Since: 12.1.02 From: Indianapolis, IN; now residing in Suffolk, VA
Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours
#1 Posted on 18.6.04 2217.17 Reposted on: 18.6.11 2220.48
OK, I'm just sitting here and waiting for some conservative feminist group to start their whining about this. Commence eye-rolling now.
I, myself, don't particularly have a problem with it because (A) I don't pay attention to the WNBA, (2) I don't find her particularly attractive (although the action pic may just be a bad shot of her), and (D) she posed in an Aussie magazine that I don't get anyway. So I've got no problem with it, but I can already hear the future objections of media members.
Since last post: 1959 days Last activity: 1938 days
#2 Posted on 19.6.04 2138.13 Reposted on: 19.6.11 2140.15
That actually makes the paper on page 32 here, so not such a big deal. As they say in the article, it's the 3rd book/magazine they've done with the Olympic team. The first one, before Atlanta, caused a bit of a stir. The pic in todays paper has (part?) of Jacksons shot in it and it definitely looks better than the action shot on si.