I would imagine, in order to be eligible to win $1 million, they
would have to sign over quite a few "rights." Being a contestant in
a beauty pagaent I would think that viewers routinely get healthy
does of skin.

Sexually explicit? Given what is being broadcast on prime time
network shows [e.g. Victoria's Secret fashion show], displaying
someone's backside is fairly pedestrian in comparison. i don't
think anyone would watch Heidi Klum strut down the runway if SHE was
all fuzzed out ;)

Hey, this thread is all in good fun. No harm intended to anyone :)


--- In Amanda_Kimmel@yahoogroups.com, Dawson Gant <skyppyg53@...>
wrote:
>
> Don't the contestants have the right to edit sexually explicit
content?
>
> Mike <royal188@...> wrote: --- In
Amanda_Kimmel@yahoogroups.com, "nw206vortex" <lynn.kim@>
> wrote:
> >
> > BTW, what's up with her butt being fuzzed out all of the time.
We
> > were certainly treated to more than we wanted to see of Cheria
and
> > Denise, why not get a few extra Nelson rating points by letting
us
> > enjoy all of Amanada?
> >
>
> Yeah, that is what I want to know. If they thought it was
offensive to
> show Amanda's butt, I thought showing Denise and her legs was
offensive
> to me! LOL!
> Somewhere there is probably some unedited pictures, but we may
never
> see them. Can you imagine the money Survivor producers would make
> releasing those pictures or even unedited video????
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dawson "Skyp" Gant
>
> ---------------------------------
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>