<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Blogcritics: Comments on Super Bowl stunt:  But what about the bling bling?</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/</link>
<description>A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously.</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2005 by the authors</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Feb 2004 08:07:46 EST</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
<generator>Blogcritics.org custom software</generator>

<item>
<title>Comment by Shark</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/13/102439.php#comment-44499</link>
<description>Oh, and FakeDiva:

SHOULD I REST MY CASE?

...or would you like me to do a little more homework on the rest of your Blogcritic body of &#039;journalism&#039;?

Cause it&#039;s all there for anybody to see.


</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">44499@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 14 Feb 2004 08:07:46 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Shark</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/13/102439.php#comment-44498</link>
<description>&lt;a HREF=&quot;http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=39756&quot;&gt;the REAL ad age article&lt;/a&gt;

If one compares the actual Ad Age story to Mac&#039;s post, you will note that &lt;b&gt;the only REAL sentences written exclusively by Mac are FOUR SENTENCES in the last paragraph of her post.&lt;/b&gt;

&lt;b&gt;The rest of her &#039;blog entry&#039; is the Ad Age article quoted word for word --- or Mac&#039;s clumsy parrot-like paraphrasing.&lt;/b&gt;

Plagiarism, or just a pathetic attempt to sound intelligent and articulate?

BUSTED!



   

</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">44498@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 14 Feb 2004 08:04:40 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Mac Diva</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/13/102439.php#comment-44298</link>
<description>Can&#039;t disagree.  But, sometimes I forget that it is all about money.  </description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">44298@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:48:14 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Chris Kent</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/13/102439.php#comment-44278</link>
<description>Sheesh, wake up and smell the coffee. Everyone knows the publicity Janet Jackson will receive from her Super Bowl stunt will eventually be phenominal. Years from now, people will have forgotten the Super Bowl - which by the way was one of the greatest in history - but say, &quot;You know, the Janet Jackson boob show!&quot; And there will instant recognition.

Yes, it caused a stir, but when that album is released, it will sell millions. When her videos are released on MTV, there will be thinly-veiled references to the boob shot, complete with dancing bustiers and moon-walking football players. And then the tour - Jesus, it will sell out in seconds, packed to the rafters with kids saying &quot;Mommy and Daddy hate Janet Jackson. Let&#039;s go!&quot; And those screams want be as canned as they were when Janet first appeared on stage. Those screams will be as real as when The Beatles made Ed Sullivan Show appearances. 

Janet is as notorious as Lana Turner, Marilyn Monroe, Cher, Madonna and Courtney Love - and her albums and films will eventually be just as successful as theirs (though the idea of Janet playing Lena Horne sounds pretty damn scary)......Excuse me while I attach a naked boob to my post.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">44278@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:37:17 EST</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>