A sad day for Bags....

….but a good one for me. I just never found him funny! Why he was still on air and the greaseman not I will never understand.

Shock Jock Howard Stern Vents on Air


NEW YORK - A day after the nation's largest radio station chain suspended shock jock Howard Stern's show for alleged indecency, Stern vented on the air Thursday with uncharacteristic restraint.
"They are so afraid of me and what this show represents," he said.

Clear Channel Radio suspended Stern from six stations - the only outlets among its 1,200 stations that air the show - after an on-air interview Tuesday with socialite Paris Hilton's ex-boyfriend Rick Salomon during which a caller used a racial slur. Salomon is the man involved in the hotel heiress' infamous homemade sex video.

http://kevxml2adsl.verizon.net/_1_2G3FTO103L795Z9__vzn.dsl/apnws/story.htm?kcfg=apart&sin=D80V0QK00&qcat=entertain&ran=23929&passqi=&feed=ap&top=1

I was surprised that only 6 of their stations carry him. It's really not a big deal then for him @ all.

The funny thing is he probably truly loves this. The dumbasses are only giving him much free pub - I almost turned on his show to hear what he had to say about it.

All this because of one boob… [sigh]

Ol' Stern is sounding like a little crybaby….Waaaaaaaaaaah!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by grotty:

All this because of one boob… [sigh]

And not even a nice boob.

I think this has less to do with Janet Jackson than with Clear Channel being slapped with the largest "indecency" fine in history a few weeks ago.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
I think this has less to do with Janet Jackson than with Clear Channel being slapped with the largest "indecency" fine in history a few weeks ago.

But isn't it all related? A bunch a knee-jerk reactions to prove moral high-standing & appease those with a boob phobia.

Originally posted by grotty:
But isn't it all related? A bunch a knee-jerk reactions to prove morale high-standing & appease those with a boob phobia.

Maybe. But the fine was before the Super Bowl. Plus, do we really want someone saying "would you fuck that nigger?" on broadcast radio?

Stern should just go to XM or Sirius where, like cable, he can say and do whatever he wants.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by grotty:
But isn't it all related? A bunch a knee-jerk reactions to prove morale high-standing & appease those with a boob phobia.

Stern should just go to XM or Sirius where, like cable, he can say and do whatever he wants.

Why does he do that stupid show on E! where he has to fuzz out all the good stuff! :D

Take that show to HBO & ilk and he truly does become the king of shock talk.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by grotty:
But isn't it all related? A bunch a knee-jerk reactions to prove morale high-standing & appease those with a boob phobia.

Maybe. But the fine was before the Super Bowl. Plus, do we really want someone saying "would you fuck that nigger?" on broadcast radio?

So it's alright to say you'd fuck one but it's not okay say they deserve to be dragged behind a truck….even if you never said the *N* word when referring to the truck.

(Was that comment very GGW of me or what??)

*disclaimer…..Not defending one shock jocks comment, just pointing out the double standards.

Originally posted by mankie:
So it's alright to say you'd fuck one but it's not okay say they deserve to be dragged behind a truck….even if you never said the *N* word when referring to the truck.

Different situations.

In one, it was the DJ (Greaseman ?) who made the comment. On the Stern show, it was a caller.

From Clear Channel's perspective – Stern's only on six stations and he's not their guy. By using this incident to drop him, they are probably saving a bunch of money and, more importantly, they can please the FCC by making it look like they are getting tough on the kind of conduct which led them to be fined. In other words, there is a lot of upside to taking Stern off their stations without much downside.

(keep practicing on these GGW-esque comments. You're not there yet)

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by grotty:
But isn't it all related? A bunch a knee-jerk reactions to prove morale high-standing & appease those with a boob phobia.

Maybe. But the fine was before the Super Bowl.

It's all related. It's not by accident that all this happend yesterday and there's a hearing on the Hill today on all of this media indecency, the FCC, etc.

Grotty, Stern's coming out with a DVD with all of the stuff he can't show on the E! show. Not something I'll be much interested in, as it's the radio show I like, not the E! show so much….

Originally posted by Bags:
[/qb]

Not something I'll be much interested in…[/qb]

Yeah…but you probably don't like boobs as much as I do! :D :D

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by mankie:
So it's alright to say you'd fuck one but it's not okay say they deserve to be dragged behind a truck….even if you never said the *N* word when referring to the truck.

Different situations.

In one, it was the DJ (Greaseman ?) who made the comment. On the Stern show, it was a caller.

It was Sterns show, he's responsible for it's content.

So what you're saying is if I punch the life out of a customer who's pissing me off…he can't sue the company because it was me who did the punching, not the company?

(How's that one?)

Originally posted by mankie:
It was Sterns show, he's responsible for it's content.

So what you're saying is if I punch the life out of a customer who's pissing me off…he can't sue the company because it was me who did the punching, not the company?

(How's that one?)

You have much to learn about the GGW way.

I agree that Stern is responsible for what is said on his show. And I certainly never excused the dude who said "no wonder they get dragged behind trucks" or whatever it was he said.

In other words, I find myself in the rarest of positions – agreeing with Mankie!

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by mankie:

You have much to learn about the GGW way.

I remain your humble pupil….asshopper.

Mank, if you – an employee of the company - beat the shit out of a customer, both you and the company should be vulnerable to litigation.

If another customer beats the shit out of the annoying customer, no, the company should not be party to a suit.

Originally posted by Bags:
Mank, if you – an employee of the company - beat the shit out of a customer, both you and the company should be vulnerable to litigation.

If another customer beats the shit out of the annoying customer, no, the company should not be party to a suit.

So if I ever want to beat the shit out of a customer I should drag him next door to Carmax first?

And I'm sure there's some dirtbag lawyer who'd find a way to sue us for two customers duking it out on our property…and if any board members are lawyers (except smackie) YES! You're all fucking miserable lousy dirtbags, even lower than car salespeople.

What about sueing gun shops and manufacturers of guns used in crimes?

There'd be no more gun worries, if responsible volk would all send their jugend here.

Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
What about sueing gun shops and manufacturers of guns used in crimes?

Weren't they considering that in Washington state,somehow related to the sniper case?Thought i read that somewhere about a gun shop.