[snips]
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:38:36 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> wallpaper and other | South Park-related features. In a blog post
> yesterday on | SouthParkStudios.com, the creators explained that Apple
> had rejected the post | because it might be “potentially offensive.”
> `----
Er, well, too fucking right it might be potentially offensive; that's
half the fun to Southpark.
Maybe the iStore morons could grasp the concept of, oh, I don't know,
organizing content *by* content? As in adult stuff over here,
potentially offensive over there, Barney blowing dogs over here... let
the consumer pick what stuff they want, without even seeing the "bad
bits" unless they choose to.
This nonsense about "Daddy has to live off milk because baby can't eat
steak" is getting really, really tiresome. It's not like anyone is being
forced to watch Southpark, or hardcore porn, or Ann of Green Gables -
whatever it is one finds offensive - so why can't these folks, in the
case of the ones doing the whining mostly putative adults, simply act
like they're not spoiled children?
> Why are Apple customer accepting this type of abuse?
Wouldn't know. Apple's entire approach to media always struck me as
downright retarded, which kinda makes one wonder about the people who
actually pay for it.
|
|
