what a punk ass bitch. he blamed it all on her and acted like he had absolutely no idea what was going to happen. he then said how he doesn't need to pull stunts like that to sell records. he said he was apalled and shocked.

tell me then, justin, why were you bragging about it when you were backstage?

fuckin' punk ass bitch.

Where did he say this? What a bitch!

theVelvetRoper said:

entertainment tonight.

he just said it like 5 minutes ago. i am so pissed off at all of this. so, she is banned from the grammys but he can go. he is a big pussy! blaming all of this on someone else like he had no part of it.

Just read that Janet Jackson has been cut from the grammy show. Justin will stay and perform.

If she goes, so should he.

i heard that neither are banned from the grammys

jessyMD32781 said:

no, she is...he isn't. it was just announced.

SassierBritches said:

damn, that's wrong. always blaming the women...just like in the scarlet letter.

SassierBritches said:

Isn't it the fact that Luther Vandross can't be there due to his health issues, and she was supposed to present an award to him, so she isn't bothering to show up now? It's not that she's being forced out, unless Luther took a turn for the worse to spite her. But NARAS stated emphatically that the whole "banned-from-the-Grammys" thing was just a rumour and nothing more.

I think all of this is brilliant publicity for everyone involved, especially Janet. I hope she takes advantage of this whole mess and doesn't play the "poor little victim me" card - this could work out completely in her favor, and hopefully it's all just a big publicity coup for her next album.

If not...sheesh.

Another Janet thread!? Fucking hell! She has the same freak fans as her brother.

Time for an official complaint. This is A non Prince Music forum, not a JJ site.

VoicesCarry said:

no. she was told by the coordinators that her services were no longer required and need not attend. i believe the presentation of luther's tribute will still go on, unfortunately, he won't be there for it.

SquirrelMeat said:

actually, it started out as a justin thread.

SassierBritches said:

Because Justin has done something "un-janet" related in the last 72 hours? Do tell.

SquirrelMeat said:

did you not say "another janet thread?" yes, you did. i answered you.

if you don't like the topic, don't click on it. there are other options here. if you don't like those options, create your own thread. if you can't do that, fo to the prince room and talk about him. if you can't do that, try logging off and !
[This message was edited Wed Feb 4 17:44:47 PST 2004 by SassierBritches]

Ok guys, I know I won't be popular with VelvetRoper or SassyBritches for saying this, but can you really blame them? Look at it from their perspective. They've got a classy show to run here, and one of their presenters just bared a breast in front of a national audience of 100 million in order to spur record sales. Despite your opinions otherwise, this is still not the cultural norm for tasteful audiences. What if she does something like that again? What if her presence causes another presenter or performer to try and pull a similar 'out there' stunt as tribute? The Grammys are pretty much live (they're extending the tape delay this year, just in case), so they're probably shitting bricks.

Now, if this were Paris Hilton in the same situation, what would you do? Remove yourselves from the Janet-mad perspective for a second, and try to see what I'm saying.

I do agree that BOTH Justin and Janet should not be allowed to attend because of this stunt. Artists need to be sent a message that you reserve those sorts of stunts for where they're appropriate (like a performance at an adult venue). This sort of thing has gone far enough, IMHO.
[This message was edited Wed Feb 4 17:49:47 PST 2004 by VoicesCarry]

its both or their faults.. honestly, its was a bad idea, that wasnt thought out... this "image" thing has gone far enough in this industry..

I still say that his whole thing is out of control and dumb. there are naked people on regular tv shows now..some of the commericals shown were worse than janets boob.

this is stupid and a waste of air time.

Ban janet and her cd will go straight to number one.

Justin is a bitch ass if he backed off
[This message was edited Wed Feb 4 17:58:44 PST 2004 by Rhondab]

Rhondab said:

rhonda, you are exactly correct.

SassierBritches said:

I'm not sure what you are getting at, although I think you are trying to say that this thread has nothing to do with Janet (again)?

I'm not sure who the "her" is you refer to in your post then. Someone else at the grammy's who had something to do with Justin?...hmm. you got me on that one. I give up.

Let me make an apology. I wrongly thought that was Janet (again). I wrongly throught that this was the 34th thread concerning the same old has been freak woman Janet in the last 2 days





.
[This message was edited Wed Feb 4 18:28:24 PST 2004 by SquirrelMeat]

VoicesCarry said:

voicescarry, i would feel this way regardless of who the performer was. i am flabbergasted that the network is behaving this way! the ads were worse and far more provocative and adult yet they were approved. this is just ridiculous.

SassierBritches said:

Yes, but allowing them to appear only perpetuates the problem, does it not? If you want to decrease the gratuitous sex and violence on TV, then cut the ads, you're right, since that's where most of it is. BUT, I think the issue here is more the image of the music industry and the Grammys as a whole, NOT the questionable FCC content regulation of American airwaves. CBS fronts for the Grammy committee, who ultimately decided this. I think it's a moot point to consider how much CBS did and didn't know about Janet's plan to bare it all, because there are no definitive answers. It would definitely be hypocritical of them to ban her if they knew about it originally. But if they didn't, well, I think they're perfectly justified in their actions. If they're the ones who even made this decision, which I doubt they are. It sounds more like the Grammy committee is doing this for artistic and quality control reasons.

But then we must ask ourselves if that is the case, why wasn't Annie Lennox nominated for album of the year ?
[This message was edited Wed Feb 4 18:12:40 PST 2004 by VoicesCarry]

So Britney, Christina, Victoria Secret models, women mud wrestling...

these are all ok??? But Janet is not?

Americans (me included) are stupid as hell. There's nothing wrong with seeing the human body. The media loves to tease the public and then play innocent. All of this is so they can sell sex by never really giving it to you. The public is like a big stupid, pimply teenager. Let's grow up.

ok for starters, hi, i usually just read you guys stuff and get news here..sorry for never posting what are they called lurkers anyway

I am a huge and i mean huge janet fan so maybe i'm bias but let's recap okay...i mean let's go back befor 2004

Buffy screws a vampire and i had to check to make sure i wasn't watching cinemax after dark

lil kim gets her pasty patted by diana ross, but that made her brave and a pimp

britney rips off her suit and dances wearing sparkles, but what do we hear,it's cause she's all grown up

there are so many instance in the past on t.v. that have pushed the limits, it's like there is no limit. i didn't see anything wrong with the whole thing and i was there. i'm not watching grammy's this year not like i did last year but this year i have another excuse besides groups like destiny's child winning. there are other things that are more important and i fully think this has more to do with her big brother than janet. and the reason i brought up the past is because if this type of public display was okay in the past why is it such a big deal for janet...

and as for the fcc invesigation, whatever. i can see why they would want to look further into this i mean it's not like last year there were two women fighting in a fountain over the better beer. how age appropriate is that?

I am very curious to see how the audience reacts to the Janet jokes that are invariabley going to be told. Do we know who the host is? Is the audience going to boo or is a room full of fellow muscians and general thrill seekers going to get behind her if somebody says something cool like the world is making a big deal about the wrong thing.

I wonder U

SassierBritches said:

Boys will be boys...

VinaBlue said:

too bad for him...this was his chance to be the envy of men everywhere. now, he just comes off like a scared little pussy.

Why is it that when we saw boobies, full bush and man ass in the unedited Schindler's List on ABC, it was supposed to be "shocking and provocative" and completely justified (and no, I'm not talking about naked bodies of concentration camp victims, I'm talking about the German "bad guys" and their love interests who were trying to look all toned and hot),

YET,

When a woman with mega-silicone-boobies shows what she's got at a televised event geared toward an audience obsessed with titties'n'beer, it's all of a sudden immoral???

So it's okay to show hot naked people as long as the program is something bleak and solemn?

Our culture can be so fucked sometimes.

Oh My GOD!! I just heard something disturbing on the news. AOL WANTS ITS MONEY BACK!! Apparently what Janet did so overshadowed the impact that the commercials had that it totally devalued them and made the million dollars for a 30 sec spot essentially worthless. If THEY do it the other advertisers might follow suit and then it will REALLY be a big mess.

On the other side of the coin this was on Access Hollywood web site

Comedian Jon Lovitz told Access Hollywood's Shaun Robinson that Justin's "revealing" strip was indeed unintentional.

"You think it was a wardrobe malfuntion?" Shaun asked Jon.

"That's exactly what it was. That's just a fact. Adam Sandler's manager Sandy Warnick was at the Super Bowl with the wardrobe person when it happened," explained Jon. "She freaked out and said, 'Oh no!' because it wasn't supposed to happen. She had that red thing underneath but it got ripped away -- that's all."


didn't know where to post this since people are complaining about to many Janet threads. Thoughts people?

AdoreDaBang1 said:

the idea that the halftime show eclipsed the ads SHOULD be a normal one. The whole point of the halftime SHOW is to SHOW entertainment. The advertisements should be just that...ADVERTISEMENTS. They are not the focal point of the game. The halftime show was being billed as the most extravagant halftime show ever...shouldn't it, at the very least, be a bigger deal than some commercials?