I have yet to see any evidence of takedown requests. But Bic's response is clear: "point out that it is a fake" and remove it, "if necessary". That doesn't sound like a takedown to me. It just sounds like a company reasonably trying to point out they didn't write this fake letter. Parody is fine, as long as people know it is parody.
I think they responded properly and Digiday are either idiots or assholes. Look at the response, "This letter is by no means an official document". So obviously Digiday asked, "Hey, is this an official document?"
Are they braindead morons? Of course it isn't an official document! Why the hell are they asking this? More likely, they were going for the gotcha story, where they ask an idiotic question and then post the ridiculous looking answer. And Bics answer is very clear. If someone like Digiday, who should be familiar with fake customer service letters, is asking Bic about it, maybe other "morons in a hurry" will be confused. So Bic asks people who post it to clarify it is a hoax. A very reasonable request. Only in Tim's mind, could this be unreasonable.
So in addition to cops, Tim hates corporations, too, I guess.
I think "love of money is the root of all evil" is a ridiculous saying. Money is simply a medium exchange for work. Is "love of work" the root of all evil? Of course not.
If someone wants something, like a lamborghini, and they work hard (or make smart investments) to get it, who am I to say they are greedy? Frankly, most people who claim others are suffering from Greed are themselves suffering from Envy.
So let me get this straight? Everyone on this board thinks it is okay for a deranged man to antagonize cops? So if he did pull a gun and start shooting, you'd be okay with a few dead civilians? While the cops were doing what: trying to talk him down, karate chop him, tackle him, or maybe just shoot for the knee? Give me a break. This anti-cop 20/20 hindsight nonsense is typically of Tim. Maybe 1 in 10,000 encounters with cops go wrong, so all cops are bad, right? Pathetic.
Journalism is much easier to do with access, and criticizing the powerful people you are reporting on makes access much more difficult. I can sympathize with large news organizations having to pander a bit to those in charge. This is the dilemma reporters have:
If you have integrity but no access, nobody listens to you. If you have access but no integrity, nobody trust you.
Juicers and extractor are not healthy. The reason fruits and vegetables are good for you is fibre. Fruit without fibre is basically a glass of fructose. You know, the crap in high fructose corn syrup that causes diabetes?
Re: Heh, heh. At last you're suspicious of "Google has no way".
The "Rich" don't care about you, unless you have money to spend (I'm assuming you don't, because you post here day and night). The government does care about you. Google, and other businesses, are victims, just like the rest of us, of an out of control government.
Ironically, copyright was already very long in the early days of Hollywood (75 years in 1920). So the example you give can't possibly be why copyright is the way it is.
However, even with our insane copyright laws, Hollywood just takes existing works and changes them slightly to screw over writers. Look at Underworld and "The Love of Monsters", and Knocked Up and the book "Knocked Up".
Re: The only possible route is Populist: anti-corporatist and anti-Rich.
So the NSA spies, and somehow corporations are to blame? You are a broken record. Corporations don't care what you do. They just want to sell you stuff. If you don't like them, you can "vote them out" by not buying their stuff.
The real problem is governments. We give them too much power, and then we wonder why they abuse it. Only an idiot would claim, "Yes, but if we could just vote the right people in office, everything would be perfect." It will never happen. Governments must be starved, lest they get out of control. It is almost too late for the US, seeing how useless Obama is in controlling the beast at his feet.
Re: Reveals more of MIke's pro-corporate, anti-labor position.
"Well" regulated markets is what we already have. Why was no one charged for the 2008 meltdown? Because very few people were doing anything illegal.
When laws are written as "The seller shall get a rating on the asset backed securities" as apposed to, "Buyer beware", then we take responsibility for failure. Failure should punish those involved (banks) not those who aren't (taxpayers).
Crony capitalism can be result of "well-regulated" markets, depending on the regulations. Think about tennis vs. gymnastics. In tennis, it is obvious when the ball is out. The ref just enforces the clear rules. In gymnastics, the score is based on so many intangibles, so corruption is easy. Capitalism must have regulations, but they must be clear and results-based. Procedure-based regulations should be avoided at all costs. Procedure based regulations allow companies to abdicate responsibility by claiming they were following the procedures, and the results are not their fault.
The low fat craze created the obesity epidemic. Food with fat removed tastes terrible, so producers responded by upping the sugar. Sugar is terrible for you, but wasn't too bad when the only place it existed was in the sugar bowl on your table. Now it is everywhere. Fructose (which is 50% of sugar) can only be digested in the liver, and contributes to belly fat. Good job, government busybodies, and your "suggestions" for good food. You've screwed up an entire generation.