Tuesday, February 14, 2006

baby blogging is killing the blogosphere

Friends, I'm heart-broken today. I hope this story ends well. I doubt it.

What could possibly break the alleged heart of mean old Vaspers the Grate?

This:

"Monday Baby Blogging: Tattooed Sydney"

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/
2006/02/14/monday-baby-blogging-
tattooed-sydney

Folks, this Reckless Endangerment of an innocent child, dressing a boy up like a sissy, with a heart tattoo, and various hopeful poses, is offensive to me as a blogologist, friend of humanity, and protector of the rights and dignity of children, one of my biggest concerns in life.

EDIT UPDATE: I guess even Feminist Blogs, who I would expect to rally behind protecting young girls and babies, don't care either. I now consider Feminist Blogs to be hypocrital idiots, who ARE IN LEAGUE WITH the "Male-Stream Media" and Patriarchal Predators on Wymyn.

http://feministblogs.org/tag/baby-blogging

NEVER post photos of children on your freaking dumb ass blog, people.

For crying out loud, is your life so freaking EMPTY that you must display photos of children?

What the hell is wrong with you?

Are you evil or just retarded?

Children are precious. They are so wonderful, beautiful gifts to the usually unworthy and ignorant, parent.

Children, though, are so very vulnerable to psychos: abductors, wanna-be mommy baby stealers, sexual perverts, serial killers, predators.

The blogosphere is being Murdered by Baby Blogging.

Did you hear me? Clean the shit out of your ears, fool.

How dare anyone subject children, even their own children, relatives, or neighbors, to such abuse potential?

As Supreme Blogosphere Prophet Warrior i now predict:

You will soon be seeing news reports on "Blogs Helped Me Rape and Kill Teen Girls and Babies."

Thanks to toilets like MySpace, LiveJournal, Xanga, and other Pseudo Blogs, that act as hook-up sites for lonely teenagers and depraved geezer predators, and Baby or Mommy Blogging, the blogosphere will eventually be shut down...

...and I don't care how many businesses read Naked Conversations and start a blog.

Because business is mentally dead, and cannot see past their hardcore bottom line profit-addicted nose, the perverts are flooding into the blogosphere, preying on our children and teens, enticing them to unspeakable acts, if you get my drift.

I am not issuing a curse, if you're the silly superstitious type.

I am issuing a Global WarNing. I wage war against such garbage.

WHAT'S WORSE?

This is a Huge Traffic, A LIST blog: #79 on BlogStreet as of 2/2/2006 9:35 AM.

Alas, A Blog is ranked higher than Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin, Dynamist Blog, Bag and Baggage, Gawker: Manhattan Media News and Gossip, Yourish, The Daily Brief, and even, hang on, folks, JOHO The Blog.

Shame on such a high traffic blogger for exposing children to grave and gruesome danger.

Please wake up and watch all the news reports. I'm not being radical, intolerant, or anti-cute.

Is your life so empty that all you can post on your blog is freaking dangerous child photos? If so, I pity you. You will face judgment in one way or another, no matter how religious or atheist you think you are.

:^(

Here's my comment that I posted to this baby blogging travesty:

For a high traffic blog like this, I am frankly shocked that you display such photos, which, as a blogologist, I advise against.

You must have thought this through. You must be aware that online predators and child abductors fall in love too.

I wish you would explain why you feel it's safe, and a good example to others, the many others who read this blog, why you feel this kind of exposure is okay for these children.

In support of online safety and child protection,

Vaspers the Grate


11 comments:

Jim said...

Sheesh! Sounds like somebody needs to get some action.

steven edward streight said...

Yeah.

Predators don't like what I say.
Scumbags like to prey freely, with no obstacles or awareness.

Thanks for showing your true colors, asswipe.

Don't ever come back to this blog, idiot.

Jim Turner said...

Sarcasm always seems to get lost in the written word.

Asswipe? Idiot? True Colors?

steven edward streight said...

Yeah, the predators. Right?

That's what I say to the onloin predators.

They are idiots, and they come to this blog and try to post comments.

Jim Turner said...

I must be confused. Did you call me an online predator?

I might be and asswipe and an idiot, but I'm certain I have never been called an online predator.

steven edward streight said...

Who "needs some action" and what do you mean?

Why make lite?

steven edward streight said...

What a weird comment to make.

Anonymous said...

You seemed uptight to me and I was not taking light your point.

If you want my true opinion about the post, I think it's probably over the top. I don't think that beating up a Mommy blogger for posting pictures of her child was called for and your rant bordered on the ridiculous. My sarcasm was making light of what I thought was a satirical look at Mommy bloggers.

Yes, I agree there are Internet predators of all types in the world, and there are just as many predators that roam shopping malls and parks and playgrounds. How is not posting pictures of a child on the blog going to stop a child snatcher from grabbing a child from a school or a child from their own front yard? Your logic would make it necessary to lock up our children and never let them be seen in a public forum. Do I think that it may increase the risk that a child may be seen by one of these monsters? Absolutely. Do I think that it is wrong for a person to post pictures of their children? Absolutely not. This proud mother may be posting pictures that the child's great grandmother can see. She might just failt to see any harm. We don't know her motive and neither should we question it.

You call her disingenuous for posting pictures of her child for public consumption and then you link to her blog sending more traffic to it for more of the world to see, not once but twice. You may have even brought this child to the attention a predator that would never have noticed these pictures. Your rant about protection is pure hypocracy in that instance.

steven edward streight said...

Thanks for the information.

steven edward streight said...

P.S.

There are good reasons not to display photos of children on any blog, unless it's a password protected family and friends journal.

This warning about teens in MySpace and Baby Bloggers is all over the news. Dateline, etc.

I am alarmed at what the predators are doing, how easy it is for them, and how negligent the parents are.

Why should a "proud grandparent" selfishly post photos of a child, thus exposing them to danger?

It sounds like the selfish joy of the grandparent is usurping prudent care for the safety of the child.

Google "personal blogging dangers" and see what you discover.

I appreciate your willingness to consider these issues with an open mind.

"Over the top" means what top? Who put a "top" on this issue that we must not go "over"?

Is it better to go "under the bottom" than "over the top"?

IMO, Xian said...

"[Baby blogging] also furthers the enjoyment of cuteness, which is similarly compatable with feminist goals."

I'm not terribly concerned if someone randomly falls in love with the little random kid, but it is pretty disgusting, and is exactly the sort of thing that gives amunition to my Zine writing friends that love to knock on the blogging "fad."

Fact: the "I love my [Kitty, Teddy Bear, Doggy, Baby, or Fish]!" blog is crap. A blog about why one loves such things is interesting, but pictures and descriptions of cuteness are without merit, and definately belong in cordoned off sections accessible only to family and close friends.

Fact: I'm not going to read any work by anyone with a baby blog, ever. Which is fine for all parties involved, but I would argue that, aside for a small amount of personal satisfation unique to writing online, the point of writing in a public forum is to have your work read and your ideas considered, and by posting material you know to be objectionable to some (be it disgustingly cute or some collection of violent porn) then you are actively alienating certain demographics of readers, meaning your work will be read and consumed only by people who like violent porn or think baby boys are sooooooooo cuuuuuuuute(!).

Conclusion: Baby blogging is a smog that devalues the blogosphere, but it only really endangers the individual baby blogger (and maybe their baby, but I don't care about babies. Alternative source of fuel and meat, nothing more.)