Crazy. They don't know who they are dealing with!

After the marathon he:

1) Hijacked a car with a guy still in it (probably carrying a large duffle back for all the guns, ammo, and bombs)
2) Decided to rob a 7/11 (ain't payin for no slurpee)
3) stopped over at MIT and killed a cop (not a college fan)
4) Kicked the guy out of his car, and got in his duffel bag out... He then
5) Threw bombs out the window as cops persued him.
6) Got into a shootout with multiple cops,
7) Got back in the car with his duffel bag and drove to a boat.
8) Inside the boat he wrote a confession

What else do you need to know?

Bad move, period.

rydawg5;1474255 wrote:Crazy. They don't know who they are dealing with!

After the marathon he:

1) Hijacked a car with a guy still in it (probably carrying a large duffle back for all the guns, ammo, and bombs)
2) Decided to rob a 7/11 (ain't payin for no slurpee)
3) stopped over at MIT and killed a cop (not a college fan)
4) Kicked the guy out of his car, and got in his duffel bag out... He then
5) Threw bombs out the window as cops persued him.
6) Got into a shootout with multiple cops,
7) Got back in the car with his duffel bag and drove to a boat.
8) Inside the boat he wrote a confession

What else do you need to know?

Don't forget he ran over his bro.

ernest_t_bass;1474013 wrote:Did you type this behind a pulpit?

Just answering the question.

brutus161;1473950 wrote:What's the difference between the cover of Rolling Stone and the front page of a major newspaper (which he was on after his arrest)?

Because one is news... the other is a publication.

Not a very cool move by Rolling Stone, but par for the course nonetheless.

SnotBubbles;1473984 wrote:So putting a pop artist (with an annoying act) on the cover of Rolling s tone is equivalent to putting the face of a terrorist / murderer on the cover; giving him more exposure for his crime.

Gotcha.

Yea pretty much. It's not like this is the first time anyone has heard about this or seen the guy. This is not going to encourage people to become terrorist. Us Foreign policy, occupation, drone strikes and religion are.

So if we completely ignore this guy, terrorism will stop? That makes sense.

fish82;1474556 wrote:Not a very cool move by Rolling Stone, but par for the course nonetheless.

Might be the most accurate post so far. Rolling Stone is a print publication and in today's world, things like that are slowly and gradually being phased out in favor of online stuff. To stay alive, they have to stay relevant. To stay relevant, they have to get attention. To get attention, they have to create controversy. To create controversy to get attention to stay relevant to stay alive, they put this guy on the cover.

People will talk about it and, possibly, out of interest/outrage/whatever, buy it to read the article. I mean, I won't. I haven't read Rolling Stone in a good 15 years or so and see no reason to start now, but I'm sure a lot of people who wouldn't normally buy a copy might at least be tempted to.

Heretic nailed it.

Mass murderers are fascinating. People want to read about them. Rolling Stone wants to sell magazines to these people. That's pretty much all you need to know.

Before seeing this thread, buying a Rolling Stone was right next to picking a fight with a pit bull on my to do list. I will now be buying one at a newsstand today. Why? For the same reason that I bought Helter Skelter, the best-selling true crime book of all-time about the Manson Murders which has sold more than seven million copies worldwide: it looks like a gripping read.

ccrunner609;1474873 wrote:Maybe those ****s at Rolling stone should of put the little boy who was literally torn apart by that bomb on their cover. ****ing POS's

It is sad. People don't deal with Death well and don't want to see/read about innocent people dying. They want a villain to hate and want to find out what could drive someone to commit horrific crimes. A cover with this child would probably sell a 1/4 of the magazines as the bomber cover.

Is it right? No, but is human nature.

The kid was on the front page of every newspaper in the country, and people are flipping out that he's on the cover of a popular magazine.

Also, Gwyneth Paltrow is gorgeous.

In her twenties, she was the most beautiful movie star in the world. Love her natural looks. Chris Martin is a lucky man.

The editors of Rolling Stone exploited those murdered in Boston by displaying their (the victims') executioner on their cover. Why? To sell magazines. Shame on them.

reclegend22;1474883 wrote:Also, Gwyneth Paltrow is gorgeous.

In her twenties, she was the most beautiful movie star in the world. Love her natural looks. Chris Martin is a lucky man.

Wtf are you talking about? Go back to the cbb forum, please.

vball10set;1474887 wrote:Wtf are you talking about? Go back to the cbb forum, please.

Read the poll associated with this thread, please.

Rolling Stone has an entire thread on an Ohio sports forum passionately discussing its most recent magazine cover. Rolling Stone has accomplished exactly what it set out to do.

Like them or hate them, they are doing what they do well: staying relevant.

Why do people get bent out of shape over stuff like this? I've never understood that. There are far greater concerns in life than this.

reclegend22;1474891 wrote:Read the poll associated with this thread, please.

I see...and why are you getting so bent out of shape about people expressing their opinions on this? Didn't you just say that that's what RS wanted, for people to be discussing this?

vball10set;1474900 wrote:I see...and why are you getting so bent out of shape about people expressing their opinions on this? Didn't you just say that that's what RS wanted, for people to be discussing this?

I think Rolling Stone's bigger motivation here was to sell magazines. Which, while I have no data to back it up, I bet they are doing at a far higher rate this week than in any other over the past year. It would be interesting to find that out, though.

But yeah, I just don't see why anyone would have such a problem with it. It's Rolling Stone. They are in the business of attracting readers with sensational stories. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the magazine long ago ventured away from just a music rag and more and more into the coverage of stories relating to shocking world events often dealing with criminals and other fascinating figures. The Charlie Manson cover story ran almost 50 years ago.

Do I have a problem with people getting upset, though? No. I'm completely indifferent about the whole thing. I suppose not completely, since I voiced my opinion, but my view is that Rolling Stone can do what it wants.

reclegend22;1474910 wrote:I think Rolling Stone's bigger motivation here was to sell magazines.

vball10set;1474886 wrote:The editors of Rolling Stone exploited those murdered in Boston by displaying their (the victims') executioner on their cover. Why? To sell magazines. Shame on them.

reclegend22;1474894 wrote:Rolling Stone has an entire thread on an Ohio sports forum passionately discussing its most recent magazine cover. Rolling Stone has accomplished exactly what it set out to do.

Crack the Top 50 for a change? :laugh:

I really don't care; it doesn't seem like it's something to be outraged or shocked about.

They want to sell magazines and maintain their popularity, even if it means glorifying a terrorist. I'll continue to not pay attention to them.

Fly4Fun;1474917 wrote:I really don't care; it doesn't seem like it's something to be outraged or shocked about.

Actually it is, and imo, that's the only reason they did it.

I have no issue with it.