midnight has a point Janet has been crying in the same spot of again for years.

SoulAlive said:

OK!! Two snaps on that!

LittleAmy said:

it pains me to agree with midnight, however look at the pic you posted and look at the cup in Justin's hand. The lace is sewn in to the cup, and there is only enough of the lace to pop over the cup and nothing to cover the breast. Also notice there is no strings or ragged edges on the cup or the body of the busiter which shows the cup was not sewn on. also the nipple is covered by the nipple sheild so the offense body part is covered only a bare breast is exposed.

Wow. Three strawmen in a row. No one can say you're not consistent. Let's see if we can achieve a miracle and get you back to the point on any of them. Wish me luck, people.

LittleAmy said:

Of course he apologised. He'd just taken part in a crass publicity stunt that backfired. The point is, and I'll say this slowly so you can understand, he did NOT BACK UP the "waldrobe malfunction" story. That's the point. Not whether he apologized or not. He's been asked about this in many interviews and in NONE OF THEM does he say it was "an accident". If you want to rescue the tatters of your argument, you're gonna have to give some explanation for that. Good luck.

LittleAmy said:

LOL, how can a question be speculation? Read the quote again. It's asking a question. A question you have COMPLETELY DODGED. Notice a trend here?

LittleAmy said:

I'm beginning to think you don't even believe this "waldrobe malfunction" nonsense yourself, since you're not even really trying to defend it. Are you seriously telling me with a straight face that they DIDN'T BOTHER TO FILM A FINAL REHEARSAL for the biggest gig of their lives? You think, knowing they were going to perform this brassiere ripping move, they didn't bother to practise it a few times and review it to see how it looked? My friend, a video camera is not that expensive. I think between them Janet and Justin could probably afford one. Newsflash. Janet films ALL OF HER REHEARSALS. All choreographed video stars do. How else can they judge the routine?

LittleAmy said:

LOL! Exactly. Since no one ever said that anyway, you were effectively arguing with a strawman by even bothering to talk about that. You were not responding to what I said. You were responding to a strawman.



Nonsense. It was either an accident or not. We can't both be right on this. And your credibility just took another nosedive. You just said you'll take Janet's statement as a fact, as if Janet has no reason to lie. lol, naive much?
[Edited 6/11/08 7:14am]

LittleAmy said:

So LittleAmy you know the designer Alexander McQueen who lives in LA are you sure its not London.

http://www.eurweb.com/sto...r43531.cfm

[Edited 6/11/08 8:59am]

paper said:

well i stand corrected i was told it was someone i know.

Harlepolis said:

Mariah Carey-i wish she would really sing like she used to, instead of whisper-singing so much, so silly sounding sometimes!

BlaqueKnight said:

paper said:

Uh, you may want to take a reading comprehension class during summer school. I never said I knew the person who designed Janet Jackson's outfit for Super Bowl XXXVIII -- ehuffnsd said (s)he knew/had some connection to the designer.

If anything, that's more proof of the ridiculous speculation has gone on with this event.

midnightmover said:

Justin Timberlake apologized for the event (FACT) -- and you don't find him credible based on speculation.

Janet Jackson has said on national TV more than once it was an accident (FACT) -- you summarily are calling her a liar with nothing of proof to accuse her of lying.

Since these two people are the central characters in this issue and no facts have been presented as disputing their stories, then that's the end of it.

What makes your "points" so ridiculous is that all of them are built on your speculation and strawmen arguments referring to things not remotely related to the event.

As a former news journalist and editor (which is far more credible than some untrained person on the Internet with too much time on his hands), if what you presented to me was a story it would be dismissed as trash. If it was published, then that company likely would be looking at legal action. You're too busy trying to be smug smartest kid in the room you fail to consider you've yet to offer one bit of concrete proof outside of an overactive imagination.

And once again, get a life. You still are going on about a four-year-old event for several days -- don't you have more significant things going on in your life? Absolutely pitiful.
[Edited 6/12/08 5:21am]

LittleAmy said:

How can you criticize my arguments when you didn't even understand a single one of them? I responded to all of your arguments head on. You only pretended to respond to mine.

midnightmover said:

Your "arguments" have been purely speculation. I mean, referring to previous concerts is not "proof" of anything. Speculating on what you believe Janet Jackson was thinking is not proof of anything.

As a former news journalist and editor (which is far more credible than some untrained person on the Internet with far too much time on his hands), I can say YOU HAVEN'T ISSUED ONE SHRED OF PROOF. Moreover, it has no relevance to the thread at hand AT ALL (which makes your rantings the epitome of a strawman argument).
[Edited 6/12/08 5:43am]

Could one of y'all cry uncle already?

RipHer2Shreds said:

I agree. Why can't this person simply move on is beyond me. Midnightmover has been ranting about this when I haven't been on this thread for a couple of days about his "proof."
[Edited 6/12/08 5:34am]

LittleAmy said:

I used her acting in previous concerts merely to illustrate that Janet acts on stage. I didn't say it was proof of her guilt. I used it simply to illustrate a point, so once again you are misrepresenting what I say.

You asked me questions and I answered them in an honest way (even though the questions struck me as naive). By contrast, when I asked you questions you either ignored them or misrepresented the questions as "speculation". I'm still waiting for you to tell me how a question can be speculation. Obviously, it can't be, but you were too busy screaming at your strawman to notice.

And please don't go waving your CV around either. I judge people by what I see of them, not what they tell me their "credentials" are. What I've seen of you is that you cannot engage in an HONEST debate, so you dodge the points and make ad hominem attacks instead.

And finally, I'm aware that this is not the topic of the thread, but it is the topic of our argument (which came out of one of your posts) so deal with it.

LittleAmy said:

You were here yesterday the same time I was, and RipHer2Shreds was talking about both of us, not just me, but as always you misread the post.

midnightmover said:

Actually, you're giving the misprepresentation by tacitly trying to connect two unrelated events which makes it speculative. So what, Janet Jackson had some routine in a concert in 1993/94 where she pretended to cry? I believe her brother Michael used to do that. I've seen Bobby Brown one time pretend to break down. What makes it speculative is that you wanted to connect that to the Super Bowl incident.

midnightmover said:

I don't recall asking you questions as much as you were acting in childish fashion, "Your credibility is shot with me! I don't see how you can believe the incident was an accident when (insert various forms of speculation)." That is a FACT.

midnightmover said:

You have yet to offer one thing as a shred of proof that would stand up to any test of journalism integrity, law pertaining to journalism or common sense. Everything you have said is speculation, but you apparently feel it's a fact.

Moreover, whether you feel the Super Bowl incident was an accident or not is not even relevant to this thread -- the thread was about entertainers who we feel are industry darlings. The incident was brought up in the context of an entertainer whose career has been damaged by one event while another entertainer has done similar things with more regularity and it's not held against her nearly as long. So your schoolhouse tactic of social pressure is a strawman tactic.

Seriously, you were on here ranting Tuesday and two days later you're still ranting on about it. It's not that important but apparently you feel I have to prove something to someone that I will never meet nor who really cares. Move on.
[Edited 6/12/08 6:06am]

midnightmover said:

Actually, I was last on this site Tuesday morning. Today is Thursday. I would say anyone with any sense can see I did not post on this thread on June 11 (which was Wednesday), for that matter all day.

Even on Tuesday morning, I went to do volunteer work and came back several hours and you still were posting on here. I went to work Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday and you're still going on. Get a life, man -- I'm going to work; surely you're not going to be here two more days ranting and speculating with your "proof."
[Edited 6/12/08 6:08am]

LittleAmy said:

We live on opposite sides of the Atlantic so we're in different time zones. Last time I was on here was yesterday afternoon and you had only just left.

LittleAmy said:

Sigh. Let me refresh your memory. You posted a picture of Janet and Justin's facial expressions as "proof" that they were surprised. I said that was not proof because they could be (and I believe they were) acting. I gave concrete examples of Janet's history of doing that to show that YOU cannot use their facial expressions as "proof". Please try and keep up.

LittleAmy said:

It seems you don't recall much of anything. You asked me what Janet had to gain from concocting this stunt. It was an extremely naive question, but nonetheless I answered it. However, when I asked you what would be the point of ripping off a small piece of fabric just to show another piece of fabric, you dodged the question by calling it "speculation". Now I'm going to ask you for the third time to tell me how a question can be speculation. I wonder if you'll actually answer this time.



I already responded to this point in my last post. Try reading it.
[Edited 7/7/08 6:54am]

Wow, this turned into a Janet vs Madonna thread with the quickness. That shit is mad crazy. What's even crazier is that nobody has mentioned Britney Spears once. She is definitely the top industry darling. Sure, they ripped her apart for her crazy antics that stemmed from a "mental illness" (like she's the only one in the world or Hollywood that has a mental illness....please, whatever ), but if you're going to do mentally crazy shit in public, you deserve to be put on blast and be made a model of what not to do with your life and career. They made her an example and she helped them. Next time be crazy in your house, Brit, and maybe the world can be spared from the drama that helps you continue to sustain life. That girl could burn down a school filled with children and people would still be rooting for her to get her kids back and hoping for her to make a comeback. At least Madonna and Janet have some iota of talent; Britney has little to none and her whole career should be credited to the people behind the scenes who molded her into the "icon" that some people like to credit her as being. I'm just sayin'.

BlaqueKnight said:

I'm with you Blaque. Sorry, but I still don't see the big deal about Amy Crackhouse. But, yes, Amy is a media darling. How many people can smoke crack on a video and be forgiven soo easily...well, Kate Moss being another one, but I can't stand that troll lookin' heffer either...she's a media darling too. Sorry, but if other celebrities can't smoke crack, shoot up dope, and puff on trees without getting damned to hell and shunned by the media, than the same should apply to these two. I just want to take both Amy and Kate to an all-u-can-eat buffet, strap their bony asses to the chair, and force feed them for a little while. To these two chicks: Please eat or remain fully dressed, because there's nothing cute about looking like the skeleton model from biology class.

Simply put, seeing Janet's naked boob for less than 5 seconds and watching Madonna make out with two girls isn't nearly as bad as watching Amy teach kids how to smoke from a crack pipe on Youtube. People really need to grow up and get over the Superbowl thing. So kids saw a naked boob for a few seconds, big fucking deal, I saw a picture of Michaelango's 'David' statue when I was 8 and nobody considers that to be a bad thing. A naked human body is nothing to be ashamed about, but smoking crack is and Amy should have been dealt with like any other druggie, but unfortunately, it doesn't look like it's going to happen that way anytime soon.
[Edited 6/12/08 8:15am]

ehuffnsd said:

of course, you're also the same person who said the following:

ehuffnsd said:

Never mind that later, your credibility was shot down by paper, who showed a link to the story of the designer of Janet Jackson's outfit and you admitted to not knowing the designer.

ehuffnsd said:

Surely, you see what happens when you only speak in rampant speculation and not facts. You also need to move on.
[Edited 6/12/08 10:56am]

kimrachell said:

I know! How is it that she is considered as being one of the greatest voices of all time when all she does now is that whisper-singing crap? Of course she used to really belt it out when she first got started. Emphasis on used to...but now? The way she sings I would not consider her voice to be one of the greatest of all time. Much hype she has.