The company's managing director, Thomas Neir, wrote in the South China Morning Post that the daily quotes' intention was to be "thought-provoking, educational and entertaining".
"The quote that recently appeared was none of these. It was morally offensive and inexcusable, and we have instituted controls to ensure that an event like this cannot occur again," he said.
Is it just me or is this insane? Would the same reaction have happened if
someone else had of said this? Does the meaning of the quote change
because a prick said it?
I seriously cannot understand the logic. (maybe because there isn`t any)