What did you do with my RWHN?

[Doktor Howl]

It's not his appearance, it's that he is appearing on the front cover of a rock magazine like he's a rock star.  It's elevating him to a status he doesn't deserve.  That limelight is better deserved by the victims or the people who selflessly sprang into action to help victims.  Write about him, study him, but don't put him on a mass media perch. 

If thine eye offend thee, die in a fire?

No, more like "Write about him, study him, but don't do it public, where people can see the process or the results."

No, do it in public but don't drop him on the cover of a rock magazine like he is a rock star.

You are aware that Rolling Stone contains more than music, and has been political as hell since Jan Wenner founded it, right?

Of course, Mr. Obfuscation.

How is that Obfuscation, you dishonest little twerp?   

[AFK]

It's not his appearance, it's that he is appearing on the front cover of a rock magazine like he's a rock star. 

We pointed out several other front covers, including Manson, Nixon, etc.  Also, Bin Laden on Time.

You didn't seem to have a problem with those.

Your problem is that you view ugly as evil and good looking as rock star.

The context for Nixon is a bit different.  The cover of Bin Laden on TIME is a very different animal compared to the photo of the boston bomber on Rolling Stone.  Sensationalising Manson, however, I agree is in the same spirit as this asshat.

You didn't state that opinion when it was posted ITT. 

So?

[Doktor Howl]

It's not his appearance, it's that he is appearing on the front cover of a rock magazine like he's a rock star. 

We pointed out several other front covers, including Manson, Nixon, etc.  Also, Bin Laden on Time.

You didn't seem to have a problem with those.

Your problem is that you view ugly as evil and good looking as rock star.

The context for Nixon is a bit different.  The cover of Bin Laden on TIME is a very different animal compared to the photo of the boston bomber on Rolling Stone.  Sensationalising Manson, however, I agree is in the same spirit as this asshat.

You didn't state that opinion when it was posted ITT. 

So?

SO?
\

[P3nT4gR4m]

But, hell, we can't mix music and political events.  Might get the kids thinking, and that is risky.

Exactly. Rock and Roll has never and should never have an aspect of pissing off parents. That would make it subversive and badwrong

[Doktor Howl]

From now on, we should only use the correct, prepackaged images when dealing with various subjects.

Monsters:  Brown people with beards.

Music:  Boy band kid next door.

Garden gnomes:  RWHN.

[Doktor Howl]

But, hell, we can't mix music and political events.  Might get the kids thinking, and that is risky.

Exactly. Rock and Roll has never and should never have an aspect of pissing off parents. That would make it subversive and badwrong

It's a decline in morals.  Why, after 911, they never showed OBL on ANTHING.  So he wouldn't be a rock star.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Precisely!

[Doktor Howl]

Precisely!

Seriously, though, the root of the objection here is this:  There are preset images for any occurance, and that allows you to process that occurance without thinking or questioning.  RWHN opposes this, because his entire philosophy is based on control of a population by any means - from psychological methods to tossing folks in prison - so naturally he got mad at this pic.  It strays out of the SAFE, ESTABLISHED image set, and doesn't show the bad guy in the correct manner.

And that might make people think and ask questions.  And that makes them harder to "lead" (control), which is automatically bad in its own right.

[Doktor Howl]

"Think for yourself...IN THESE EXCITING NEW APPROVED MANNERS!"

[AFK]

It's not his appearance, it's that he is appearing on the front cover of a rock magazine like he's a rock star.  It's elevating him to a status he doesn't deserve.  That limelight is better deserved by the victims or the people who selflessly sprang into action to help victims.  Write about him, study him, but don't put him on a mass media perch. 

If thine eye offend thee, die in a fire?

No, more like "Write about him, study him, but don't do it public, where people can see the process or the results."

No, do it in public but don't drop him on the cover of a rock magazine like he is a rock star.

You are aware that Rolling Stone contains more than music, and has been political as hell since Jan Wenner founded it, right?

Of course, Mr. Obfuscation.

How is that Obfuscation, you dishonest little twerp?   

The context of the Rolling Stone cover has been pretty clear during its lifetime.  It isn't just some random choice they make as to who goes on the cover, and the nature of how they are portrayed on that cover.  Whenever they put Kurt Cobain on the cover, they didn't just snap some random photo and put it on the cover.  There was a deliberate process that went into how that cover would end up looking.  Someone in a meeting somewhere said, "it should look like x", and there was a thought process behind that decision. 


To me, this comes off as a cynical ploy to move units, on the ashes of very real and continuing tragedy that impacts hundreds of lives.  But, to move units, Rolling Stone decides to pour a big ole vat of salt into those still fresh wounds.

[AFK]

But, hell, we can't mix music and political events.  Might get the kids thinking, and that is risky.

Exactly. Rock and Roll has never and should never have an aspect of pissing off parents. That would make it subversive and badwrong

Piss off parents all you want.  There is no need to fuck with the victims of tragedy.

[Doktor Howl]

The context of the Rolling Stone cover has been pretty clear during its lifetime.  It isn't just some random choice they make as to who goes on the cover, and the nature of how they are portrayed on that cover. 

So, you mean like every other print and televised media organization ever? 

[Doktor Howl]

But, hell, we can't mix music and political events.  Might get the kids thinking, and that is risky.

Exactly. Rock and Roll has never and should never have an aspect of pissing off parents. That would make it subversive and badwrong

Piss off parents all you want.  There is no need to fuck with the victims of tragedy.

So, the media should not report on a tragedy in Boston because it might piss someone off in Bumfuck, Maine?  Is that what you're saying?

Or are you the advocate of the people in Boston?

[Lord Cataplanga]

It's not his appearance, it's that he is appearing on the front cover of a rock magazine like he's a rock star.  It's elevating him to a status he doesn't deserve.  That limelight is better deserved by the victims or the people who selflessly sprang into action to help victims.  Write about him, study him, but don't put him on a mass media perch. 

If thine eye offend thee, die in a fire?

No, more like "Write about him, study him, but don't do it public, where people can see the process or the results."

No, do it in public but don't drop him on the cover of a rock magazine like he is a rock star.

You are aware that Rolling Stone contains more than music, and has been political as hell since Jan Wenner founded it, right?

Of course, Mr. Obfuscation.

How is that Obfuscation, you dishonest little twerp?   

The context of the Rolling Stone cover has been pretty clear during its lifetime.  It isn't just some random choice they make as to who goes on the cover, and the nature of how they are portrayed on that cover.  Whenever they put Kurt Cobain on the cover, they didn't just snap some random photo and put it on the cover.  There was a deliberate process that went into how that cover would end up looking.  Someone in a meeting somewhere said, "it should look like x", and there was a thought process behind that decision. 


To me, this comes off as a cynical ploy to move units, on the ashes of very real and continuing tragedy that impacts hundreds of lives.  But, to move units, Rolling Stone decides to pour a big ole vat of salt into those still fresh wounds.

I agree with this. You are right about their decision process. You are right about their sinister motives.
I just don't think they are doing anything wrong.

[AFK]

But, hell, we can't mix music and political events.  Might get the kids thinking, and that is risky.

Exactly. Rock and Roll has never and should never have an aspect of pissing off parents. That would make it subversive and badwrong

Piss off parents all you want.  There is no need to fuck with the victims of tragedy.

So, the media should not report on a tragedy in Boston because it might piss someone off in Bumfuck, Maine?  Is that what you're saying?

Or are you the advocate of the people in Boston?

You should read the articles I've posted again and rethink that question.