What did you do with my RWHN?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

But CPD, you're a woman.  Ergo an idiot.

Dok,
Has noticed another trend.

Yeah, that one's a hard trend to miss.

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

But CPD, you're a woman.

Only under duress. :P

[AFK]

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Bomber-as-rock-star-Rolling-Stone-cover-draws-outrage.html?pagenum=1

"I can't think of another instance in which one has glamorized the image of an alleged terrorist. This is the image of a rock star. This is the image of someone who is admired, of someone who has a fan base, of someone we are critiquing as art," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications professor and the director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

[Doktor Howl]

So RWHN, where was your denouncement when NYT and WaPo used this image?

I don't read either of those, nor did I read news stories of their usage, so I was unaware of it.

Others pointed out that the photo had also appeared on major news sites like the New York Times in the days after Tsarnaev's capture.

You didn't read the article that triggered your righteous fury?

Let's not be unreasonable, now.

[Doktor Howl]

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Bomber-as-rock-star-Rolling-Stone-cover-draws-outrage.html?pagenum=1

"I can't think of another instance in which one has glamorized the image of an alleged terrorist. This is the image of a rock star. This is the image of someone who is admired, of someone who has a fan base, of someone we are critiquing as art," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications professor and the director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

Yeah, we heard.  White, young, attractive.  Not an acceptable villain.

[AFK]

So RWHN, where was your denouncement when NYT and WaPo used this image?

I don't read either of those, nor did I read news stories of their usage, so I was unaware of it.

Others pointed out that the photo had also appeared on major news sites like the New York Times in the days after Tsarnaev's capture.

You didn't read the article that triggered your righteous fury?

Oh sorry, yes, after I read that I should've fired up my time machine, gone back to when those images were originally used, look at them, and get outraged.  Sorry, I'll get right on that. 

[Doktor Howl]

So RWHN, where was your denouncement when NYT and WaPo used this image?

I don't read either of those, nor did I read news stories of their usage, so I was unaware of it.

Others pointed out that the photo had also appeared on major news sites like the New York Times in the days after Tsarnaev's capture.

You didn't read the article that triggered your righteous fury?

Oh sorry, yes, after I read that I should've fired up my time machine, gone back to when those images were originally used, look at them, and get outraged.  Sorry, I'll get right on that.

No, genius, I think he was talking about the Rolling Stone article.

But his mistake was forgetting that you're a puritanical asshat, and actually knowing what the fuck you're talking about is unnecessary for your rage.

[Salty]

Good thing this is a serious, relevant issue that RWHN actually cares about and not just an effort to fuck around PD's mad, mad flow because of Ewige Butthurt.

Then again, how would anyone know?

[Doktor Howl]

Good thing this is a serious, relevant issue that RWHN actually cares about and not just an effort to fuck around PD's mad, mad flow because of Ewige Butthurt.

Then again, how would anyone know?

Of course it was designed to fuck up the flow.

The moment LMNO comments, RWHN will say how he doesn't really care about it, and how he's just giving PD what it wants.

Called it pages ago.

[AFK]

So RWHN, where was your denouncement when NYT and WaPo used this image?

I don't read either of those, nor did I read news stories of their usage, so I was unaware of it.

Others pointed out that the photo had also appeared on major news sites like the New York Times in the days after Tsarnaev's capture.

You didn't read the article that triggered your righteous fury?

Oh sorry, yes, after I read that I should've fired up my time machine, gone back to when those images were originally used, look at them, and get outraged.  Sorry, I'll get right on that.

No, genius, I think he was talking about the Rolling Stone article.

But his mistake was forgetting that you're a puritanical asshat, and actually knowing what the fuck you're talking about is unnecessary for your rage.

Cain's question was why I wasn't upset when NYT and WaPo used the image.  It is because I didn't see their usage of the image.  I can read now that they used the image, but it will not change the fact that I didn't see the original usage, thus, I still will not have had a reaction, less I now go back in time and see those articles when they were published.

[Doktor Howl]

So RWHN, where was your denouncement when NYT and WaPo used this image?

I don't read either of those, nor did I read news stories of their usage, so I was unaware of it.

Others pointed out that the photo had also appeared on major news sites like the New York Times in the days after Tsarnaev's capture.

You didn't read the article that triggered your righteous fury?

Oh sorry, yes, after I read that I should've fired up my time machine, gone back to when those images were originally used, look at them, and get outraged.  Sorry, I'll get right on that.

No, genius, I think he was talking about the Rolling Stone article.

But his mistake was forgetting that you're a puritanical asshat, and actually knowing what the fuck you're talking about is unnecessary for your rage.

Cain's question was why I wasn't upset when NYT and WaPo used the image.  It is because I didn't see their usage of the image.  I can read now that they used the image, but it will not change the fact that I didn't see the original usage, thus, I still will not have had a reaction, less I now go back in time and see those articles when they were published.

He was pointing out that the Rolling Stone issue mentions the other pics, dumbass. 

You're a dense one, sometimes.

[Cain]

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Bomber-as-rock-star-Rolling-Stone-cover-draws-outrage.html?pagenum=1

"I can't think of another instance in which one has glamorized the image of an alleged terrorist. This is the image of a rock star. This is the image of someone who is admired, of someone who has a fan base, of someone we are critiquing as art," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications professor and the director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

Yeah, Baader and Meinhof never got that treatment:





Nor did Leila Khaled:



Definitely not Che Guevara:



Or the depiction of Carlos Illich Rameriz Sanchez in the Olivier Assayas trilogy:



I don't know who is more retarded here, Kathleen Hall Jamieson for the original comment, or RWHN for blindly accepting it.

[AFK]

So RWHN, where was your denouncement when NYT and WaPo used this image?

I don't read either of those, nor did I read news stories of their usage, so I was unaware of it.

Others pointed out that the photo had also appeared on major news sites like the New York Times in the days after Tsarnaev's capture.

You didn't read the article that triggered your righteous fury?

Oh sorry, yes, after I read that I should've fired up my time machine, gone back to when those images were originally used, look at them, and get outraged.  Sorry, I'll get right on that.

No, genius, I think he was talking about the Rolling Stone article.

But his mistake was forgetting that you're a puritanical asshat, and actually knowing what the fuck you're talking about is unnecessary for your rage.

Cain's question was why I wasn't upset when NYT and WaPo used the image.  It is because I didn't see their usage of the image.  I can read now that they used the image, but it will not change the fact that I didn't see the original usage, thus, I still will not have had a reaction, less I now go back in time and see those articles when they were published.

He was pointing out that the Rolling Stone issue mentions the other pics, dumbass. 

You're a dense one, sometimes.

No, he is quoting "the article you linked" which was the article I read at NBCnews.com, and linked here, about the Rolling Stone article. 

[Doktor Howl]

Too much funny tonight.

Going to bed.

[Salty]

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Bomber-as-rock-star-Rolling-Stone-cover-draws-outrage.html?pagenum=1

"I can't think of another instance in which one has glamorized the image of an alleged terrorist. This is the image of a rock star. This is the image of someone who is admired, of someone who has a fan base, of someone we are critiquing as art," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications professor and the director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

Yeah, Baader and Meinhof never got that treatment:





Nor did Leila Khaled:



Definitely not Che Guevara:



Or the depiction of Carlos Illich Rameriz Sanchez in the Olivier Assayas trilogy:



I don't know who is more retarded here, Kathleen Hall Jamieson for the original comment, or RWHN for blindly accepting it.

Bbbbbuuut, Che Guavera was a Freedom Fighter for Justice!