with the
>> bogus fellatio photos.
>
>I must have missed the Sport Illustrated edition where the readers
>could clearly see the model's nipples through her wet tee-shirt.
>IIRC, SI goes to great lengths to esure that no such thing happens -
>I've worked for publications specifically to remove unwanted or
>revealing items; bruises, wrinkles, razor stubble, deodorant, and yes
>'nipples'.
>But I'm open to viewing any published SI nipple examples you have -
>feel free to post links.
"no more compromising than" is not the same thing as "exactly the same
as".
Nipples poking through fabric on women's shirts is something that's
harmless enough to get shown on network TV. So yeah, I'd say that is
no more compromising than the SI swimsuit issue.
--
Bigolhomo
daveparks
> On 28 Feb 2007 22:01:42 -0800, "daveparks" <daveparks...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 28, 11:29 pm, r...@idol.com wrote:
> >> On 28 Feb 2007 19:22:48 -0800, "daveparks" <daveparks...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> I hardly think that the "wrong" of her having the pictures taken
> >> >> privately compares with the "wrong" of posting them on the internet in
> >> >> order to trash her. IOW the respective "wrongs" are hardly morally
> >> >> equivalent. One could be considered a minor peccadillo; the other a
> >> >> serious transgression.
>
> >> >The way I see it - the woman/girl has the power to simply say, "No".
> >> >'No' to unwanted advances.
> >> >'No' to drinking alcohol.
> >> >'No' to having her photo taken in compromising positions.
>
> >> >Do you not agree?
>
> >> I agree that a woman has the power to say no. I don't see where those
> >> pictures put her in a compromising position unless she realized that
> >> they would be posted on the internet.
>
> >Posted to the 'net or not - the photos are what they are; Barba in
> >various compromising positions or situations.
>
> various models do in photo shoots. But we can agree to disagree.
That there are other and various models that equally compromise
themselves doesn't lessen the fact that they are still doing so, does
it?
> >> You see I bet there are countless women who have equally provocative pictures
> >> taken that never end up on the internet.
>
> >That doesn't negate the original point - that if Barba, or countless
> >women, don't want provocatie photos of them made public; then they
> >shouldn't submit themselves to having the photos taken to begin with.
>
> Well certainly she knows this in retrospect. At the time she had the
> photos taken I suspect she had no clue this would be happening and I
> don't fault her for not anticipating this. You do fault her. We can
> agree to disagree.
No - I'm not faulting Barba for a lack of precognition; I'm faulting
her for her obvious lack of judgment and common sense, to put it
politely.
> >> So your comparison to unwanted advances and drinking alcohol is not a
> >> fair one IMO. The pictures were no more compromising than pictures
> >> taken for SI swimsuit edition. They became compromising in the context
> >> in which they were posted on the internet especially along with the
> >> bogus fellatio photos.
>
> >I must have missed the Sport Illustrated edition where the readers
> >could clearly see the model's nipples through her wet tee-shirt.
>
> I guess you did miss them.
>
> >IIRC, SI goes to great lengths to esure that no such thing happens -
> >I've worked for publications specifically to remove unwanted or
> >revealing items; bruises, wrinkles, razor stubble, deodorant, and yes
> >'nipples'.
> >But I'm open to viewing any published SI nipple examples you have -
> >feel free to post links.
>
> Ok. Check out these from past SI issues. And there are plenty more.
>
> Sure looks like they went to great lengths to insure that no such
> things happen:-)
>
> http://www.bastardly.com/archives/2007/02/15/marisa-miller-in-body-pa...
>
> http://www.bastardly.com/archives/2007/02/15/marisa-miller-in-body-pa...
>
> http://www.bastardly.com/archives/2007/02/15/marisa-miller-in-body-pa...>
>
> http://www.bastardly.com/archives/2007/02/15/marisa-miller-in-body-pa...
Isn't the entire point of these specific photos that the models *are*
nude yet camouflaged by paint?
That's hardly comparable to what Barba has floating around - but your
point is taken.
> >> Antonella made a mistake in having the pictures taken but the mistake
> >> was mainly seen in retrospect and could not reasonably be predicted.
> >> Whoever posted those pictures did it with malice and evil intent.
>
> >Regardless of the uploader's intent - it doesn't change the fact that
> >Barba willingly posed for those photos. Stupid things happen to
> >stupid people.
>
> Yep. And I have done stupid things in my life too especially when I
> was Antonella's age. It comes with the territory and being young and
> naive. Of course I doubt that you did anything so stupid in your life
> Dave.
I don't recall discussing whether you or I ever did anything foolish
or stupid -
but thanks for agreeing that Barba owes the current situation to her
own stupidity.
> >> So one was a silly mistake seen best in retrospect. The other was
> >> arguably criminal conduct and the person who did it could be held
> >> liable in a court of law.
>
> >Barba's was a stupid mistake - but unless you have specific
> >information about the original uploader, you're just "assuming" about
> >his motives for doing so.
>
> If you think that I am assuming nefarious intentions with no basis
> then we can agree to disagree. Others can decide on what the likely
> motives for posting these pictures were.
That's exactly what I think - and it turns out I was right.
> >Do you have specific information about the original uploader?
>
> No, other than whoever did it is a jerk IMO.
Subjective.
> >> You don't agree?
>
> >I agree that Barba was very foolish for allowing herself to be
> >photographed in such compromising positions
>
> Hate to break it to you Dave but it is common for college students her
> age to do equally stupid things. I don't think that it should be
> grounds for expelling her from the competition or even holding it
> against her when voting.
Uhuh - "And what if the other kids jump off a bridge, Anotella?"
Hate to break it to you Ryan, but there are thousands of college
students her age who do not find it common to pose for photos of
themselves in compromising positions. Colleges are full of them.
> And I *suspect* that many of the contestants (including possibly past
> winners) have had equally embarrassing moments that just happen to
> not be made public on the internet.
Interesting - now *you* are disparaging additional contestants to
validate your own biased suspicions.
Disparaging others in order to further your own cause seems very
similar to what you're objecting to with regards to the Barba-photo
uploader - No?
> > - and the original
> >uploader(s) could be held responsible if Barba can prove that any
> >damages have been incurred; since she's still on the show, no mention
> >of the photos have been made on the show, and her singing seems to be
> >more damaging than any of the photos - I really don't think she'll
> >have a case. Do you see any indication that the photos have caused
> >her damage?
>
> I will let an attorney deal with that issue if and when Antonella
> decides to file a suit which I hope she does if for no other reason
> than to deter others from pulling similar stunts.
Ain't gonna happen.
The poor kid can't sing and will most likely depend on her looks for
professional advancement for the rest of her life - the "exposure"
she's received from these villainously uploaded photos is probably the
best thing that could have happened to someone like her.
Bob Rudd
davepa...@hotmail.com says...
> No - I'm not faulting Barba for a lack of precognition; I'm faulting
> her for her obvious lack of judgment and common sense, to put it
> politely.
>
Agreed.
--
I hope we can all be good neighbors online!
CatNipped
news:cl1eu21h9c77p4v6f...@4ax.com...
It just blew me away when the whole Janet Jackson / Superbowl half-time
controversy erupted and made the US the laughing stock of the rest of the
world. The protest of the moral majority was that a "family show" was
fouled by a vile display of pornography.
Now let's think about this. Football is stylized warfare... bloody,
violent, and confrontational; the epitome of man's hatred for the "other"
and the coveting and taking of another's "turf". It teaches us that we can
take what we want from another if we're just ruthless and violent enough
while paying lip service to the "rules of engagement" (and if we can get
away with a face mask without the referee seeing us then that's just fine
and dandy, we'll take the first down).
Apparently the moral majority think this is appropriate television fare for
our precious toddlers to watch and learn from.
But the sight of a woman's breast - the source of tenderness, nourishment,
nurturing and caring to a every child ever born; the symbol of sexual
pleasure, love and closeness... well, we need to protect our children from
such horror!
And look at our movie rating system. You can graphically show people
hacking off other people's limbs, torturing, and killing, and the worst
you'll get is an "R" rating (and most of the time it's a "PG" rating).
However, graphically show two people giving pleasure to one another and that
will get you an "X" rating (and if it's really good, probably a "triple X"
rating).
Some sane and balanced society we're living in, huh?
Hugs,
CatNipped
daveparks
> On 1 Mar 2007 10:05:35 -0800, "daveparks" <daveparks...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> I guess I don't see how she was compromising herself any more than
> >> various models do in photo shoots. But we can agree to disagree.
>
> >That there are other and various models that equally compromise
> >themselves doesn't lessen the fact that they are still doing so, does
> >it?
>
> compromising themselves is quite subjective. You and I obviously have
> different opinions about that.
I'm sure we do - but I've not addressed to what degree Barba
compromised herself, just that she lacked the sense at all to have put
herself in that situation to begin with.
> >> Well certainly she knows this in retrospect. At the time she had the
> >> photos taken I suspect she had no clue this would be happening and I
> >> don't fault her for not anticipating this. You do fault her. We can
> >> agree to disagree.
>
> >No - I'm not faulting Barba for a lack of precognition; I'm faulting
> >her for her obvious lack of judgment and common sense, to put it
> >politely.
>
> And I am not judging her as harshly as you are.
I'm not being harsh at all - it just seems like that when compared to
your excusing of Barba's conduct by indicating that the photos weren't
intended for public distribution, while blaming more the "jerk" who
uploaded them.
> >> >> So your comparison to unwanted advances and drinking alcohol is not a
> >> >> fair one IMO. The pictures were no more compromising than pictures
> >> >> taken for SI swimsuit edition. They became compromising in the context
> >> >> in which they were posted on the internet especially along with the
> >> >> bogus fellatio photos.
>
> >> >I must have missed the Sport Illustrated edition where the readers
> >> >could clearly see the model's nipples through her wet tee-shirt.
>
> >> I guess you did miss them.
>
> >> >IIRC, SI goes to great lengths to esure that no such thing happens -
> >> >I've worked for publications specifically to remove unwanted or
> >> >revealing items; bruises, wrinkles, razor stubble, deodorant, and yes
> >> >'nipples'.
> >> >But I'm open to viewing any published SI nipple examples you have -
> >> >feel free to post links.
>
> >> Ok. Check out these from past SI issues. And there are plenty more.
>
> >> Sure looks like they went to great lengths to insure that no such
> >> things happen:-)
>
> >>http://www.bastardly.com/archives/2007/02/15/marisa-miller-in-body-pa...
>
> >>http://www.bastardly.com/archives/2007/02/15/marisa-miller-in-body-pa...
>
> >>http://www.bastardly.com/archives/2007/02/15/marisa-miller-in-body-pa...>
>
> >>http://www.bastardly.com/archives/2007/02/15/marisa-miller-in-body-pa...
>
> >Isn't the entire point of these specific photos that the models *are*
> >nude yet camouflaged by paint?
>
> You think that her nipples are "camouflaged" in those photos? Ok.
Are they painted to resemble a shirt or uniform? Then yes, they are
camouflaged - more so than those little brown half-dollars Barba chose
to so prominantly have photographed.
> Check out this article specifically referring to SI:
>
> http://www.bikiniscience.com/costumes/bikiniology_SS/see-through_S/se...
No thanks - got an abridged version?
I've now seen your examples of what you deem to be acceptable
behaviour from young women.
> >> >Regardless of the uploader's intent - it doesn't change the fact that
> >> >Barba willingly posed for those photos. Stupid things happen to
> >> >stupid people.
>
> >> Yep. And I have done stupid things in my life too especially when I
> >> was Antonella's age. It comes with the territory and being young and
> >> naive. Of course I doubt that you did anything so stupid in your life
> >> Dave.
>
> >I don't recall discussing whether you or I ever did anything foolish
> >or stupid -
> >but thanks for agreeing that Barba owes the current situation to her
> >own stupidity.
>
> Sorry Dave but I owe the current situation to the jerk who uploaded
> the photos. Yes, I realize if she never had the photos taken then she
> would not be in this situation.
And there you have it - no consensually produced photos, no current AI
scandal.
It really is that simple. Glad to see you finally get it.
> So is the gun shop owner guilty of
> killing a man simply for selling the gun that did the killing to the
> actual killer? After all if he did not sell the gun then that gun
> would not have killed the person.
I'll play - but is the gun in question so lethal that it is only
intended to be used by a specific individual, and is its transfer
expected to cause damage?
If so, why even produce such a gun - or not have it immediately
destroyed?
> >> >Barba's was a stupid mistake - but unless you have specific
> >> >information about the original uploader, you're just "assuming" about
> >> >his motives for doing so.
>
> >> If you think that I am assuming nefarious intentions with no basis
> >> then we can agree to disagree. Others can decide on what the likely
> >> motives for posting these pictures were.
>
> >That's exactly what I think - and it turns out I was right.
>
> As I said others can decide for themselves what the likely motives
> were for posting those pictures especially the bogus fellatio ones.
I understood the first time - you don't have any specific info or
personal knowledge about the uploader. Got it, no problem.
> >> >Do you have specific information about the original uploader?
>
> >> No, other than whoever did it is a jerk IMO.
>
> >Subjective.
>
> That is why I put "IMO". But that for belaboring the obvious.
Hey - I was agreeing with you; and it wasn't belaboring, it was just a
single word.
> And all your opinions about Antonella are also subjective.
I never suggested otherwise.
> >> >> You don't agree?
>
> >> >I agree that Barba was very foolish for allowing herself to be
> >> >photographed in such compromising positions
>
> Subjective.
It may be subjective, but given that you just wrote;
"..it is common for college students her age to do equally stupid
things.
"
I tend to think you agree with my position, no?
> >> Hate to break it to you Dave but it is common for college students her
> >> age to do equally stupid things. I don't think that it should be
> >> grounds for expelling her from the competition or even holding it
> >> against her when voting.
>
> >Uhuh - "And what if the other kids jump off a bridge, Anotella?"
> >Hate to break it to you Ryan, but there are thousands of college
> >students her age who do not find it common to pose for photos of
> >themselves in compromising positions. Colleges are full of them.
>
> Hate to break it to you Dave but just as you were unaware that nipple
> exposure is commonly seen in publications like SI you also are not
> aware of how common the kind of behavior that Antonella engages in
> occurring in college students. You see that behavior as more
> objectionable than I do. So be it.
You're right about SI - I'm not a subscriber nor interested enough in
the pub to look into it much further; but we will have to disagree on
the college behavior.
While you could very well be right, and there are thousands of college
chicks out there just waiting for the next photo-op to flash their
hoots, I tend to think the majority of girls have a little more
respect for themselves than that - and given that AI is in it's sixth
year, the numerous contestants that have made it to the Top 24, and
that only a couple of female contestants have been found to have posed
for similar types of material, the odds seem to be in my favor.
> >> And I *suspect* that many of the contestants (including possibly past
> >> winners) have had equally embarrassing moments that just happen to
> >> not be made public on the internet.
>
> >Interesting - now *you* are disparaging additional contestants to
> >validate your own biased suspicions.
>
> Interesting how you are distorting my comments. Since I did not name
> anyone specifically I am not disparaging anyone in particular.
Distorting? You wrote;
"I *suspect* that many of the contestants (including possibly past
winners) have had equally embarrassing moments..."
I never stated that your comment was directed to any one person
specifically, you just did - If anyone is attempting to distort
another's comments, it's you.
> >Disparaging others in order to further your own cause seems very
> >similar to what you're objecting to with regards to the Barba-photo
> >uploader - No?
>
> No, but nice try Dave. What do you think "my cause" is Dave?
Yes - it is exactly, what you're doing. You're attempting to lessen
Barba's responsibility by amplifying those of the photo-uploader.
Your "cause" seems to be one of proving your point(s) as more
substantiated than my own - am I wrong?
> >> > - and the original
> >> >uploader(s) could be held responsible if Barba can prove that any
> >> >damages have been incurred; since she's still on the show, no mention
> >> >of the photos have been made on the show, and her singing seems to be
> >> >more damaging than any of the photos - I really don't think she'll
> >> >have a case. Do you see any indication that the photos have caused
> >> >her damage?
>
> >> I will let an attorney deal with that issue if and when Antonella
> >> decides to file a suit which I hope she does if for no other reason
> >> than to deter others from pulling similar stunts.
>
> >Ain't gonna happen.
>
> You are probably right. But I hope she does.
Oh man, I sure don't - I've already had more than enough 'News'
coverage and reporting of this skanky little chick.
> >The poor kid can't sing
>
> Subjective. Of course I suspect that you see your comments as factual
> and mine as subjective. I happen to think that she can sing fairly
> well and would sing much better if she could overcome her nervousness.
I don't mind clarifying - Barba is a decent singer, that's what got
her where she is now; but (IMO) she's not near good enough to earn a
professional living by doing so, and is what will ultimately be cause
for her elimination.
> >and will most likely depend on her looks for
> >professional advancement for the rest of her life
>
> Subjective.
Aww, look at you.
> >- the "exposure"
> >she's received from these villainously uploaded photos is probably the
> >best thing that could have happened to someone like her.
>
> Subjective. But your hostility toward this woman is coming out loud
> and clear. Thanx for playing.
"Hostility"? LOL! Actually, I've been really enjoying our back and
forth here.
(Cue Ryan to ...) Seewattamean? ;-)
> Ryan
CatNipped
news:l5pcu2de9mj2vp6dl...@4ax.com...
> On 28 Feb 2007 19:22:48 -0800, "daveparks" <davepa...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> I hardly think that the "wrong" of her having the pictures taken
>>> privately compares with the "wrong" of posting them on the internet in
>>> order to trash her. IOW the respective "wrongs" are hardly morally
>>> equivalent. One could be considered a minor peccadillo; the other a
>>> serious transgression.
>>
>>The way I see it - the woman/girl has the power to simply say, "No".
>>'No' to unwanted advances.
>>'No' to drinking alcohol.
>>'No' to having her photo taken in compromising positions.
>>
>>Do you not agree?
>
> pictures put her in a compromising position unless she realized that
> they would be posted on the internet.
OK, Ryan, I was with you all the way to this point. Anybody alive today,
*ESPECIALLY* a young person, *HAS* to realize that any picture taken of you
can and probably will end up on the internet. Is it right? Not
necessarily. But it *IS* just a fact of life in today's society and if you
don't know this and take this into account then that makes you elligible for
a Darwin Award.
Hugs,
CatNipped
> You see I bet there are
> countless women who have equally provocative pictures taken that never
> end up on the internet.
>
> So your comparison to unwanted advances and drinking alcohol is not a
> fair one IMO. The pictures were no more compromising than pictures
> taken for SI swimsuit edition. They became compromising in the context
> in which they were posted on the internet especially along with the
> bogus fellatio photos.
>
> Antonella made a mistake in having the pictures taken but the mistake
> was mainly seen in retrospect and could not reasonably be predicted.
> Whoever posted those pictures did it with malice and evil intent.
>
> So one was a silly mistake seen best in retrospect. The other was
> arguably criminal conduct and the person who did it could be held
> liable in a court of law.
>
> You don't agree?
daveparks
> "Starbuck" <Starb...@BogusDomain.com> wrote in message
You do have a good point about football being so violent - that's why
America should strive to emulate the rest of the world by switching
from the very violent and agressive Pro-Football, to the much more
peaceful and passive sport of Pro-Soccer.
Hooligans for everyone!!
CatNipped
news:1172783158.3...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
LOL! I get the allusion, but actually in the case of soccer it is the
*fans* who are violent! ;>
But it's not the violence I was objecting to (although I do) in that post.
It was the *acceptance* of violence and the *horror* of sex / the human body
that is so warped and out of proportion in the US (but then again, our
country was founded by puritans who thought it was acceptable to burn a
woman at the stake but not to see her bare ankle - did they cover their
children's eyes at the point when the clothes were burned off). Other
countries routinely show bare breasts without permanently harming the
psyches of their children.
Hugs,
CatNipped
CatNipped
news:ipgeu2habm8bp4s5h...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 14:59:49 -0600, "CatNipped" <lcr...@houston.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>><ry...@idol.com> wrote in message
>>news:l5pcu2de9mj2vp6dl...@4ax.com...
>>> On 28 Feb 2007 19:22:48 -0800, "daveparks" <davepa...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I hardly think that the "wrong" of her having the pictures taken
>>>>> privately compares with the "wrong" of posting them on the internet in
>>>>> order to trash her. IOW the respective "wrongs" are hardly morally
>>>>> equivalent. One could be considered a minor peccadillo; the other a
>>>>> serious transgression.
>>>>
>>>>The way I see it - the woman/girl has the power to simply say, "No".
>>>>'No' to unwanted advances.
>>>>'No' to drinking alcohol.
>>>>'No' to having her photo taken in compromising positions.
>>>>
>>>>Do you not agree?
>>>
>>> I agree that a woman has the power to say no. I don't see where those
>>> pictures put her in a compromising position unless she realized that
>>> they would be posted on the internet.
>>
>>OK, Ryan, I was with you all the way to this point. Anybody alive today,
>>*ESPECIALLY* a young person, *HAS* to realize that any picture taken of
>>you
>>can and probably will end up on the internet.
>
> *may* appear on the internet depending on who has access to the
> picture. But all pictures taken of you will not probably end up on the
> internet.
Um, haven't been on the 'net very long, Ryan? Or does you mommy have 'Net
Nanny installed on your computer?
Really, my gawd Ryan, do you know how many "Girls Gone Wild" sites there are
out there? Has every girl had the URL of a picture of her embarrassing
picture plastered on every news outlet in the country? No, but that doesn't
mean there *ISN'T* a picture of her somewhere on the 'net - just that we
don't care about it unless she's deemed newsworthy in some manner.
Even my 7 year old granddaughter knows enough to beware of what might get
posted on the internet now-a-days! Sheesh!
I don't agree that Antonella should suffer any bad consequences from letting
her picture be taken, I'm only saying that it's a bit disingenuous to think
that she didn't know that those pictures could be posted for the whole world
to see (personally, I don't think she really cares, kids now-a-days have
different sensibilities about things, and that may not be a *BAD* thing).
Hugs,
CatNipped
> If Antonella did not try out for AI those pictures likely would not
> have appeared on the internet. I think they appeared in order to cause
> her pain and embarrassment during her competition. Cue Dave to ask for
> proof of my assertion.
>
> I expect most young people who have their picture taken don't think
> about the picture being put on the internet.
>
>
>
>> Is it right? Not
>>necessarily. But it *IS* just a fact of life in today's society and if
>>you
>>don't know this and take this into account then that makes you elligible
>>for
>>a Darwin Award.
>
> Sorry but everyone is not as malicious as the person who posted these
> pictures of Antonella.
>
> Ryan
daveparks
> On 1 Mar 2007 12:57:38 -0800, "daveparks" <daveparks...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Oh man, I sure don't - I've already had more than enough 'News'
> >coverage and reporting of this skanky little chick.
> >> and clear. Thanx for playing.
>
> >"Hostility"? LOL! Actually, I've been really enjoying our back and
> >forth here.
>
> >(Cue Ryan to ...) Seewattamean? ;-)
>
How so - or are you again making distortions?
I'm guessing the lattter - and I've been right about you before.
daveparks
> "daveparks" <daveparks...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I got back on a trip to Amsterdam not too long ago; you're SO on the
money about the boob thing - I took pics of some of the posted street
ads and get this .. "The "Prostitute Information Center".
While I'm against the moral police as much as anyone - I really don't
want the gubment involved in any of my personal goings on - which is
exactly what's going to happen, and has been initiated or attempted in
Congress already through anti-this and anti-that BS legislation.
Using your Jackson example; did you see how fast law makers dropped
the less important stuff; like the Mid-East/China/N.Korea/etc. in
order to focus on the more pertinent issue of Janet's exposed
pancake? How about the hubbub over video-game violence? Or the
"Super Secret" hack to make your little 'Sim' characers bump nasties?
My thinking is, the jackballs in Congress wouldn't have excuses for
ignoring the real problems, if people simply used 'common sense'.
Don't want the Pugs screaming about censorship? Keep your nipples to
yourself.
Don't want the Dems policing the internet? Police your own flippin
kid and I'l do the same.
Don't want the media making a big dang deal about your skinny little
ass in a Veteran's memorial? Don't pose for the photos.
> Hugs,
Thank you so much, CN!
That's a LOT better than Rudd's "Let's be friends" thing - or some
loser's hilarious "Bragging Rights Champ" shtick. :-D
> CatNipped
CatNipped
Oh gawd, yes! I *SO* don't want anyone telling me what my morals should
be - the far right seem as oblivious as the far left to the fact that most
of America is parked somewhere in the middle. Not that I'm taking sides,
but the best campaign slogan I remember was countering the "family values"
crowd with "It's about the economy, stupid!" Stay out of my bedroom and my
bank account and we'll be friends! The problem was it was so easy to stir
people up over easy-to-explain "good vs. evil" sh*t than our policies in the
Middle East!
That siad, I have always lived my life with the theory that, if I wouldn't
want my mother, my husband, my boss, or my pastor to see it, then I just
won't write it (photograph it, etc.). If I were ever to run for president
they would have a very hard time raking my mud! ;>
Hugs,
CatNipped
daveparks
Oh yeah? Then I wonder what they'd all say about you running around
and "Hugging' virtually everyone online?
SO busted.
> Hugs,
>
> CatNipped
daveparks
> On 1 Mar 2007 14:12:32 -0800, "daveparks" <daveparks...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >> But your hostility toward this woman is coming out loud
> >> >> and clear.
>
> >skanky little chick.
>
> >How so?
>
> Dave looks like he is in a bit of denial. Or maybe he thinks is
> showing Antonella love by calling her a "skanky little chick":-)
Are you implying that my describing Barba as 'skanky" is a display of
"hostility"?
LOL!! I assure you, it's not :-).
So your weak little talking points failed to pan out, and now you're
focusing on me? Aww, how flattering!
star...@yahoo.com
First is the Frenchie Davis precedent. The show set the precedent
(unless you want to make the claim that they only tossed Frenchie
because she was black and fat) that racy photos are grounds (and even
more so than drugs [Bo] or assaulting your girlfriend [Scott Sabol])
for disqualification on "morals clause" grounds.
So I have no sympathy for Cowell's stand on that end.
The other thing is: I can't think that Antonella is not one of the
top vote getters, _BECAUSE_ of the racy photos and the like. Think:
She's probably got more "buzz" than all the other contestants put
together (and, for those thinking of negative buzz, when they get to
voting people off the show rather than voting people to advance, then
call me on negative buzz!), she's probably going to be the only eye-
candy left real damn soon, she's VFTW (they even dumped Sundance, to
an extent)...
Right now, if it were a legit vote, she'd probably be damn near
winning. DialIdol has her third among the women, though not outside
where they still put her in some danger of being tossed. (DI only has
Melinda and LaKisha safe.)
Mike
The Usual Suspect
> On Feb 28, 1:14?pm, "The Usual Suspect" <ludmillia...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 1:06 pm, r...@idol.com wrote:
>
> > > On 28 Feb 2007 12:59:33 -0800, "daveparks" <daveparks...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > it's not Barba's fault she was photographed with
> > > >her hoots half hanging out; it's whoever released the photos.
>
> > > Not quite. It *is* her fault that she was photographed assuming that
> > > she knew that the pictures were being taken.
>
> > > ?It is *not* her fault that these private photos were released on the
> > > internet. And without the photos being published on the internet we
> > > would not be having this discussion.
>
> > > I completely agree with Ryan S on this matter despite what the "moral
> > > police" have to say.
>
> > > Ryan
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > 2006 ATAI Bragging Rights Champion
>
> > kick one out, kick them all out. ?Didn't they do that to a black
> > girl? ?Why does the white girl get a break? ?Consistency or
> > hypocrisy. ?This is akin to those infamous AP photos after hurricane
> > Katrina, captioned "looting" for Black people "finding food" for
> > whites.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well for one, Frenchie's flab-bags were unsheathed and out there for
> all the world to see. I have yet to see a real nude photo of Barba
> from all the different things that have been posted of her or
> purporting to be her, so quit trying to stir up a race war where there
> isn't one.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, shut up. The girl was photo'd going down on someone. Plus, I'd
love to see her skanky, retarded ass kicked for disrespecting a
memorial for the war dead. There is a race war and you know it.
The Usual Suspect
> On Feb 28, 4:14?pm, "The Usual Suspect" <ludmillia...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The only thing that this Moral Deputy Sherrif has to say is: ?If you
> > kick one out, kick them all out. ?Didn't they do that to a black
> > girl? ?Why does the white girl get a break? ?Consistency or
> > hypocrisy. ?This is akin to those infamous AP photos after hurricane
> > Katrina, captioned "looting" for Black people "finding food" for
> > whites.-
>
> 2 but if Frenchie was booted for a similar thing then they either need
> to boot Antonella or give Frenchie another chance to win on another
> season (unless, of course, she's doing better WITHOUT benefit of their
> help).
Thank you, but the apologists are full of excuses for girl 2.
flkofcguls
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well then go fight in it. Maybe we'll get lucky and you won't make it
back.
The Usual Suspect
> On Mar 1, 5:16?pm, "The Usual Suspect" <ludmillia...@hotmail.com>
> > > from all the different things that have been posted of her or
> > > purporting to be her, so quit trying to stir up a race war where there
> > > isn't one.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > love to see her skanky, retarded ass kicked for disrespecting a
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well then go fight in it. Maybe we'll get lucky and you won't make it
>
> - Show quoted text -
You, apparently are too uno-whatless to actually engage in any war,
except on the internet, and with anyone who doesn't agree with your
"politically incorrect" and stale bullshit. So STFU.
Giggles
"flkofcguls" <flkof...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1172827098.7...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 1, 5:16?pm, "The Usual Suspect" <ludmillia...@hotmail.com>
Looks like your fanclub is growing. Aren't you lucky. lol Or maybe it's
just one disgruntled ex-boyfriend with many names.
The Usual Suspect
> "flkofcguls" <flkofcg...@aol.com> wrote in message
> just one disgruntled ex-boyfriend with many names.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maybe you should stop projecting your pathetic newsgroup
"relationships" onto others. You is killfiled, troll.
Giggles
"The Usual Suspect" <ludmil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172896841.2...@31g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Well hot damn! The troll killfiled me! Drinks on the house! Do y'all take
your Nyquil straight up or on the rocks?
fille
<snip>
they would have a very hard time raking my mud! ?;>
>
> Hugs,
>
> CatNipped
Shouldn't that be "sifting your litter"? Hee hee :-)
fille
<snip>
> But at the time that she had the pictures taken was she aware of the
> need to prevent the pictures from being posted for the whole world to
> see? Did she have the wherewithal to think, for example "I better not
> have these pictures taken because I am trying out for AI and my
> boyfriend may get pissed when I dump him and post them for the world
> to see"?
>
> I don't begrudge Antonella for having those pictures taken. I grant
> her some slack for not seeing how damaging they could be to her. It is
> easy for you and others to bash her for not recognizing the danger. I
> am not as judgmental. I put the primary blame on the person uploading
> the real and bogus photos and not on Antonella who I see as a victim.
> But we can agree to disagree.
I pretty much agree with what you said here, Ryan. I guess the only
thing I disagree with is the fact that in this day and age of media
exploitation I'm surprised if anyone doesn't take into account the
fact that anything they do can turn up online if it falls into the
"wrong" hands (scorned ex's, bitter friends etc.) and should be more
wary of what pictures are taken of them. However, I also realize she
is much younger than me and perhaps didn't give it as much thought as
I might at my age.
Starbuck
>
>I've been on the net longer than you I bet. I began on the net in the
>late 80's *before* it became commercially available when there was no
>world wide web and it was necessary to use UNIX commands to navigate
>around.
>It was pretty primitive back then compared to today.
Yep, I remember using the program "tin". I remember when there
was a whopping 3,000 USENET newsgroups, and we thought that was a lot.
There was one ISP in all of northern California back then.
*$
The Usual Suspect
> "The Usual Suspect" <ludmillia...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172896841.2...@31g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Y'all? Go to bed. Stop drinkin' y'all's moonshine. This is no
troll. I simply don't like white-wring newsgroup bullies who get
snarky and attack anyone who brings up their opinions about race, or
any issue that they don't agree with. This topic is over. Move on.
Giggles
So you are a liar and a troll, as well as an idiot. Perhaps you should move
on...to the nearest mental institution. Or maybe that's where you are
posting from.
The Usual Suspect
> "The Usual Suspect" <ludmillia...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172973289.4...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text
Wow, internet silliness. No wonder you call yourself "giggles". Ta
Ta, fool.