"banned" news and stories

Do remember those Burger King commercials with the group of moms who try to run over the Burger King? They wanted to commit vehicular homicide because their kids liked Burger King food better than their home cookin'.

Not that I can blame the moms for how they feel, but I always thought that their methods were a little extreme. Yes, I know it's just a set of commercials, but still.

Well, the Costa Rican government apparently feels the same. They banned those commercials in Costa Rica. They feel the advertising "trivialized violence" on national television.

What do you think about the Costa Rican government stepping in like that?

[Via Between Editions]

Source

Even before Chowhound became a part of the Chow network, users frequently had problems with deletions. Controversial posts and less than glowing reviews of certain restaurants were deleted without explanation and some users found that their posts were deleted with a high frequency, regardless of the topic. Since the message board is a public forum, it is perfectly appropriate for moderators to remove offensive content, but when non-offensive reviews of "off the table restaurants" and other posts relevant to the website were taken down without explanation, many users grew frustrated. The problems persist with the new Chowhound, leaving many former contributors to head to different, more open minded, websites.

It appears that Eater is one such site because they have just offered to post anything that has been inexplicably removed from the Chowhound site. They are able to do this because the "offending" posts are not removed from the Chowhound feed as quickly as they are from the site, so there is a window of time where it is possible to retrieve the posts. Of course, you will have to contact the staff to let them know if your post was stricken, but it will be interesting to see what types of pieces are selected for removal.

Source

What would you do if your child were punished because you did not pack a lunch that met the schools' guidelines?

In Kent, England, a 10-year old boy was made to leave the lunchroom and eat outside under supervision because his lunch contained "one more snack than allowed". At Lunsford Primary School, a lunch is only permitted to contain two snacks (the type and quantity of other food items was not specified) and young Ryan Stupples's lunch had cheese biscuits, a cake and a fromage frais yogurt. We can assume that the school felt that the contents of Ryan's lunch would have a negative impact on the eating habits of the other children, or else they would not have sent him outside to eat. "Ryan said he...felt upset and frightened and feared he was 'going to be suspended'."

The school defended the decision to remove the child from the lunchroom, stating that they had given the father a warning about packing appropriate lunches.

Source