What did you do with my RWHN?

[Doktor Howl]

Northeastern University criminologist Jack Levin told MyFoxBoston.com that the cover could send a dangerous message to others who might be minded to carry out violence: "If they want to become famous, kill somebody."

Whereas, 24 hour rolling coverage of the bombings, followed by a city-wide lockdown, presumably does not send the message that fame comes from violence. 

It's different when respectable media does it.   

No, it's shitty when they do it too.

Media should only report on little girls feeding ducks.  Or at least make the bad guys brown and bearded.

[Doktor Howl]

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

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

Why should a store sell something it doesn't want to sell?

I don't think they should have to.  I simply won't spend money at places where they feel that either A)  I can't be trusted to think for myself, or B) lack the fucking moral courage to deal with an issue.

And the problem with this is?

Gutlessness pisses me off. 

It's revolting.  Stomach-turning.

And it's what you're selling.  Can someone take this off the shelves, please?  It offends me.

I'm not selling anything.  My opinion is it is a classless move on the part of Rolling Stone.  I support people boycotting them because of it.  Are you against boycotts?

Of course you're selling something.  You're supporting boycotting the 1st amendment, because you don't believe anyone can think for themselves, other than yourself of course.

[AFK]

There is a certain point where the media stops covering the news and transitions into just spewing horrormirth pornography to get eyes in front of the screen, and you know damn well that's the case. 

[AFK]

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

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

Why should a store sell something it doesn't want to sell?

I don't think they should have to.  I simply won't spend money at places where they feel that either A)  I can't be trusted to think for myself, or B) lack the fucking moral courage to deal with an issue.

And the problem with this is?

Gutlessness pisses me off. 

It's revolting.  Stomach-turning.

And it's what you're selling.  Can someone take this off the shelves, please?  It offends me.

I'm not selling anything.  My opinion is it is a classless move on the part of Rolling Stone.  I support people boycotting them because of it.  Are you against boycotts?

Of course you're selling something.  You're supporting boycotting the 1st amendment, because you don't believe anyone can think for themselves, other than yourself of course.

The First Amendment doesn't mandate stores sell product they don't want to sell. 

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

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

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

Why should a store sell something it doesn't want to sell?

I don't think they should have to.  I simply won't spend money at places where they feel that either A)  I can't be trusted to think for myself, or B) lack the fucking moral courage to deal with an issue.

And the problem with this is?

Gutlessness pisses me off. 

It's revolting.  Stomach-turning.

And it's what you're selling.  Can someone take this off the shelves, please?  It offends me.

I'm not selling anything.  My opinion is it is a classless move on the part of Rolling Stone.  I support people boycotting them because of it.  Are you against boycotts?

You're basing your entire opinion on the fact that putting the bomber's face on the cover is somehow an endorsement of his actions and/or only a gimmick for making a buck. That isn't the case. Any thinking person would understand it isn't.

[Doktor Howl]

There is a certain point where the media stops covering the news and transitions into just spewing horrormirth pornography to get eyes in front of the screen, and you know damn well that's the case.

Yeah, I hear teabaggers hollering about "abused freedoms" all the time.

If you can't abuse it, it isn't a freedom.  In this case, it has been abused by showing an actual picture of the kid.  Maybe if they'd thrown a turban on him or something, eh?

[Doktor Howl]

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

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

Why should a store sell something it doesn't want to sell?

I don't think they should have to.  I simply won't spend money at places where they feel that either A)  I can't be trusted to think for myself, or B) lack the fucking moral courage to deal with an issue.

And the problem with this is?

Gutlessness pisses me off. 

It's revolting.  Stomach-turning.

And it's what you're selling.  Can someone take this off the shelves, please?  It offends me.

I'm not selling anything.  My opinion is it is a classless move on the part of Rolling Stone.  I support people boycotting them because of it.  Are you against boycotts?

You're basing your entire opinion on the fact that putting the bomber's face on the cover is somehow an endorsement of his actions and/or only a gimmick for making a buck. That isn't the case. Any thinking person would understand it isn't.

Like I said, not brown enough, no beard, no turban. 

I can be proven wrong, of course, by RWHN linking to his ringing denouncement - at the time - of Time Magazine putting Bin Ladin on it's cover.

But seeing as he agrees with and supports IRA murderers and/or their supporters, I doubt this will be the case.

[AFK]

You're basing your entire opinion on the fact that putting the bomber's face on the cover is somehow an endorsement of his actions and/or only a gimmick for making a buck. That isn't the case. Any thinking person would understand it isn't.

You're an idiot, I said nothing about Rolling Stone endorsing his actions.  However putting that kind of image of him on the cover IS very clearly about being "edgy" in an attempt to create controversy and move units.


It's insulting to the victims, who have come out against the cover if you read the article in the OP.  It's completely classless.

[Doktor Howl]

You're an idiot,

And you're a hair shirt control freak.   

[AFK]

Like I said, not brown enough, no beard, no turban. 

I can be proven wrong, of course, by RWHN linking to his ringing denouncement - at the time - of Time Magazine putting Bin Ladin on it's cover.

Your comparison would make sense if TIME posted a photo of a young Bin Laden with toussled hair looking ready to pose for an A & F photo shoot.

[Doktor Howl]

Saying it again, then going to bed.

RWHN's objection is the kid's appearance.  Not monstrous enough.

Meaning, not brown enough, not bearded enough, not turbaned enough to be acceptable as a monster.

[AFK]

You're an idiot,

And you're a hair shirt control freak.   

I wasn't talking to you there skippy.

[Doktor Howl]

Like I said, not brown enough, no beard, no turban. 

I can be proven wrong, of course, by RWHN linking to his ringing denouncement - at the time - of Time Magazine putting Bin Ladin on it's cover.

Your comparison would make sense if TIME posted a photo of a young Bin Laden with toussled hair looking ready to pose for an A & F photo shoot.

How old was the kid when he died?   

This is pretty blatant racism, RWHN.  You don't think he's monstrous enough because he doesn't fit the image of a monster in your mind.

Your itty bitty racist mind.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I am still not getting how this particular killer on the cover of a magazine rates a completely different response from all the other killers on the cover of a magazine. Can you explain the difference to me, RWHN? Is there a difference, or is it your opinion that no criminals faces should ever be published on the covers of magazines?

[Doktor Howl]

You're an idiot,

And you're a hair shirt control freak.   

I wasn't talking to you there skippy.

Imagine how horny that makes me.