bizby40 wrote:
"sha68" wrote in message
ups.com...
I do have one comment for the author of the original tread... my
first
thoughts on seeing your post was oh a sensible conversation for this
day and age, but after having a look at your blogsite i was thinking
what is a grown man doing looking for pictures of children all over
the
net and posting them. You should bare in mind that rightly or
wrongly
the parents of those children have allowed them to be taken and
placed
within the catalogues but they have not given you permission to use
them, which is a violation in its self. Although you would be
horrified
i am sure you must see that to a peodphile this is porn laid out for
him without the risk of police involvement, don't make it easier for
the perverts to get stimulis. I suggest you remove them and fight
your
battle with words after all the pen is mightier than the sword.

The world does need more people fighting to protect our children but
we
must be sure of the purety of the methods used.

I think I'm going to have to speak up for the OP. I followed her
link, not knowing what I might find, and what I found are mainly
mainstream clothing ads for kids. Though there are some that are a
bit provocative, the majority are not. And the ones that are
provocative are generally less so than the Brooke Shields "Can you
believe I'm only 10?" ads of many years ago.

You know, I can't put my finger on it, but something just seems 'off'
to me re. the OP. (Hence my 'Humbert Humber' comment to Banty). Maybe
it was the generic opener, maybe the jump to pedophiles and sexual
predators, maybe it's all the misspellings and awkward constructions.
But it just doesn't feel upfront (to me). (Of course, I admit to
chuckling over the 'nuisances of the advertisements' a few OP posts
back. But I think s/he meant to say nuance...just like the 'well fair'
of children.)

I don't know the legality of reposting the pictures -- I thought it
was okay if you weren't reproducing them for commercial purposes.
Think of Leno and his "headlines" or Consumer Reports "Selling it".
It might be that she needs to reference the original ad in some way?

But I do think that making her point without the pictures would be
difficult. People reading this thread without following the link have
focused on "inappropriate" clothing, particularly sexually
inappropriate.

Dunno. Seems like a lot of m.k regulars can call up a mental image of
the mother-daughter dresses in Hanna Andersson, or generate an accurate
picture of a little boy dressed in a (Wooden Solider/Lands' End) suit.
I think the website is a ploy.

Geez, I'm a crank today. But I can't shake the feeling that there's
something off here.

Caledonia