Several thousand people ran the final mile today that they didn't get to run.

 

IMS is giving Indiana residents who ran in Boston the opporunity to finish on the track today. [Not while the cars are on the track]

 

IMS is giving Indiana residents who ran in Boston the opporunity to finish on the track today. [Not while the cars are on the track]

 

Though that would be worth watching...

http://news.yahoo.com/father-man-fbi-shot-...-143828926.html

 

FBI kills a guy while interrogating him.

 

When I first read the story I thought it was Tsarnev's father alleging that his son was executed. I then realized its actually an entirely different person, who was killed in Florida.

Link

A Massachusetts teenager and his 24-year-old friend filed a defamation lawsuit against the New York Post Wednesday in Boston, accusing the tabloid of falsely portraying them as suspects in the deadly Marathon bombings by plastering their photograph on the front page under the headline, “Bag Men.”

Good.

So Rolling Stone has put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover, and has a lengthy article about him, and the blow back has already begun with CVS refusing to sell the issue.

So Rolling Stone has put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover, and has a lengthy article about him, and the blow back has already begun with CVS refusing to sell the issue.

Not a fan when the "bad guys" are the ones with the cover story. Don't remember them.

 

I know it's inevitable, but I still don't like it.

Nice PR move for CVS

This is always curious. Time has had the following people on the cover: Hitler, Stalin, Mao

 

And of course:

 

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19990503,00.html

 

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19950501,00.html

 

Is this outrage just because its Rolling Stone?

 

Cause they already have had a Manson cover http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/rolling-stone/2#i61

 

This is always curious. Time has had the following people on the cover: Hitler, Stalin, Mao

 

And of course:

 

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19990503,00.html

 

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19950501,00.html

 

Is this outrage just because its Rolling Stone?

 

Cause they already have had a Manson cover http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/rolling-stone/2#i61

 

I think there's a big difference between a news magazine putting a "bad person" on the cover and a pop culture magazine doing it.

 

Right so Rolling Stone putting Charles Manson on the cover...

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures...manson-28695264

 

That was 40 years ago, people now just fauxraging?

Right so Rolling Stone putting Charles Manson on the cover...

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures...manson-28695264

 

That was 40 years ago, people now just fauxraging?

 

Yeah, let's compare anything now to something 40 years ago. That's 2 generations difference.

Right so Rolling Stone putting Charles Manson on the cover...

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures...manson-28695264

 

That was 40 years ago, people now just fauxraging?

Correct.

Yeah, let's compare anything now to something 40 years ago. That's 2 generations difference.

 

 

lol

 

Its the same magazine isnt it? If we are going to get all fauxrageous about a magazine putting a murderer on the cover, lets talk about the fact that one of the most famous covers of said magazine is of a murderer.

 

Its as if people are just finding out that Rolling Stone likes to be edgy and push boundaries.

 

The irony is, I wouldnt have even known about the cover unless people went all fauxrage. Interestingly enough, the fauxrage made it more public not less.

 

So wouldnt the best idea be, just to say nothing, so that no attention is drawn to it?

 

Certain irony in that argument, isnt there.

Yeah, let's compare anything now to something 40 years ago. That's 2 generations difference.

 

Why does that matter?

Why does that matter?

 

Comparing how one company reacted to something today with how they reacted 40 years ago is pointless, especially since the company barely existed 40 years ago. Who's to say the people currently running CVS wouldn't have reacted the same way back then?

The irony is, I wouldnt have even known about the cover unless people went all fauxrage. Interestingly enough, the fauxrage made it more public not less.

 

That's always the downside to taking a stand, but if someone feels that taking a stand is worth it, then do it.

That's always the downside to taking a stand, but if someone feels that taking a stand is worth it, then do it.

 

Right Im just asking what stand are we taking here?

 

That we arent going to write articles about people who do bad things anymore? That only "certain" magazines can write articles about people who do bad things?

 

I have no problem with people who want to stand for something, I just generally think there should be something to actually stand for. Not just some selective rage by a company to try and get some free publicity.

Right Im just asking what stand are we taking here?

 

That we arent going to write articles about people who do bad things anymore? That only "certain" magazines can write articles about people who do bad things?

 

I have no problem with people who want to stand for something, I just generally think there should be something to actually stand for. Not just some selective rage by a company to try and get some free publicity.

 

The stand that you don't have to support things you don't believe in? All this sounds like some fauxrage from yourself over some fauxrage.

The stand that you don't have to support things you don't believe in? All this sounds like some fauxrage from yourself over some fauxrage.

 

lulz

 

What exactly do these people not believe in?

 

I was bored at lunch, read into this and started laughing.

 

IM SO MAD THAT A MAGAZINE REPORTED ON AN EVENT THAT HAPPENED, ROAR ROAR ROAR

 

Sorry but that is just effing hilarious.

Right Im just asking what stand are we taking here?

 

That we arent going to write articles about people who do bad things anymore? That only "certain" magazines can write articles about people who do bad things?

 

I have no problem with people who want to stand for something, I just generally think there should be something to actually stand for. Not just some selective rage by a company to try and get some free publicity.

 

I think the general perception is that when a news magazine writes an article about somebody who has done something bad, they are doing it as a news story and when a pop culture magazine writes about the same person, they are generating attention the person doesn't deserve.

 

This particular company is also based in New England, so I can see how they feel like they are supporting the victims and their families by not subjecting them to that guy's face when they walk into their store.

 

 

 

One could argue the difference in publishing is that Manson was actually a recorded musician before hitting the cover.

 

But I agree with the fauxoutrage point. This is just helping Rolling Stone sell magazines.

lulz

 

What exactly do these people not believe in?

 

I was bored at lunch, read into this and started laughing.

 

IM SO MAD THAT A MAGAZINE REPORTED ON AN EVENT THAT HAPPENED, ROAR ROAR ROAR

 

Sorry but that is just effing hilarious.

 

No more hilarious than people raging over people raging over this.

Comparing how one company reacted to something today with how they reacted 40 years ago is pointless, especially since the company barely existed 40 years ago. Who's to say the people currently running CVS wouldn't have reacted the same way back then?

 

Pretty sure he wasn't talking about CVS

IM SO MAD THAT A MAGAZINE REPORTED ON AN EVENT THAT HAPPENED, ROAR ROAR ROAR

 

Well, I haven't read the story, but a story about this guy in a July pop culture magazine when the event happened in April is probably not just "reporting on an event that happened".

The cover of Rolling Stone? Outrageous. Next I'm going to read that they printed his actual name instead of He Who Must Not Be Named like we all agreed upon earlier.