What did you do with my RWHN?

[Doktor Howl]

Maybe it's just to move units, RWHN.

Maybe it's also a chance to stop and think about this shit and why it happens.

Sure, think all you want in the article.  But why put the fuzzy selfie on the cover?  To stir it up and move units.

maybe to get people to think about "monsters" and why othering them does no good?

Horseshit

BRILLIANT!  It's well thought out rebuttals like this that make a great debate.

[Doktor Howl]

Does the article glamorize him? or is it the image itself which is dangerous?

there are only like 3-million people in the 18-24 range that will even see the magazine, except this will probably get a lot more attention because we're making it taboo


I think it's good to get these things to the foreground. Magazine covers never killed anybody.

I just think it is in very poor taste given the horror that people have gone through and continue to go through.  I'm glad to see some places like CVS, Walgreens, and Shaw's are refusing to carry this edition.

Certainly.  The people themselves can't be allowed to decide.

They can choose to go find a store that does carry it.

Yep.  I guess I won't be buying at Walgreens, anymore.  Censors piss me off.

[AFK]

So tell me, RWHN...What's your solution to this outrage?

There is nothing to solve really.  It's coming out.  I'm here just calling the pile of shit for what it is.  More places refusing to carry it will be cool too.

Of course.  As I said, we can't let the people themselves decide, if there's potential irresponsibility being published, eh?

Because people, as you've already said, can't do their thinking for themselves.

Businesses can sell or not sell whatever they wish.

[Doktor Howl]

So tell me, RWHN...What's your solution to this outrage?

There is nothing to solve really.  It's coming out.  I'm here just calling the pile of shit for what it is.  More places refusing to carry it will be cool too.

Of course.  As I said, we can't let the people themselves decide, if there's potential irresponsibility being published, eh?

Because people, as you've already said, can't do their thinking for themselves.

Businesses can sell or not sell whatever they wish.

Sure.  And when they decide what's best for me, I go elsewhere.  Just checked...Our grocery store, which also has a pharmacy, IS in fact carrying the magazine without interruption.

So, you know, no more spending money at Walgreens.

[Doktor Howl]

And thanks for the list of the guilty there, RWHN.

[AFK]

Does the article glamorize him? or is it the image itself which is dangerous?

there are only like 3-million people in the 18-24 range that will even see the magazine, except this will probably get a lot more attention because we're making it taboo


I think it's good to get these things to the foreground. Magazine covers never killed anybody.

I just think it is in very poor taste given the horror that people have gone through and continue to go through.  I'm glad to see some places like CVS, Walgreens, and Shaw's are refusing to carry this edition.

Certainly.  The people themselves can't be allowed to decide.

They can choose to go find a store that does carry it.

Yep.  I guess I won't be buying at Walgreens, anymore.  Censors piss me off.

And I like businesses that are sensitive and respecful to their customer base.  These chains have heavy presences in New England.  I wouldn't want that shit in my stores either. 

[Doktor Howl]

.
And I like businesses that are sensitive and respecful to their customer base.  These chains have heavy presences in New England.  I wouldn't want that shit in my stores either.

Yeah, how did they know what their customers' wishes were, RWHN?

Oh, that's right, they didn't.  They decided for them.

ETA:  And you didn't have to say you didn't want people being able to make up their own mind.  That sort of went without saying.

[Cain]

Because, as we all know, Rolling Stone has never covered anything other than rock stars.  Ever.

Fuckin' A.  Matt Taibbi tried that shit, talking about banking regulations and financial misconduct and stuff.  His editors begged him to find a musical angle to the whole thing - what sort of music does Lloyd Blankfein like to listen to as he commits fraud on his clients? - but Matt was having none of it.

And that's why in the end, they had to get rid of him.

[Doktor Howl]

Because, as we all know, Rolling Stone has never covered anything other than rock stars.  Ever.

Fuckin' A.  Matt Taibbi tried that shit, talking about banking regulations and financial misconduct and stuff.  His editors begged him to find a musical angle to the whole thing - what sort of music does Lloyd Blankfein like to listen to as he commits fraud on his clients? - but Matt was having none of it.

And that's why in the end, they had to get rid of him.

It's also why they totally rejected HST and every other writer that couldn't make it peppy and upbeat.

[AFK]

From the Murphys:  A post on their social networking blog on Wednesday morning (17Jul13) reads: "Rolling Stone you should be ashamed. How about one of the courageous victims on your cover instead of this loser scum bag!"

Couldn't agree more.

[Doktor Howl]

From the Murphys:  A post on their social networking blog on Wednesday morning (17Jul13) reads: "Rolling Stone you should be ashamed. How about one of the courageous victims on your cover instead of this loser scum bag!"

Couldn't agree more.

Couldn't agree more...with IRA terrorist supporters.

The irony here is staggering.   

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

Does the article glamorize him? or is it the image itself which is dangerous?

there are only like 3-million people in the 18-24 range that will even see the magazine, except this will probably get a lot more attention because we're making it taboo


I think it's good to get these things to the foreground. Magazine covers never killed anybody.

It doesn't really. At all.

[Doktor Howl]

Does the article glamorize him? or is it the image itself which is dangerous?

there are only like 3-million people in the 18-24 range that will even see the magazine, except this will probably get a lot more attention because we're making it taboo


I think it's good to get these things to the foreground. Magazine covers never killed anybody.

It doesn't really. At all.

Of course it doesn't.  That's not really what this thread is about.  This thread is about RWHN's rage concerning people being allowed to make up their own minds.

[AFK]

Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant. 

[Doktor Howl]

Nah, this is about Rolling Stone desperately trying to remain relevant.

No, this is about your control issues.  Just like always.