Borders to sell O.J.'s book, but will donate profits to charity ...

[Claws for Concern]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061117/ap_en_bu/simpson_book

Borders will do it, Barnes and Noble will not.

 

[Kaylee]

OJ...Father of the Year.

 

[Oz]

Borders will do it, Barnes and Noble will not.

While it's a nice gesture by Borders, if they really wanted to show some decency, they wouldn't sell the book period. Same with Barnes and Noble.

 

[Ledbetter]

Maybe they should donate the book to O.J., so he can use it in his search for the real killer(s).

 

[ballscribe]

They should donate the proceeds to the family members still waiting for the court settlement.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

Translation: We feel really dirty about selling the book, but not so dirty that we are willing to lose business to Barnes and Noble.

 

[ifilus]

Borders will do it, Barnes and Noble will not.

While it's a nice gesture by Borders, if they really wanted to show some decency, they wouldn't sell the book period. Same with Barnes and Noble.

Big fan of censorship?

 

[heyabbott]

Borders will do it, Barnes and Noble will not.

While it's a nice gesture by Borders, if they really wanted to show some decency, they wouldn't sell the book period. Same with Barnes and Noble.

Big fan of censorship?

Censorship is when someone else says you are forbidden to publish something, excerising editorial control is when you limit yourself.

 

[shotglass]

Borders will do it, Barnes and Noble will not.

While it's a nice gesture by Borders, if they really wanted to show some decency, they wouldn't sell the book period. Same with Barnes and Noble.

Big fan of censorship?

Censorship is when someone else says you are forbidden to publish something, excerising editorial control is when you limit yourself.

And I wouldn't care for them doing either one.

 

[Oz]

Borders will do it, Barnes and Noble will not.

While it's a nice gesture by Borders, if they really wanted to show some decency, they wouldn't sell the book period. Same with Barnes and Noble.

Big fan of censorship?

You know Borders and Barnes and Noble don't sell every book, just like MTV chooses not to run certain videos they deem to be too racy. Businesses have standards to either accept or reject products. They could go either way here.

And no, I'm not for censorship. It's funny, I was on the complete opposite end of the argument when it came to the Dixie Chicks only months ago.

 

[Starman]

O.J.'s children are now legal adults. He is not responsible for their support.
It is to be assumed whatever profits are diverted to them will be, in large part, diverted right back to him.

Unless, of course, they decide to use that money to explore extra-legal avenues to deal with their mother's killer. Now, THAT's an idea. :)

 

[heyabbott]

Borders will do it, Barnes and Noble will not.

While it's a nice gesture by Borders, if they really wanted to show some decency, they wouldn't sell the book period. Same with Barnes and Noble.

Big fan of censorship?

Censorship is when someone else says you are forbidden to publish something, excerising editorial control is when you limit yourself.

And I wouldn't care for them doing either one.

Maybe in this case, but strict editorial control and self censorship are the landmark of late 20th century early 21st century journalism. The politically correct world to which modern, main stream journalism created, demands censorship.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

Borders will do it, Barnes and Noble will not.

While it's a nice gesture by Borders, if they really wanted to show some decency, they wouldn't sell the book period. Same with Barnes and Noble.

Big fan of censorship?

Then take a stand & say it's not for us to censor & we're selling it. Don't try to assauge your conscience with this charity nonsense.

 

[micropolitan guy]

Jerry Sullivan of The Buffalo News weighs in on O.J. He's certainly not afraid to take a strong position, although I'm sure it's generally a popular one.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20061119/1049611.asp