Skywarp!

Looking at the photos, I don't really see what was "supposed" to be under there. Nothing was sewn onto the breast plate. I still think it was staged.

And one more thing, I actually got offended before the halftime show even started. Did anyone else notice that during the MTV Presents clipjob that they threw in a still of the Tienemen Square massacre? What was the significance of that?

After seeing the extreme closeup shot on Drudge Report, my question is, how the hell do you get a metal ring to stay on your nipple? She must have been rubbing ice cubes on her breasts just to make them stay hard. And how about the commercials this year? They were terrible.

Thar She Blows!

Touche.

I broke my "Love Below" so I had to repurchase Outkast -- Speakerboxxx/The Love Below.

How about some more lighthearted fare that takes you all the way back to 1996? 311 -- All Mixed Up 311 -- Don't Stay Home Sublime -- What I Got Sublime -- Santeria The Presidents of the United States of America -- Lump The Presidents of the United States of America -- Peaches

Poor Nintendo...pirated games will just make your situation worse. Sigh.

I was the first to actually vote for "Gargoyles"? You bastards!

Because despite how short a person's time is, they were still a person who was born into existence on this planet. If you say that their time is too short to bother naming them, then where is the cutoff? 2 weeks If the doctors know they're not going to live past the first few days then why name them? Pointless as far as I'm concerned. But it's like saying they weren't people. Just animals, or things.

Because despite how short a person's time is, they were still a person who was born into existence on this planet. If you say that their time is too short to bother naming them, then where is the cutoff? Should you give them a name when they live a week? Month? Year? On their 10th birthday? Even if they're babies that are going to die before they are conscious of the dignity of being human, they should still be given the privalege of being named. They'll probably have a little plot or be creamated, and I think the headstone/urn should read more than "The conjoined twins of _____".

Spaceman -- that's cool. I'm in Springfield, PA.

I know someone who knew that guy from college (Temple) and didn't like him. Where do you live?

I work with someone, whom I am told, was the first girl eliminated from the original "Bachelor". When RAW came through Philly in August '98, my friends taped it and pointed out a part where they could see us, though it was freeze-framed. The local news where I used to live was shooting a piece on D.A.R.E. police cars and I was in the shot.

Hear hear. I would suggest heading to Times Square to the MTV offices, since it was The Real World that arguably paved this particular road to hell. They may have been the originators, but the craze was really kicked off in an attempt by other networks, and even its own network, to re-capture the success of the original Survivor. And the trend isn't dying because there are enough dumb women (I'm not stereotyping, there was a study that network prime-time programming has lost the majority of the coveted 18-34 male demographic) to give these shows ratings; shows that are cheap and quick to produce, so they rake in much more dough than they cost to make.

Right now, when I get home from work, all I want to do is play videogames and watch DVDs. Basically, if I turn the TV on, it's on the "video" feed to do one of the two things above. Someone needs to put a bullet in the head of reality TV.

I know there was a similar topic, but I thought I'd make a new one anyway. Someone I think should get to the Hall of Fame but never will is Phil Simms. A columnist for the Giants says this: "I strongly believe Phil Simms deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, but I doubt he will be elected. He hasn't received enough support from the selectors in the past, and with quarterbacks like John Elway and Dan Marino coming up for election, Simms will retreat further to the back of the voters' minds. It's too bad. Simms played perhaps the great game every a quarterback in the Super Bowl. He was largely responsible for the Giants getting to another Super Bowl. And he posted some impressive numbers. Not to denigrate Joe Namath - who is in the Hall of Fame - but consider this statistical comparison between Simms and Namath: Simms Namath Games 164 140 Attempts 4,674 3,762 Completions 2,576 1,866 Percentage 55.4 50.1 Yards 33,462 27,663 Touchdowns 199 173 Interceptions 157 220 Rating 78.5 65.5 How come Namath was selected and Simms comes up short in the voting? Is it because Namath guaranteed his Super Bowl victory, while Simms was merely quietly confident about his? I think Simms did enough to warrant election to the Hall of Fame. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening." Also, in Simms' Super Bowl XXI victory over the Broncos, he posted these stats in out performing the Hall of Fame lock John Elway: "Simms set Super Bowl records for most consecutive completions (10) and highest completion percentage (88 percent on 22 completions in 25 attempts). He also passed for 268 yards and three touchdowns and was named the game's most valuable player."

Just yesterday: The Darkness: Permission to Land The Police: Every Breath You Take

Are you sure it was a cab you hailed? Could you have reported his badge number?

Well, I guess you can take solace that karma visited the Eagles in the 2002-season's NFC Championship Game. Tampa Bay won the last football game that will ever be played in Veteran's Stadium.

I know you weren't, that was more for Downhome.

It really doesn't. That's my fault for invoking THAT particular example without fleshing it out. A non-lethal shot to allow a retreat is only good if the attacker has is unarmed/has a hand-held weapon that isn't a projectile/firearm. Remember, I was talking about the idea of ethics in a threatening situation is to use the level of force necessary to end the attack and ensure your safety. Killing the guy in a scenerio where you are armed and he isn't is overboard. Obviously, in this case, when the attacker also has a firearm, a critically injuring shot or kill shot is justified. Of course, this is all ethical theory. Obviously, you won't be running over options in your mind should you find yourself in this situation. I was just steering the thread into this path for some deep discussion. And I'm not defending the carjacker's actions. To jump on that assumption is rash.

Posted by KANE "I know that doesn't really apply to this case"

This is a scenerio that should be used in collegiate morals and ethics classes. Usually, a proper code of ethics suggests that you may use enough force as it takes to cease the attack, such as shoot an attacker in the knee and run away. I know that doesn't really apply to this case, but it makes me want to unearth my old textbooks.