Dangerous censorship or ????

Keeper · #41 05-06-2005, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spunkywho

Since we are talking about censorship and Starbucks!

Starbucks started out as a little coffee shop at the Pike Place Market in Seattle with their original logo:

as you can see the original logo shows evil nipples.

I think it's even worse the fact that after the nipples the navel was censored out as well!!

What will be next?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbuc...rbucks.27_logo

Quote:

The siren (sometimes referred to as a mermaid, but this figure has two tails) in the Starbucks' logo changed over the years due to political reasons. In the first version she had naked breasts. In the second, streamlined version, they were covered by hair, but the navel was still visible. In the current version, the navel is not visible anymore.

Keeper · #42 05-06-2005, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kathleen

Well, this is only my opinion, and I'm not much of a coffee drinker, but their coffee sucks. When I ask for a cappuccino, what I get in a Starbucks is what I'd call a latte. Way too much milk - it's all out of proportion. So I don't go there much anyway.

Kathleen

I adore Starbucks!! It's a completely different concept to the typically Spanish coffe place, and they only arrived here a few years ago. I don't like coffee anywhere, but I love their teas!! And I love their sofas and armchairs and music and staff and atmosphere.

Jovi2003 · #43 05-06-2005, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jovimimi

are you as a american citizen ok to have starbuck give their opinion about music ? do you care for their opinion ? aren't you pissed off they give their opnion on something THAT is not related with their own business (coffee)

Why not? I don't understand what you're getting at. All people do here is offer opinions on different matters. Like when Jon offered his opinion of Bush while on the Bounce Tour at one of the concerts. THAT was not related at all to the concert, but he did it anyway. Should he have kept quiet?

Jovi2003 · #44 05-06-2005, 10:26 PM

Dangerous censorship?!?! Um, NO. Simply the right to choose what you do or do not want to sell.

*ºÇåptäîn¤Çrä§hº* · #45 05-07-2005, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Anderson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supersonic

i = I
informataion = information
raget = Target
probelm = problem (twice the same mistake

)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supersonic

What's got your favourite book store to do with the censorships of CD's?

I find it funny how you would correct someones grammar and spelling and then make a mistake of your own

Funny yeah, although I wholeheartedly agree with what he said!
Her indifferent mass of letters is a pain to read!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kathleen

Yeah but ONE line that is taken out of context. The song is not "about" anal sex, nor is it glorifying it. By the time you get to the end of the song you could read it as being disappointed or disillusioned with prostitution.

That's how I read it too.

Partially. I rather see it as if the protagonist takes it as a "cheap" way to replace the physical closeness of his long gone love, which - in the end he has to admit it - fails.

Keba · #46 05-07-2005, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kathleen

"Louie Louie," written by Richard Berry in 1956, is one of the most recorded songs in history. The best-known, most notorious version was a hit in 1963 for the Kingsmen; the FBI spent two years investigating the lyrics before declaring they not only were not obscene but also were "unintelligible at any speed."

Well, getting off the Starbucks topic for a bit and addressing the other issue, I found this a little odd with the FBI investigating the lyrics. I read the lyrics in a book that clarified that the lyrics we in fact NOT obscene, just hard to make out. To think that kids should be forbidden to play a song just because its lyrics (which they weren't going to sing anyway) were misheard as obscene.

Kathleen · #47 05-07-2005, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keba

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kathleen

"Louie Louie," written by Richard Berry in 1956, is one of the most recorded songs in history. The best-known, most notorious version was a hit in 1963 for the Kingsmen; the FBI spent two years investigating the lyrics before declaring they not only were not obscene but also were "unintelligible at any speed."

Well, getting off the Starbucks topic for a bit and addressing the other issue, I found this a little odd with the FBI investigating the lyrics. I read the lyrics in a book that clarified that the lyrics we in fact NOT obscene, just hard to make out. To think that kids should be forbidden to play a song just because its lyrics (which they weren't going to sing anyway) were misheard as obscene.

The FBI investigation was in the 60's - don't you think they mght have learned something by now?

Kathleen

StoneDeaf · #48 05-07-2005, 10:01 AM

Well, I do agree that there is and should always be a possibility of choise, to sell or not to sell whatever in question. Only this particular case, the reason behind not-to-sell verdict is what I do/did find amusing. But like I said, it's America. News about censorship from there doesn't really surprise me.

spunkywho · #49 05-07-2005, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StoneDeaf

Well, I do agree that there is and should always be a possibility of choise, to sell or not to sell whatever in question. Only this particular case, the reason behind not-to-sell verdict is what I do/did find amusing. But like I said, it's America. News about censorship from there doesn't really surprise me.

why do you choose to believe the opening line of this thread vs. the official explanation of headquarters?

StoneDeaf · #50 05-07-2005, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spunkywho

Quote:

Originally Posted by StoneDeaf

Well, I do agree that there is and should always be a possibility of choise, to sell or not to sell whatever in question. Only this particular case, the reason behind not-to-sell verdict is what I do/did find amusing. But like I said, it's America. News about censorship from there doesn't really surprise me.

why do you choose to believe the opening line of this thread vs. the official explanation of headquarters?

Because I think all matters in usa are not always as they appear as. First u do something for reasons unknown, then cook up an explanation that u think will satisfy the public. That doesn't always mean there's any bit of truth involved. Like I said, time and time again I am not surprised by any news concerning censorship in usa. I just find it somewhat amusing.

to avoid misunderstandings.....
"you" doesn't mean you, just a general expression.

Dangerous censorship or ????

NBJ - Everything Else