ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Can't say I didn't warn you

Do not - repeat - DO NOT - post pictures of your children on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or anywhere else on the Internet. They are not old enough to consent to it or understand the long-term consequences, and you are violating their privacy. It's particularly egregious when you see parents posting pictures of their kids all over the place, but they refrain from posting pictures of themselves.

I expect there are going to be a lot of these cases in the future, and that the children are going to win because the parents quite clearly did not have their children's interests at heart, but were merely indulging their own egos:
A 18-year-old woman from Carinthia is suing her parents for posting photos of her on Facebook without her consent. She claims that since 2009 they have made her life a misery by constantly posting photos of her, including embarrassing and intimate images from her childhood. Her lawyer Michael Rami says that to date, her parents have posted 500 images of her on the social media site without her consent, and he believes she has a good chance of winning in court.
You may now proceed with the expected snowflaking.

Labels: ,

80 Comments:

Blogger S. Misanthrope September 14, 2016 8:56 PM  

I approve of this lawsuit.

Blogger Matt September 14, 2016 8:58 PM  

What is your belief on child models/actors/entertainers etc.?

Anonymous WinstonWebb September 14, 2016 9:01 PM  

What is your belief on child models/actors/entertainers etc.?
That they get sexually abused at a MUCH higher rate than other children their age.

Blogger VD September 14, 2016 9:01 PM  

What is your belief on child models/actors/entertainers etc.?

They're getting paid. There is a benefit to them. There is no benefit to them in having their privacy violated for the benefit of their parents' egos.

Anonymous Leatherwing September 14, 2016 9:03 PM  

In addition to what you said, it's just rude. It's like pulling out your child's embarrassing baby book in front of a date, but inviting the entire modern world to sit in.

Anonymous Down and Out in... September 14, 2016 9:03 PM  

This is very good advice, and not even for the legalistic lawsuit reasons.

Don't ever, ever, ever let strangers on a computer know anything, anything at all, about your children.

SAFETY MOOSE DRAWS ATTENTION TO SAFETY!!

Blogger haus frau September 14, 2016 9:03 PM  

The comments under the DailyMail article on FB were split with a lot of people calling that poor girl a spoiled, ungrateful, brat and arguing that her parents fed and cared for her and so were entitled to post what pictures they wanted or that she should be grateful to have parents who "love" her so much. I got the impression that they think of a child as property more than a vulnerable human entrusted tot he care of adults with no say in the arrangement.
Many of the photos were of her naked in the tub, on her cot, or on the toilette. Doesn't it occur to these people, what kind of parents drive their child to sue them just to have the photos removed? What is the point of the parents insisting on displaying these photos at the cost of the relationship with the daughter they are so proud of and love so much? What is the motivation of the parents willfully doing something the daughter has told them is embarrassing to her? Makes me wonder what else they put this girl through before she resorted to legal action.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 14, 2016 9:05 PM  

I have had this discussion with many people of many ages who do not understand the difference between a photo album on a shelf and teh Interwebs. Dialectic with rhetoric wrapping of the "Once it's out there, it's there forever" sometimes works.

"You might just get your butt sued off" may work better.

Blogger Amy September 14, 2016 9:10 PM  

Guilty as charged. Nothing I would consider embarrassing but kids might down the line. Mostly family trips and stuff.

There are some whom post naked toddler pics for headpats, and I can't wrap my head around it. Note the comments:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BI3u-j5gjzT/?taken-by=kinsleyraina&hl=en

My gosh.

Blogger Mountain Man September 14, 2016 9:11 PM  

"Do not - repeat - DO NOT - post pictures of your children on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or anywhere else on the Internet."

.. or of yourself for that matter. ( Unless you like "fame")
I've been paranoid about keeping personal information and pictures off the internet for years. It has been the butt of jokes among friends and family. As our boundaries of privacy become thinner and thinner (much of it self inflicted) , my paranoia has paid off. For cursory searches my internet footprint is pretty light compared to most people I know.

Blogger Amy September 14, 2016 9:12 PM  

I've stopped, though. Facebook is how I lite-troll fam and friends with memes.

Blogger Doug Cranmer September 14, 2016 9:15 PM  

So far my cats haven't complained, but any attention is good attention as far as they're concerned.

Blogger Doug Cranmer September 14, 2016 9:15 PM  

So far my cats haven't complained, but any attention is good attention as far as they're concerned.

Blogger haus frau September 14, 2016 9:23 PM  

@12 as long as they aren't pics of changing their diapers or going poo.

Anonymous BGKB September 14, 2016 9:25 PM  

Definitely make sure you remove the GPS metadata from your kids pics

OT: leftists too stupid to know a 69yo woman punched in the face would have a bruise, claim TRUMP support hit her. http://www.towleroad.com/2016/09/shirley-teeter/

Anonymous Stirner September 14, 2016 9:31 PM  

I think posting kid pics to the Faceborg is ok - but only if you are doing it your immediate circle of friends and family. They are the only people who want to see those pictures anyway.

Putting them on twitter, instagram, or anything with general public access is irresponsible.

Anonymous JI September 14, 2016 9:35 PM  

While at it, newspapers and magazines should be sued for having published photographs of children in public, going back to the invention of photography. Heck, I think painters who made likenesses of children without consent over the past hundreds of years are guilty and the descendants of the children should sue the descendants of the painters.

Blogger ZhukovG September 14, 2016 9:39 PM  

I have the same affection for social media that most would have for a contagious disease ward. If I am involved in a contract that requires it, I'll do it. Afterwards I, figuratively, delouse.

OpenID evolutionistx September 14, 2016 9:49 PM  

Privacy settings. Use 'em. If you're going to post pics of your kids on the internet, use sites where you can set the privacy settings to only allow the people you want to allow to see them. Honestly, strangers don't want to see pictures of your kids, anyway, unless they're creeps.

Also, never make public posts about your kids' poop/vomit/pee/potty training.

Anything you post about your kids on the internet, imagine your worst middle school enemies reading out loud about you, and ask yourself, "Is this what I want for my kid?"

Anonymous Gone Nova September 14, 2016 9:54 PM  

@16 You say that thinking that there is no way that those pics could be seen outside those circles. Facebook is not secure, it is ignorant to trust that those photos will remain in that circle.

Blogger Steampunk Koala September 14, 2016 10:00 PM  

This has been very, very hard for my extended family to grasp, so much so that we have had to stop spending time around the more obstinate members. It's amazing how entitled other people feel to my kids and their pictures.

Anonymous Cyclone Bob September 14, 2016 10:04 PM  

Gone Nova,
Too right. Only a fool would trust the berg who said of his users, "They trust me -- dumb fucks."

Anonymous Mark Goldberg Horowitz Cohen September 14, 2016 10:11 PM  

Too right. Only a fool would trust the berg who said of his users, "They trust me -- dumb fucks."

Even so, Facebook is still a fabulous piece of technology. I just love it.

Blogger Cecil Henry September 14, 2016 10:14 PM  

People: the internet is NOT private.


And anything sacred is kept private.

Anonymous URL IRL September 14, 2016 10:17 PM  

If we want to share pictures with family or friends we email. Broadcasting our kids on social media has always struck a non-harmonious chord.

"BUT WHY NOT? EVERYONE'S DOING IT!! IT'S NO BIG DEAL!1"

Why should we? I see no compelling reason. Email or Skype is sufficient.

Anonymous Icicle September 14, 2016 10:25 PM  

It thinks email is secure. Heh heh heh.

Blogger Phillip George September 14, 2016 10:28 PM  

another lawyers picnic.

An Australian columnist by the name of Tim Blair has been extremely good at finding cultural icons that dealt with generation snowflake but were then culturally promptly ignored by everyone:
this only goes a few minutes but is brilliant:
https://youtu.be/FZo2hhvvlpw

children can't give informed consent or enter into contracts for a reason. But allowing them to sue their parents is more dangerous than growing up with dip stick parents. If they can read write and money grub they should be grateful for who they were actually raised by. Revenge won't work.

Anonymous Leatherwing September 14, 2016 10:29 PM  

Privacy settings. Use 'em.
The problem with that is that Facebook regularly changes privacy settings. Unless you are extremely diligent, they will change the rules to get your data broadcast as wide as possible.
The dissemination of data is the goal of social networks. Most people don't bother or aren't capable of keeping up with the ever-changing privacy settings updates.

Blogger Earl September 14, 2016 10:36 PM  

Social media is anti-social. Love the chaos. Where is Loki?

Blogger Lazarus September 14, 2016 10:40 PM  

This is just a dysfunctional family squabble become public.

But that does not negate Vox's point.

Do you just throw your ATM receipts on the street?

Blogger Sheila4g September 14, 2016 10:59 PM  

Parents who post their lives to Faceborg are wastes of space. I pity their children. Breitbart's cucky commentariat was labeling the girl an ungrateful "special snowflake." I think she has a good case, and hope she wins.

All those trips and expeditions and days out with my kids I was the only mom who did NOT have a camera with her, constantly posing the kids and snapping pictures. I was busy enjoying watching my kid(s) enjoy themselves. Memories matter. Smart phones and selfies are for solipsistic SJWs. Don't be one.

Blogger Phillip George September 14, 2016 11:09 PM  

next step?
child sues parents for making them learn stuff when they wanted to be real life jungle boy.
child sues parents for making them dress as a boy when they were a girl on the inside
child sues parents for making them good at gymnastics when they really just wanted to run marathons, even if they came second.
child sues parents for teaching them flat geometry Universe when they always just wanted to occupy Riemmanian geometry universes.
Child sues parents for giving them stuff and denying them the opportunity to experience Diogenes' philosophy.

what lawyer doesn't salivate on young flesh eager to come the bar.

Blogger bob k. mando ( the hardest troll here ) September 14, 2016 11:19 PM  

28. Phillip George September 14, 2016 10:28 PM
Revenge won't work.


she's not asking for revenge, doofus. she's trying to force her parents to take the pictures down, something she had simply asked of them and they refused.


the story gives every indication that she would withdraw the suit if they would simply take the pics down.

now, ask yourself, what kind of parents would demand the 'right' to continue posting pictures of their daughter to the entire world even after she had told them that if they didn't cease and desist that she would get a lawyer?

Barnhardt would call it Diabolical Narcissism.

Blogger ghostfromplanetspook September 14, 2016 11:22 PM  

How is this real life never mind fucking news worthy?

Blogger D. September 14, 2016 11:24 PM  

You're not "racist". You are "tribalists" . Your tribe matters.

Blogger Phil Mann September 14, 2016 11:26 PM  

Come on, Phillip. You can't see the difference between (a) doing what you genuinely think at the time is best for your kids and (b) continuing to make available to the entire world intimate pictures that your own grown child has told you are embarrassing and has asked you not to post?

Anonymous ben September 14, 2016 11:26 PM  

Meh, we all die someday and then it doesn't matter, so it doesn't matter.

Anonymous andon September 14, 2016 11:51 PM  

3. Anonymous WinstonWebb September 14, 2016 9:01 PM
What is your belief on child models/actors/entertainers etc.?
That they get sexually abused at a MUCH higher rate than other children their age.


does that have something to do with (((Hollywood)))?

Blogger CM September 15, 2016 12:02 AM  

I stopped. We have the occassional professional pic of children happy, clothed, and non-compromised, but even my mother picked up on my drop in posting pictures of kids. She sends them via private file sharing accts and txt message.

Most of my kids precious moments are sent via group txt to grandmas and godparents. The rest is for my own sake.

Blogger Phillip George September 15, 2016 12:02 AM  

my mistake. the hyperlink wasn't working my end and the quote is ambiguous on details.

I did not google the source.

And Facebook's culpubility?

You notice that naked Vietnamese Napalm Girl is suddenly all protected when her image might have saved actual lives on both sides of the sea.

Anyway the more "appropriate" thing to do might be to dump them in the somali staffed nursing home when the time comes and enjoy the inheritance, if any, without the litigation community buying Condo's. But that's cynical.

Anonymous Rum Raisin September 15, 2016 12:19 AM  

A coworker has a somewhat popular blog about her life as a working mom, and the posts include intimate and very embarrassing details of her young children's daily lives along with lots of photos of them. I can't understand what the motivation is behind this. (Well, I can; what I can't understand is why any mom is willing to pimp out her kids for a little notoriety.)

Blogger Thucydides September 15, 2016 12:25 AM  

Just wondering how Vox and Co's alternatives to current social media will handle issues like this?

Blogger eharmonica September 15, 2016 12:35 AM  

I used to take my kids to the beach here in LA at sunset. You would not believe the numbers of vermin who showed up with digital SLR's, taking their "silhouettes". I insisted that they delete the pics. But I couldn't catch them all.

Creepy as all hell.

Blogger bob k. mando ( the hardest troll here ) September 15, 2016 1:29 AM  

38. ben September 14, 2016 11:26 PM
Meh, we all die someday and then it doesn't matter, so it doesn't matter.



*atheist materialism intensifies*

Blogger M Cephas September 15, 2016 1:31 AM  

Parents give their children circumcisions without consent. Unless the children are ancient Jews from 2000+ years ago trying to fulfil their end of the old covenant, they receive no benefit, and plenty of harm.

If parents are going to be sued for not getting consent from their children, that would be the first place to start. What else can they be sued for? Childhood obesity, spanking, or hitting?

Blogger CashBailey September 15, 2016 2:17 AM  

I admit, a few years ago I felt the need to delve into the online dating thing for a little while and in browsing women's profiles I was truly astounded to see how many of them include their children in their profile pictures.

It actually made me angry and I had to resist DM-ing these ignorant bitches and putting them on blast. It's like "Yeah, why not advertise your children to every pedo out there looking for a single mother with a couple of vulnerable kids."

It just confirmed to me that women are fucking stupid.

Blogger mjusiq September 15, 2016 3:55 AM  

OT: A picture of the Danish terrorists Omar's grave. The guy which more than 200 of his muslim friends and comrades celebrated at his funeral wearing black hooders, treating Omar as a hero. No more virgins for him - or his friends. Some Danes had enough. Sign reads: "Here rest the terrorist Omar.... Allah NEVER forgave you, Denmark not either (forgave you)....! Here: http://snaphanen.dk/2016/09/15/viktor-orban-advarer-mod-civilisatorisk-katastrofe/#more-187093

Muslims celebrating the terrorists - he is with his virgins now (Not anymore): http://multimedia.pol.dk/archive/00915/Fredagsb_n_og_begra_915030y.jpg

Respect to the Danes - this is what any Allahu Akhbar lonely wolf mental case should know is waiting. Zero virgins.

Blogger JACIII September 15, 2016 4:29 AM  

There is a group conversation facility on your phones messaging app. Use it to distribute pics of your kids to family.

Facebook is for trolling and attention whoring. Pick one.

Anonymous Avalanche September 15, 2016 6:54 AM  

@31 "Memories matter. Smart phones and selfies are for solipsistic SJWs. Don't be one."

On the other hand: My husband died in 2011. I treasure EVERY picture I ever took of him (while he would ruefully rolled his eyes and let me do it). Did I post cruise pix on the web? Sure, but I considered his dignity before doing so. And, sure, I have silly pix of him, but they're ones I'd never share, even with close friends or family; but ones I would absolutely regret not having!

These parents sound like they lack all boundaries (at least where their daughter is concerned) and any sense of empathy. Not sure you can force that by a court of law, but it might be enough to force them to stop.

Blogger Nate September 15, 2016 7:53 AM  

Vox...

This is flat out anti-civilizational. Children don't have privacy rights with respect to their parents. Any lawsuit from a child vs a parent is just one more attempt to destroy the west by destroying the family.

As for privacy in general. It is completely insane that you cling to the notion that it exists.

in 2016... privacy is precisely as real as equality.

Anonymous Athor Pel September 15, 2016 8:12 AM  

"50. Blogger Nate September 15, 2016 7:53 AM
Vox...

This is flat out anti-civilizational. Children don't have privacy rights with respect to their parents. Any lawsuit from a child vs a parent is just one more attempt to destroy the west by destroying the family.

As for privacy in general. It is completely insane that you cling to the notion that it exists.

in 2016... privacy is precisely as real as equality.
"


Now we know you're a pedo.

Pedo.

Blogger Nate September 15, 2016 8:16 AM  

So lets see.... when my eldest wasn't even 2 yet... My wife was pushing him on a swing in a park and a local newspaper took his picture.

They got permission to publish the picture.. and the AP ended up picking it up too. So my son's picture was plastered all over who knows where.

Does that violate his privacy rights?

Blogger Nate September 15, 2016 8:31 AM  

"Now we know you're a pedo."

look... someone else painted free candy on my van as a practical joke.

Anonymous EH September 15, 2016 8:56 AM  

Seems legit.

Anonymous Elipe September 15, 2016 9:10 AM  

I'm with Vox on this one. Post online pictures of your children at your and your children's risk.

That risk could be nothing. Or it could be a pedo sees that and makes your child a target. Or your kids get bullied in school. Or maybe you're such a sentimental retard you absolutely refuse to take down the pictures when your child asks you to.

The point is, you can't say you weren't warned.

Blogger Nate September 15, 2016 9:12 AM  

"That risk could be nothing. Or it could be a pedo sees that and makes your child a target. Or your kids get bullied in school."

Take your child into public at your own risk. A pedo could see the child and make your child a target. Or your kid could get bullied in school.

Do you see how stupid that is yet?

Anonymous 5343 September 15, 2016 9:22 AM  

As for privacy in general. It is completely insane that you cling to the notion that it exists.

in 2016... privacy is precisely as real as equality.


That may be true, Nate, but unlike equity, in a fallen world privacy is a real value. Remember the skins in the garden with which Adam and Eve were covered.

Maybe the Powers That Be want to take away privacy. Maybe the average Facebooking moron is willing to give theirs away for nothing.

So what? Why should any Christian be on board with that?

Anonymous 5343 September 15, 2016 9:24 AM  

This is flat out anti-civilizational. Children don't have privacy rights with respect to their parents.

Of course not. But why should they not have privacy rights with respect to the rest of the world? That's the issue.

Anonymous David-093 September 15, 2016 9:25 AM  

Nate, surely you know there's a difference between a permanent, embarassing image of a kid and taking your kid to the grocery store, right? You can't control what other people do but you can control what you do.

Anonymous jdgalt September 15, 2016 9:34 AM  

This has been much discussed in r/childfree. The kid will probably win because of a German law that says copyright in a photo (not taken in a public place) belongs to the person depicted, not the photographer.

The US does not have this law yet, but ought to. It would likely pass First Amendment scrutiny where other kinds of laws against, ie, revenge porn will not.

Blogger Erynne September 15, 2016 9:43 AM  

Does this mean the demotivators on this site are illegal because the atheists in question did not consent? Is it possible for people to black knight this type of picture and meme posting?

Blogger Mark Citadel September 15, 2016 10:14 AM  

No parent should be doing this. It is abusive and wrong, catnip for pedophiles. And no, they are not covered by 'honor thy mother and father', which I know someone will say. Having the impetus to put this stuff online is indicative of a deep contempt for the child's honor.

Blogger Nate September 15, 2016 10:57 AM  

"Nate, surely you know there's a difference between a permanent, embarassing image of a kid and taking your kid to the grocery store, right?"

No. I don't know that. Because once your child is in public it is legal for anyone who is in public to take their picture.

or did you not know that?

Blogger Nate September 15, 2016 10:59 AM  

"But why should they not have privacy rights with respect to the rest of the world? That's the issue."

That is up to the parents. And only the parents. Children bitching ex-post-facto is irrelevant and stupid.

Privacy doesn't exist. Period. get over it.

Blogger Anchorman September 15, 2016 11:11 AM  

What if the parents shared stories with friends at a cocktail party or group dinner?

Would that violate privacy and be subject to lawsuits?

Anonymous Athor Pel September 15, 2016 11:36 AM  

"64. Blogger Nate September 15, 2016 10:59 AM
...
Privacy doesn't exist. Period. get over it.
"


Just because you've been photographed wearing lingerie and makeup doesn't mean other people must allow the degradation of their children.

Pedo.

Anonymous Elipe September 15, 2016 11:47 AM  

Some people here are having trouble grasping the difference between pictures of naked children in bathtubs and taking your fully clothed kids to the grocery store.

What if the parents shared stories with friends at a cocktail party or group dinner?

How is that like having nude pictures of their children on Facebook and refusing to take them down after being asked to do so by these very same children all grown up?

A more analogous situation would be that the grown children are sitting at the table and then their parents just won't. Shut. The. Fuck. Up. About how little and teeny Timmy's penis was when he was 4 year-old.

In that case, the mother fully deserves to be punched in the face as hard as possible by Timmy.

In this real story, the daughter is legally punching her parents in the face for doing the Facebook equivalent of that.

Blogger Were-Puppy September 15, 2016 12:13 PM  

It's taken me years to get people to stop putting photos of me up and tagging them. I dunno how I can convince them to stop putting up their kids. It's a yuuuuge chore.

Blogger Anchorman September 15, 2016 12:41 PM  

@67 I guess I should have included that the stories were embarrassing, but I thought 1) that point would be made since it was compared and 2) there really isn't a difference in principle.

Anonymous szIlk September 15, 2016 12:50 PM  

I sympathize with Vox a lot on this issue, but the practical reality if far more towards Nate's corner on this. It is far more disruptive to families to allow the l(i)a(r)wyer class into this to drive even legitimate wedges further between parents and teens for fun and profit as they are wont.

Keep in mind the state of affairs in the earth is as follows:

Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure;

Anonymous David-093 September 15, 2016 1:50 PM  

"No. I don't know that. Because once your child is in public it is legal for anyone who is in public to take their picture.

or did you not know that?"

Then I'll spell it out for you: the whole issue is over what PARENTS do, not what strangers do. Strangers taking pictures of kids usually gets the cops called on them, because why is a stranger taking pictures of kids that are not there's? Parents taking embarrassing photos then publishing them online for hundreds of their closest friends and relatives and thousands of strangers to see is the issue.

Anonymous SumDood September 15, 2016 1:51 PM  

Doesn't Fartbook's terms of service state that they (Fartbook) own all content posted?

This lawsuit might be the thin end of a wedge that changes that.

OpenID fidelioesp September 15, 2016 2:55 PM  

This blanket "DO NOT POST" strikes me as odd. Posting naked or intimate pics is indeed a safety risk. Posting normal pics is, in my view, the right of the parent. Strangers couldn't give a rat's tush about anybody's kids, so the parents are in effect sharing them with friends. Creating a retroactive "right to privacy" for the kids strikes me as anti-family and therefore more in line with SJW thought than alt-right thought.

Anonymous Elipe September 15, 2016 3:15 PM  

fidelioesp wrote:Creating a retroactive "right to privacy" for the kids strikes me as anti-family

How is not posting pictures of your kids on Facebook anti-family?

What the hell did your parents do back before the Internet existed?

Blogger Wormwood September 15, 2016 3:25 PM  

Provided that the young lady tried to resolve this issue with her parents privately first, it's awfully hard headed of them to continue to post those cutesy images against her expressed wishes. It's one thing to trot out the embarrassing photos and show them to a boyfriend or husband, but they should have honored her wishes regarding social media.

Blogger bob k. mando ( the hardest troll here ) September 15, 2016 5:21 PM  

53. Nate September 15, 2016 8:31 AM
look... someone else painted free candy on my van as a practical joke.



but you're the one who decided it was good advertising ...

Anonymous bgkb September 15, 2016 5:46 PM  

http://universalfreepress.com/2016/democrat-mayor-ohio-rape/

Funny most news agencies didn't report the democrat mayor claimed a 4yo girl consented.

Anonymous Sagramore September 15, 2016 7:06 PM  

@71 In Quebec, newspapers have been sued for running candids without a release. You have to specifically relinquish your moral rights here.

One reason I moved back.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit September 15, 2016 8:38 PM  

Embrace the power of "and," people.

Encouraging kids to sue their parents is positively Soviet. Plaintiffs attorneys are the devil.

And Vox Day is correct on this one. So many of us are far-flung with family thousands of miles away, and a central one-stop location: A photo-sharing site, Facebook, etc. seems like a good solution: upload once, tag with something obscure, and the whole extended family gets an update on the band concert or the first day of school.

But it's an evil world. The SJWs are doing everything in their power to normalize perversity. If the Right Victim Class(TM) rapes your kid, the best you can hope for is a cover up. And the internets are forever.

Don't let one whiny brat, and a State committed to driving a wedge between children and parents, prevent you from taking our host's wise advice.

Anonymous Discard September 16, 2016 7:07 AM  

Why is anybody on Facebook? Didn't Zuckerberg warn them?

35 mm film camera still works.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts