#296888 - 12/04/2007 20:45
Don Imus
|
old hand
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 931
Loc: Minnetonka, MN
|
At the risk of getting flamed, am I the only one that thinks the amount of coverage the whole Don Imus "scandal" is getting is absolutely ridiculous? First of all, this (and Anna Nicole Smith for that matter) is not real news...... Secondly, if people don't like what he has to say, don't listen to him...(I personally don't listen to him at all, he seems like a cranky old man if you ask me) i thought that is what freedom of speech was all about. what people don't realize is that because of all this (and his subsequent firing) he will probably get some outrageously high priced salary from Sirius because of all the controversy.....Correct me if I am wrong, but did all of this stem from just the one comment he made? This just seems like political correctness gone terribly awry.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296889 - 12/04/2007 21:58
Re: Don Imus
[Re: burdell1]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
While I find Imus (and his recent comments) despicable, I applaud him for refusing to play the "apologize to Jesse Jackson / Al Sharpton" game. He never said anything to either of them that he should have to apologize for. Frankly, though, I couldn't care less about any of it.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296890 - 12/04/2007 22:49
Re: Don Imus
[Re: burdell1]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/06/1999
Posts: 7868
|
Don Imus....Don Imus.... ahh, there we are, a tiny story about him, buried below much more important things.
I stopped paying attention to CNN, FOX, and whatever other US ratings based "news" services years ago. The news services PBS offers, along with the BBC are quite good if you want news, and not ratings attracting stories about some Anna lady.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296891 - 12/04/2007 23:29
Re: Don Imus
[Re: burdell1]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
.....This just seems like political correctness gone terribly awry.
I don't know that I have heard more than a total of 30 seconds of Imus. I have devoted a lot more attention to the work of Kurt Vonnegut (Kurt now also out of a job).
But to your "correctness" point:
So are you suggesting that, if you ran a radio network, you would be OK with keeping on-air personalities who call women "Ho" on the payroll?
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296892 - 13/04/2007 01:18
Re: Don Imus
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Apparently the objection is to white men using the word. Personally, I don't give two turds about it all, but I do find it interesting that just about anything in the world can be said in the media except for something like this. Don't get me wrong (PLEASE!), I'm not defending this guy and I find what he said not funny, if that was his intention, and offensive from the clips I've heard. And I amit I havn't cared enough about the whole matter to actually listen to more than sound bytes. Or more accurately, I havn't been quick enough to change the dial. But, to be honest, I find a lot of what I hear on radio and TV to be offensive and I guess I've learned to deal with it. Feminists can say that consentual sex with my wife is a subversive form of rape. People who don't like being judged on their behavior can find no limit to the ways they'll offend my Christianity and find no ends in their efforts to desecrate any religious symbols I hold dear. Nutjobs can state as fact that Jews within my government orchestrated 9-11 and even planted expolosives to bring down "building 5".
I'd almost rather see Rosie lose her job over comments she's made, but a) I don't watch any of thst stuff anyway so what does it matter what I think? and b) supposedly she pulls in the ratings so she'll keep her job. Al Sharpton is the one that really should be appologizing for comments he's made over the years, but that'll never happen.
I'm still wondering why I clicked on this thread to begin with. I doubt Imus will even make a 30-second segment on VH1's "I Love the 2000s!!" in 3 years.
OT A more interesting conversation would be: Is it wise to rely on BBC and PBS for the bulk of your news coverage? BBC has admitted to their leftward slant and stong anti-US bias (although they let it be clear that they have no intention of doing anything about it) and PBS isn't a whole lot better (although I do love how in-depth they go into subjects). I read BBC online and occationally catch an interview show on PBS but I wouldn't want to rely on them too much.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296893 - 13/04/2007 01:26
Re: Don Imus
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
...snip.... I'm still wondering why I clicked on this thread to begin with. ...snip....
Well, to cut to the chase:
If you ran a radio network, would you be OK with keeping on-air personalities who call women "Ho" on the payroll?
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296894 - 13/04/2007 01:57
Re: Don Imus
[Re: burdell1]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 23/09/2000
Posts: 3608
Loc: Minnetonka, MN
|
Yeah I am sick of hearing about it. I can't believe he got fired and the hold your wee for a wii morons didn't but whatever i'm sure xm or sirius will pick him up.
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296895 - 13/04/2007 02:33
Re: Don Imus
[Re: msaeger]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12341
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Quote:
Yeah I am sick of hearing about it. I can't believe he got fired and the hold your wee for a wii morons didn't but whatever i'm sure xm or sirius will pick him up.
I'm pretty sure they got fired. They weren't charged with anything, though.
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296896 - 13/04/2007 06:23
Re: Don Imus
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 18/01/2000
Posts: 5683
Loc: London, UK
|
Quote:
If you ran a radio network, would you be OK with keeping on-air personalities who call women "Ho" on the payroll?
If it kept the advertising revenue coming in, then yes, probably...
_________________________
-- roger
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296897 - 13/04/2007 12:56
Re: Don Imus
[Re: burdell1]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
The thing is, this is not the first time something like this has happened on his show. It happens semi-regularly, although this is the first time, I believe, that Imus has done it himself; usually it is his staff.
I'd be inclined to believe that Westwood has been looking for a way to fire him for a while. While they could certainly fire him for no cause, they might be interested in avoiding a scandal on their part, and they might be trying to avoid some sort of termination clause in his contract, though that's pure speculation.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296898 - 13/04/2007 13:12
Re: Don Imus
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Apparently the objection is to white men using the word.
It has (virtually) nothing to do with who uses the word, it has to do with context. Although I'm not sure what "word" you're referring to. "Jigaboo"? That wasn't Imus's quote, but one of his cronies. Regardless, I can use the word "jigaboo" or "nigger" all I want to, as long as I'm referring to the word, but as soon as I use it to refer to a person, that's when one gets in trouble.
Quote:
Feminists can say that consentual sex with my wife is a subversive form of rape. ... Nutjobs can state as fact that Jews within my government orchestrated 9-11 and even planted expolosives to bring down "building 5".
These are both specific allegations, not ad-hominem attacks. You may disagree with them, even vehemently, but they are political viewpoints, not verbal assault.
Quote:
People who don't like being judged on their behavior can find no limit to the ways they'll offend my Christianity and find no ends in their efforts to desecrate any religious symbols I hold dear.
The first part is, again, political (or religious) viewpoint. The latter would be more along the line of calling someone a "nappy-headed ho", but I can't think of a media outlet that "desecrates religious symbols" of any nature. (Maybe the cartoons of Mohammed.) Are you talking about stuff like the chocolate crucifix recently? You do realize that those things only get this news attention because there was some gigantic outcry preventing those people from displaying that stuff, and they usually succeed. On the other hand, many of the things you consider to be blasphemous the artists consider to be quite the opposite. The biggest example I can think of is The Last Temptation of Christ.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296899 - 13/04/2007 13:49
Re: Don Imus
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
old hand
Registered: 17/01/2003
Posts: 998
|
I did like the Trump/Rosie battle. He is probably a major Ahole (they both seem to be) but it was kind of cool hearing someone say exactly what is on their mind and then not hearing some BS apology.
It’s good to be king of your own empire. He didn't have to worry about anyone firing him.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296900 - 13/04/2007 13:54
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
The thing is, this is not the first time something like this has happened on his show. It happens semi-regularly, although this is the first time, I believe, that Imus has done it himself; usually it is his staff.
Bzzzt. He has a long history of racially charged rhetoric on his show, from calling PBS's Gwen Iffil a "cleaning lady" to calling a black NYT reporter a "quota hire." His producer/sidekick was the one who did the dirty work on the Hillary Clinton "corn rows and gold teeth" comments, but Imus certainly laughed along with him.
It's also important to note we're not just talking about racism here, we're talking about misogyny. These were women being degraded. Many were black, some were white, but they're all "hos" as far as Imus is concerned.
I will agree that this is not the worst thing ever uttered on talk radio; far from it. This specific episode was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Things like this are indeed said on many other radio shows, TV shows, etc, and those who use racism, misogyny, etc. to get ratings should be on notice. Free speech must be protected, but protecting free speech doesn't mean advertisers are required to provide a platform for this kind of destructive, divisive trash. Imus is certainly free to find a new home, and if he wants to, he will. And he's welcome to continue his unique brand of shock jockery and preach to anyone who will listen. Assuming he can find enough advertisers who don't mind endorsing this garbage, he'll be just fine. Actually, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Neil Boortz, and friends have far exceeded Imus' vitriol, so maybe their advertisers could help him out.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296901 - 13/04/2007 23:24
Re: Don Imus
[Re: Roger]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you ran a radio network, would you be OK with keeping on-air personalities who call women "Ho" on the payroll?
If it kept the advertising revenue coming in, then yes, probably...
A candid, simple answer. So, if I can restate this, assuming "advertising revenue" == money:
If you ran a radio network, you would be OK with your employees calling women whores as long as you profited.
I am curious to know what might influence your formula. "Women" is pretty general. How about: If you ran a radio network, you would be OK with your employees calling women you know (blood relations, close friends) whores as long as you profited. Does that fly?
Shiting gears, I have to think of other things your on-air personalities might say. How can I approach this without cringing? Let's see: If you ran a radio network, you would be OK with your employees calling certain people "darkies" as long as you profited. Does the formula change?
Insofar as I may be one of the biggest sexist pigs I know, I have to be careful, judgement-wise. Perhaps I only pride myself in knowing that sometimes it is smart to keep one's mouth shut. But the ease with which frank misogyny has slipped into our culture and communications gives me the fucking creeps. Among many other things in our culture that give me the creeps.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296902 - 14/04/2007 04:43
Re: Don Imus
[Re: jimhogan]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
Quote:
Shiting gears...
Ouch.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296903 - 14/04/2007 05:54
Re: Don Imus
[Re: Cybjorg]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Shiting gears...
Ouch.
I might have to left that typo stand, postoority-wise.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296904 - 14/04/2007 06:06
Re: Don Imus
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 18/01/2000
Posts: 5683
Loc: London, UK
|
(Cue sound of hasty back-pedalling) Quote:
If you ran a radio network, you would be OK with your employees calling women whores as long as you profited.
To be honest, when I wrote that, I was being flippant, as I'm sure you might have guessed. Personally, I wouldn't be happy with that kind of mysogynistic behaviour (or other offensive behaviour) on the part of my employees.
I might put up with a certain amount of "banter", as long as it didn't directly affect the ability of the person concerned, or of those around them to do their jobs. Where you draw the line is always difficult in this situation, and it becomes even murkier when you're talking about "shock-jocks", whose entire raison-d'etre is this "banter".
I think the point I was trying to make was this: I'm not the owner of a radio station, but if I was the kind of person to run a successful radio station, then I'd be the kind of person who looked to keep the advertisers happy, not vocal members of the public.
_________________________
-- roger
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296905 - 14/04/2007 09:09
Re: Don Imus
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Quote:
If you ran a radio network, you would be OK with your employees calling certain people "darkies" as long as you profited. Does the formula change?
FWIW, not having encountered much of what is presumably saturation coverage of this crisis in US news media, I thought that that was the point of this kerfuffle: that "nappy-headed hos" is race- as well as sex-specific, and nobody would be complaining if he'd said, say, "empty-headed harlots" -- yet would be complaining nearly as loudly if he'd said "biatches" or even "sisters".
It does all slightly remind me of the kerfuffle some years ago over Richard Blackwood (a sort of Happy Shopper Will Smith) referring to HM The Queen as a "bitch". The Broadcasting Standards Council didn't uphold the complaint, on the basis that the potential insult "was using the term as it is currently used, for example, in British and American rap music simply to mean 'woman' and not as a term of abuse".
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296906 - 14/04/2007 10:12
Re: Don Imus
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14496
Loc: Canada
|
Quote:
"was using the term as it is currently used, for example, in British and American rap music simply to mean 'woman' and not as a term of abuse".
Yes, because what one chooses to use for terms of song/speech would obviously never affect their outlook on life, or how they look at the average b*tch on the street, let alone HRH QE2.
Ugh I felt sick even writing that parody -- I personally don't listen to rap "music" if I can help it.
Cheers
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296907 - 14/04/2007 13:06
Re: Don Imus
[Re: Roger]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
it becomes even murkier when you're talking about "shock-jocks"
This is the part of the story that bothers me the most. I'm not sure what part of Imus's show is supposed to be shock-jock-ery. The times I've watched it (a friend of mine is/was a big fan), it consisted of interviews with legitimate interview subjects (that is to say, John McCain instead of Ron Jeremy), in-studio music performances (like Willie Nelson), and the same sort of "witty" banter you hear on every wacky morning zoo-crew drivetime radio program (which is to say, listening to people who think that they're funny when they're really just not). There never seemed to be anything intentionally offensive about any of it, except for the occasional times when Imus's or the crew's personal prejudices came to the surface during their banter. That is to say, you listen to Stern (if you have to), he's consistently offensive all the time. He's obviously trying to push buttons all of the time. On Imus, it happened semi-regularly, but not with any sort of consistency, which tends to imply, at least in my mind, that those statements weren't meant to be provocative; they were meant to be funny. Of course, they weren't any funnier than anything else they said, because it was equivalent to everything else they said; they just happened to showcase personal prejudices.
Again, it's all about context.
Anyway, this whole thing about him being a "shock-jock" seems to be a reason to excuse his poor behavior. Honestly, I couldn't care less if he gets fired or not. I don't think it has anything to do with anyone except his employer, him, and his employees. (On the other hand, I do relish the thought of him not being on the air so that I don't have to listen to my friend go on and on about him. I'll probably still get the anti-Stern rants, tho.) Anyway, regardless of his employment status, the excuse that this sort of behavior is okay, as long as you have a reason for it, or a facade to hide behind, is indicative to me how many people are really just fine with racism (not that I'm trying to imply that you are), and that bothers me more than the individual spoutings of a crotchety old man.
Edited by wfaulk (14/04/2007 13:12)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296908 - 15/04/2007 17:02
Re: Don Imus
[Re: burdell1]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 19/09/2002
Posts: 2494
Loc: East Coast, USA
|
Don Imus insulted my hard working woman's basketball team, and I only slightly care. The more I hear higher-ups forced to denounce him, the less I care. The officials HAVE to say how upset they are with him or risk sounding weak and racist themselves. When I heard former president Bill Clinton denounce Imus, I ceased caring all together.
Imus was picking on the underdog, trying to be funny, and had a slip of the toung. He appologized in person to the team, so it's done. A big fat F to the media, Al Sharpton, and all the other band wagoners who want raitings by causing a stir about this.
No publicity is bad publicity. I wonder how much CBS and, dare I say, my university actually like the publicity. I'm glad people have forgotten (or never knew) who Imus insulted; don't get any more mud on them.
_________________________
- FireFox31 110gig MKIIa (30+80), Eutronix lights, 32 meg stacked RAM, Filener orange gel lens, Greenlights Lit Buttons green set
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296909 - 15/04/2007 17:41
Re: Don Imus
[Re: FireFox31]
|
addict
Registered: 02/08/2004
Posts: 434
Loc: Helsinki, Finland
|
Perhaps the biggest loser from this whole debacle is the governor of NJ. Why he was going to the Imus/Team meeting, I don't know. Wear your seatbelt folks!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296910 - 16/04/2007 01:23
Re: Don Imus
[Re: FireFox31]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5549
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
I am pleased that nobody in this thread has jumped in to say that Imus' free speech rights have been impinged upon.
This ridiculous tempest in a teapot has nothing to do with free speech. Imus is free to be as provocative and insulting as he wants whenever he wants to do so, but CBS has no obligation whatsoever to provide him with a soapbox from which to dispense his drivel.
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296911 - 16/04/2007 02:28
Re: Don Imus
[Re: petteri]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 19/09/2002
Posts: 2494
Loc: East Coast, USA
|
Quote:
Wear your seatbelt folks!
Seriously. Wow, I didn't know that's where he was going.
For those who are a little less Jersey, Governor Jon Corzine was being driven on the Garden State Parkway when a traffic mishap in front of his SUV caused it to get in an accident. The three other people in his vehicle were not badly hurt, but the Governor suffered a broken leg and is in pretty bad condition in the hospital. He wasn't wearing his seatbelt.
From what I hear, his SUV had red/blue police lights on while driving in the slow lane. They came up on a Bronco who, dutifully, tried to pull off the road. The Bronco hit the road-edge dirt too hard, overreacted and pulled back on to the road. Some other stuff happened and the Governor's SUV went off the road.
Not that any of this has anything to do with anything. Just wear your seatbelts. And if you're driving in NJ now (Sunday early am), wear your life jackets (re: flooding).
_________________________
- FireFox31 110gig MKIIa (30+80), Eutronix lights, 32 meg stacked RAM, Filener orange gel lens, Greenlights Lit Buttons green set
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296912 - 16/04/2007 12:19
Re: Don Imus
[Re: FireFox31]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
Imus was picking on the underdog, trying to be funny, and had a slip of the toung. He appologized in person to the team, so it's done. A big fat F to the media, Al Sharpton, and all the other band wagoners who want raitings by causing a stir about this.
It's not just a slip of the tongue, though. The dude's show has been chock full of cheap shots at women, blacks, jews, and any number of other minorities for a long time. The number one rule of satire is that you use it to disparage the haves, not the have-nots.
Furthermore, Al Sharpton and the media only descended on this issue after it was already being condemned and promoted by other black/womens rights groups. They did not create this controversy, Imus did. This was not his worst offense, not by a long shot, and it's no worse than what others put on the airwaves, but sometimes when you roll the dice, you seven out.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296913 - 17/04/2007 00:20
Re: Don Imus
[Re: tonyc]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 19/09/2002
Posts: 2494
Loc: East Coast, USA
|
Sure, he takes cheap shots at everyone. When I say it was a "slip", I'm guessing that he accidentally wasn't careful about choosing his words. As a radio personality in this day and age, that mistake is inexcusable; he should have known better.
Still seems blown out of proportion when higher-ups are seemingly forced to take a stance on the issue. Why can't they say "I'm an old, white, male; Imus wasn't talking to me so I can't comment, but I never liked the jerk anyway."
_________________________
- FireFox31 110gig MKIIa (30+80), Eutronix lights, 32 meg stacked RAM, Filener orange gel lens, Greenlights Lit Buttons green set
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296914 - 17/04/2007 11:13
Re: Don Imus
[Re: FireFox31]
|
old hand
Registered: 14/04/2002
Posts: 1172
Loc: Hants, UK
|
Quote:
Quote:
Wear your seatbelt folks!
Seriously. Wow, I didn't know that's where he was going.
For those who are a little less Jersey, Governor Jon Corzine was being driven on the Garden State Parkway when a traffic mishap in front of his SUV caused it to get in an accident. The three other people in his vehicle were not badly hurt, but the Governor suffered a broken leg and is in pretty bad condition in the hospital. He wasn't wearing his seatbelt.
[..]
It seems celebrities and important people think they are immune to car accidents, especially when they aren't driving. One notable example is in The Apprentice (UK) - the prospective Apprentices NEVER wear belts while being driven around, and even in the taxi interview scene at the end the belt is conspicuously hanging unused in the background.
I have just got into the habit of sitting in a car seat an automatically putting on the belt. I've read discussions about being "flung clear of the crash" or burned alive, but on balance I would rather take the risk, and I have a glass hammer and seatbelt cutter that would give me a chance.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296915 - 18/04/2007 00:14
Re: Don Imus
[Re: FireFox31]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
....Not that any of this has anything to do with anything. Just wear your seatbelts.....
Especially if your driver is doing (as is being reported) 91MPH in a 65 zone.
I suspect the sympathy vote in the next gubernatorial election just dropped by a couple of points.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296916 - 20/04/2007 12:57
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
This is the first time that I've had time to revisit this topic, but based on Bitt's reply, I just wanted to clarify a few things: a) The WTC conspiracy comments made by her were irresponsible and baseless. I feel they do more damage to this country than Imus did. I also don't consider it a political view. It's a matter of fact not ideology. If that's politics, we're fucked. b) The more I've learned about Imus and the more I've heard about the actual event (I admitted I wasn't very informed at the time of my post) the more I'm happy he's been fired. I also like that it was the sponsors that made the push and not the government, although they are investigating him. Maybe I was being petty, but I didn't like how this was going to be some victory for Al Sharpton and Jesse. Both live in glass houses and I feel both have done more damage to blacks in their careers than Imus ever did by telling blacks that they are always victims. c) I don't think I accused media outlets of being offending. I was referring to individuals in the media and some shows. d) If you're on the radio, you can't say nigger, even in context. No license holder that has invited you onto their airwaves will let you out of fear of the FCC. Even in context. But I admit, even when I use it in context, I feel weird saying it and I respect the fact that some blacks don't like me saying it. I don't like it, but I get it. I guess there are just no winners in this whole thing. So him getting fired isn't really anything to get happy about IMO. Hip-hop lyrics, which is treated as some holy ground, and Jesse/Al do more harm on a daily basis, but few will do anything about it. Quote:
On the other hand, many of the things you consider to be blasphemous the artists consider to be quite the opposite. The biggest example I can think of is The Last Temptation of Christ.
I highly doubt that. The opposite of blasphemous would be holy. It's unlikely anyone involved in that project has any concept of holy and if they did, that film wouldn't be an example of it. That film wasn't done to promote any theological view that the creators hold. It was done to question an theology they oppose.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296917 - 20/04/2007 13:46
Re: Don Imus
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Quote:
Quote:
On the other hand, many of the things you consider to be blasphemous the artists consider to be quite the opposite. The biggest example I can think of is The Last Temptation of Christ.
I highly doubt that. The opposite of blasphemous would be holy. It's unlikely anyone involved in that project has any concept of holy and if they did, that film wouldn't be an example of it. That film wasn't done to promote any theological view that the creators hold. It was done to question an theology they oppose.
Have you actually seen the film? I'm not a Christian now, but I was the first time I saw The Last Temptation Of Christ, and I didn't find it at all blasphemous. I thought it was an interesting exercise in the redactive criticism of theology: in other words, exploring how different to the "traditional" story it could have been, while still being consistent with what was written in the Gospels. Christ being tempted by the Devil is in Scripture, so, although it's extrascriptural to have him tempted by the vision of an ordinary "2.2 kids" life with Mary Magdalene, it's not inconsistent.
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296918 - 20/04/2007 13:49
Re: Don Imus
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
The opposite of blasphemous would be holy. It's unlikely anyone involved in that project has any concept of holy and if they did, that film wouldn't be an example of it. That film wasn't done to promote any theological view that the creators hold. It was done to question an theology they oppose.
Have you seen the movie? I'm going to assume not, so I'll summarize very quickly.
Spoiler:
Wrfhf yvirf uvf yvsr onfvpnyyl nf fubja ol gur Ovoyr hc gb n pregnva cbvag. Ng gung cbvag (fbeel, V qba'g erzrzore rkcyvpvgyl jurer vg vf, nf vg'f orra n juvyr fvapr V'ir frra vg, ohg fbzrjurer nebhaq gur qnlf fheebhaqvat uvf pehpvsvkvba), vg gnxrf n ghea. Wrfhf raqf hc abg trggvat pehpvsvrq. Ur zneevrf Znel Zntqnyrar, naq onfvpnyyl unf n unccl, abezny yvsr nf n abezny zna. Vg vf ernyyl na vqlyyvp yvsr. Gura vg vf erirnyrq gung gur cybg bs gur zbivr nsgre gur oernx sebz gur Ovoyr jnf Fngna fubjvat Wrfhf jung uvf yvsr jbhyq or vs ur erabhaprq uvf pynvzf. Gur zbivr raqf jvgu Wrfhf znxvat n pyrne pubvpr gung ur jbhyq engure qvr ba gur pebff va ntbal, fpnerq sbe uvf orvat, va ubcrf gung ur pna fnir znaxvaq, guna fhozvg gb gur rkprrqvatyl fgebat grzcgngvba gb yvir bhg uvf yvsr unccvyl. Juvyr gur fcrpvsvp grzcgngvba qbrfa'g nccrne va gur Ovoyr, pregnvayl Wrfhf jnf fubja gb unir orra grzcgrq, jnf fubja gb unir orra fpnerq, naq jnf fubja gb unir orra va qbhog, nyy sebz gvzr gb gvzr. Gb zr, guvf zbivr znxrf gur nethzrag gung Wrfhf fnpevsvprq uvzfrys va gur snpr bs gur fgebatrfg cbffvoyr grzcgngvba. V pnaabg frr ubj gung pbhyq or pbafvqrerq nalguvat bgure guna ubyl.
Please explain to me how that story is blasphemous, or even questions Christian theology. To me, it seems to affirm it in much more accessible ways than has been done before or since.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296919 - 20/04/2007 13:53
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
That matches my recollection of the film, I saw it when I was still a practising Christian and I remember thinking "how does anyone think this is blasphemous".
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296920 - 20/04/2007 14:15
Re: Don Imus
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
The WTC conspiracy comments made by her were irresponsible and baseless. I feel they do more damage to this country than Imus did.
That is certainly a legitimate argument to make.
Quote:
I also don't consider it a political view. It's a matter of fact not ideology.
She is not accusing a specific set of people, nor is she accusing an entire class of people. It may be a whackjob theory, but it's left to the viewer to investigate its truth, and there is truth to investigate. There is nothing to investigate in regards to "nappy-headed hos". (Well, I suppose you could determine if the women in question had tightly curled hair and were prostitutes, but that's just absurd.) It was a personal attack on specific people. And for no reason.
Quote:
I also like that it was the sponsors that made the push and not the government, although they are investigating him.
I'm not sure I understand your point. The government might fine him for violating decency standards on public airwaves, but they certainly would have no hand in having him fired. In reality, they would probably fine the individual radio stations that broadcast it, as they're the ones responsible for the use of the airwaves they've been loaned. But I can't imagine a situation where the government would push for a private corporation to fire a private citizen, barring some SEC matters.
Quote:
I didn't like how this was going to be some victory for Al Sharpton and Jesse. Both live in glass houses and I feel both have done more damage to blacks in their careers than Imus ever did by telling blacks that they are always victims.
I believe that both Sharpton and Jackson have done both good and bad. Sometimes they do promote an image of victimhood, but, then, other times, they promote an image of self-hate. In reality, they are both political creatures whose interests are probably based in helping, but for whom those interests have long since taken a back seat.
Quote:
If you're on the radio, you can't say nigger, even in context. No license holder that has invited you onto their airwaves will let you out of fear of the FCC. Even in context. But I admit, even when I use it in context, I feel weird saying it and I respect the fact that some blacks don't like me saying it. I don't like it, but I get it.
I agree with you here. (And the FCC shouldn't be judges of intent, they should have specific rules. Of course, they seem to be hypocritical enough to do whichever suits them at the moment.) My point is, the longer people remain scared of a word, on either side, the longer that word retains its power. Words have no more meaning than those we place upon them.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296921 - 20/04/2007 16:11
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Quote:
..She is not accusing a specific set of people, nor is she accusing an entire class of people. .. It was a personal attack on specific people. And for no reason.
True and true. I was just saying that Rosie's comment hopefully isn't considered political.
Quote:
But I can't imagine a situation where the government would push for a private corporation to fire a private citizen, barring some SEC matters.
Again, we're not in disagreement here, I just wasn't clear. The advertisors did not demand he be fired, nor is the FCC. But their actions, cancelling advertising or issuing huge fines, could push a broadcaster to take certain action. I was just relieved that the firing seemed to be because NBC didn't like having a show w. no advertisers and a show that previously had only been known by 0.0001% of the population but now is known by 99% of the population but now as a liability. Basically, public outrage partially and sponsor revolt primarily caused NBC to fire him even though only some of the public was calling for it. The public calls for firing people all the time (Bill Benette, Dan Rather) but usually the people making the calls aren't likely to have been watching the show anyway. So, that leads me back to the sponsors being the major factor here.
Quote:
I believe that both Sharpton and Jackson have done both good and bad. Sometimes they do promote an image of victimhood, but, then, other times, they promote an image of self-hate. In reality, they are both political creatures whose interests are probably based in helping, but for whom those interests have long since taken a back seat.
Guessing people's intentions is too hard to do in my opinion. I just judge their actions and I feel that they have done far more harm than good. I feel they stand for the opposite of what MLK stood for. That's just my opinion. But I don't doubt for a minute that they feel they are doing good. I can say that about most people I disagree with politically for what that's worth.
////
Regarding the Last Temptation of Christ, whether or not you or I think it is blasphemous doesn't negate the fact that people found it so. In fact, you brought up the film AND brought up the fact that it is considered blasphemous by some, not me.  I only questioned the fact that the creators did the film out of a sense of creating something holy or depicting something to be holy.
However... I retract my suspicions of the creators' intent.. See, I told you guessing intentions is too hard! According to wikipedia, it appears that Nikos Kazantzakis' novel was written with the intent of showing that Christ sacrificed during his entire life, not just at the end with his life. Pretty cool concept actually, and it makes sense.
Yet, also, thanks to wikipedia , the blasphemy charge is supported. Blasphemy is the demanation of something holy or sacred. Defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual... The Last Temptation's scene [yelow]depicting Christ imagining himself engaged in sexual activities, a notion that has caused outrage from some Christians and it's clear why. It doesn't jive with what they consider true. And since Christ is holy to Christians, that defamation is upgraded to blasphemy. To further explain, according to Matthew 5:27-32 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' {28} "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Many people interpret this to mean that thinking of adultery, as in the book/film, Christ has defacto commited adultery. Hence, to suggest such a thing is blasphemy. So, Bitt's example is a good one. The film is blasphemous or righteous depending on who looks at it. Personally, I favor Dennis Prager's take on this. He is a Jew and not a Christian, but it seems he sometimes does a better job of actually reading the text rather than rely on Church tradition.. He argues that the text clearly states "adultrey of the heart" and not "adultery of the flesh" and to suggest that God would consider both to be the same defies common sense. Because at that point, if I've already lusted over a woman, I might as well go ahead and do it because I've already commited the act in God's eye. Therefore, inpure thoughts may be unholy thoughts, but they are quite different than impure actions. Impure thoughts are merely unholy and impure actions may be sinful (although not necessarily). /// Fun conversation!
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296922 - 20/04/2007 17:53
Re: Don Imus
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Okay, now we're off on a distant tangent, but I'm curious.
The mere fact of thinking about having sex (perhaps with someone in particular) is enough for adultery to have been committed? But the common modern understanding of adultery has to do with having sex with a person who is married. If neither is married, is it considered adultery? Assuming that neither Mary Magdalene nor Jesus was married, is it still adultery? Or does the prohibition extend to any sex outside marriage?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296923 - 20/04/2007 19:16
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
As I understand it, adultery is where at least one person is married (but obviously not to the person he or she is having sex with.) But it is still sinful or at least unholy and would still be considered contradictory to Christian faith. Yet, some Christians, mistakenly in my opinion, take that Biblical quote about adultery and extend it to anything sinful. So, if I were to give serious thought to stealing from a store, they would consider me to have commited theivery of the heart...
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296924 - 20/04/2007 19:23
Re: Don Imus
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Okay, so neither Jesus nor Mary Magdalene was married, so it was not adultery, so what's the problem? The notion that Jesus might have human foibles? Isn't that the whole point, that he was both human and divine? If you remove the humanity from him, what's the sacrifice?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296925 - 20/04/2007 19:56
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Okay, so neither Jesus nor Mary Magdalene was married, so it was not adultery, so what's the problem?
I haven't seen the film, but from what was said in the thread, it wasn't even him imagining this stuff, it was the devil putting that stuff in his head to tempt him. So I also don't see how there could be a problem, even if thinking about sex with Mary Magdalene could be defined as adultery.
Well, actually, I do see the problem: The people complaining about it have really unhealthy hangups about sex, excessively strict views of morality, and a complete ignorance (or active denial) of human nature. Not to mention the irrational belief that Jesus was somehow exempt from his own humanity. All of this, of course, handed down by the doctrine of the particular church they follow, which is really the root of the problem.
But, forgetting all that for a moment, in the context of the film, I don't see how the Devil putting ideas in Jesus' head could mean that anyone but the Devil was at fault.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296926 - 20/04/2007 19:59
Re: Don Imus
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I believe that the occurrence he's talking about was actually prior to the external temptation. But it's been years since I've watched it. I have it on DVD at home. I might watch it again. It's a really good movie with a great soundtrack, IMO.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296927 - 20/04/2007 20:00
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#296928 - 20/04/2007 20:07
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 06/04/2005
Posts: 2026
Loc: Seattle transplant
|
Quote:
Okay, now we're off on a distant tangent, but I'm curious.
The mere fact of thinking about having sex (perhaps with someone in particular) is enough for adultery to have been committed? But the common modern understanding of adultery has to do with having sex with a person who is married. If neither is married, is it considered adultery? Assuming that neither Mary Magdalene nor Jesus was married, is it still adultery? Or does the prohibition extend to any sex outside marriage?
A little more off topic-
Are you going to Hell?
/ sorry for the distraction
// I scored a 95
_________________________
10101311 (20GB- backup empeg)
10101466 (2x60GB, Eutronix/GreenLights Blue) (Stolen!)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296929 - 20/04/2007 23:50
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
Yeah, I sinned quite a bit to that soundtrack my freshman year at college. Perfect CD to put on repeat.
-Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296930 - 23/04/2007 19:09
Re: Don Imus
[Re: Robotic]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
A little more off topic-
Are you going to Hell?
Note... standard purity test, so some sections NSFW.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296931 - 23/04/2007 19:18
Re: Don Imus
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Quote:
Quote:
A little more off topic-
Are you going to Hell?
Note... standard purity test, so some sections NSFW.
Yikes. I scored 163 on that, with the range 161-200 being "You're a danger to society. Who let you out on a day pass?"
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296932 - 23/04/2007 19:39
Re: Don Imus
[Re: webroach]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
You must have licked an eyeball.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296933 - 23/04/2007 19:44
Re: Don Imus
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I licked an eyeball, and I only got 90-some.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296934 - 23/04/2007 21:17
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 15/01/2002
Posts: 1866
Loc: Austin
|
How does casual eyeball licking come into play?
"I've got this nacho stuck in my eye, will you get it for me?"
??
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296936 - 23/04/2007 22:05
Re: Don Imus
[Re: webroach]
|
addict
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 510
Loc: NY
|
220. No eyeball licking required.
_________________________
Heather
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." -Susan B Anthony
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296938 - 24/04/2007 00:54
Re: Don Imus
[Re: webroach]
|
addict
Registered: 02/08/2004
Posts: 434
Loc: Helsinki, Finland
|
Quote:
Quote:
220. No eyeball licking required.
Marry me. 
But then her score would go down! 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296939 - 24/04/2007 02:08
Re: Don Imus
[Re: petteri]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296940 - 24/04/2007 03:25
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 20/01/2002
Posts: 2085
Loc: New Orleans, LA
|
For the record, adultery is when at least one of the sexual partners is married to someone else. Sex between 2 unmarried consenting adults is fornication. Both are considered sin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296942 - 24/04/2007 12:52
Re: Don Imus
[Re: lectric]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Is it a sin to think about fornication? (And, honestly, when the KJV -- the only version I find that uses the term "fornication" -- uses the term, it seems to refer to prostitution.)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296943 - 24/04/2007 12:54
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
From what I can tell the "non sex before marriage" rule has just about no basis in the Bible's text anyway.
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296944 - 24/04/2007 13:38
Re: Don Imus
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 15/01/2002
Posts: 1866
Loc: Austin
|
Quote:
Is it a sin to think about fornication? (And, honestly, when the KJV -- the only version I find that uses the term "fornication" -- uses the term, it seems to refer to prostitution.)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Catholics just make shit up.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296945 - 24/04/2007 14:45
Re: Don Imus
[Re: RobotCaleb]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I don't think it's restricted to any particular denomination. Or religion, for that matter.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296946 - 24/04/2007 14:54
Re: Don Imus
[Re: RobotCaleb]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Catholics just make shit up.
And occasionally, they even admit it. Sometimes takes a few hundred years before they get around to admitting it, though.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296947 - 24/04/2007 15:16
Re: Don Imus
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
On a related subject, I've just started hosting a blog for a Christian friend of mine. It is good to find a Christian who actually thinks about his faith, even if I still think he is wrong
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296948 - 24/04/2007 17:47
Re: Don Imus
[Re: andy]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Quote:
It is good to find a Christian who actually thinks about his faith, even if I still think he is wrong
That's because they either stop or they don't stay Christians for very long. You've just got this little window to catch them...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296949 - 24/04/2007 19:42
Re: Don Imus
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
He is a bit of an exception to the rule, he has been thinking about it deeply (and studying it hard) for the last five years now.
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296950 - 24/04/2007 23:39
Re: Don Imus
[Re: webroach]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 20/01/2002
Posts: 2085
Loc: New Orleans, LA
|
Quote:
The importance of that relies on a belief in an All Powerful Sky Faerie, though.
Obviously, If one doesn't believe in God, the concept of sin is irrelevant, so why worry about what those of us that DO believe in God consider sins?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296951 - 24/04/2007 23:51
Re: Don Imus
[Re: lectric]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Quote:
Quote:
The importance of that relies on a belief in an All Powerful Sky Faerie, though.
Obviously, If one doesn't believe in God, the concept of sin is irrelevant, so why worry about what those of us that DO believe in God consider sins?
Because you're wrong. The concept of sin is relevant to me every day, whether or not I believe in the concept. It affects the programming on TV, the laws of the world, what form marriage is permitted to take, what types of relationships people are permitted to pursue without losing their children, when I can buy a car / alcohol, etc., etc., ....
Or am I missing the point of your question?
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296952 - 25/04/2007 01:15
Re: Don Imus
[Re: webroach]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 20/01/2002
Posts: 2085
Loc: New Orleans, LA
|
Hmm... Fortunately, I'm not one of those that feels the need to impose my will on others. I DO, however, see your point.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296954 - 25/04/2007 01:29
Re: Don Imus
[Re: webroach]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 20/01/2002
Posts: 2085
Loc: New Orleans, LA
|
No need to apologize. You are right. That being said, I'm also one of those kookie christians that drinks, smokes, and had plenty of premarital sex. That being said, I know that drinking and smoking are bad for me, and the sex bothers me now that I'm married. Had I the chance to do it over again, I would probably abstain. It always did bother me that I couldn't buy alcohol on Sundays in Alabama. That problem has been resolved. In New Orleans, I can buy a daiquiri at a drive through daiquiri shop at 4 AM on a Sunday morning if I feel like it. 'Course, I never feel like it any more. Man, I hate getting old.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296955 - 25/04/2007 01:32
Re: Don Imus
[Re: lectric]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Quote:
In New Orleans, I can buy a daiquiri at a drive through daiquiri shop at 4 AM on a Sunday morning if I feel like it.
Ok, color me jealous.
The best I can do at 4 AM in Denver is amazing falafel. Well, amazing Mediterranean food in general.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#296956 - 25/04/2007 02:17
Re: Don Imus
[Re: webroach]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 20/01/2002
Posts: 2085
Loc: New Orleans, LA
|
Funny thing is, it's illegal to drive with an open alcohol container here. Trick is, a daiquiri isn't considered open until the straw is put in. Yeeeaaah, that makes sense.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index