Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Susanne ([info]cellardoor28) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2006-04-04 21:01:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood:Caffeinated

A poster has posted some pics in Baaaaabyanimals which show baby puppies with baby humans (and is clearly labelled as such).

The very first comment bitches about the 'crotchdroppings'.

It can only get worse from here...

EDIT - All offending remarks have now been deleted. So now we can just enjoy puppies!


(Post a new comment)


[info]smo
2006-04-04 08:05 pm UTC (link)
I thought pictures of human babies were only allowed on certain occasions, anyway.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]rogue
2006-04-04 08:14 pm UTC (link)
There's a post a few below this one with human babies and animal babies, and a mod commented only to remark that there needed to be a description of what what behind the cut, so apparently it's allowed. They seem to be having some sort of theme week with pictures of multiple sorts of babies together.

By all childfree psycho standards, I don't think the offending comment was that bad.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]smo, 2006-04-04 08:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rogue, 2006-04-04 08:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]smo, 2006-04-04 08:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]honorh, 2006-04-04 08:52 pm UTC

[info]yubsie
2006-04-05 03:38 am UTC (link)
PIctures of JUST human babies dressed as animals are only allowed in the week around Halloween. The pictures in question showed human babies WITH animal babies, so it's a different category.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]smo, 2006-04-05 11:48 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yubsie, 2006-04-05 03:20 pm UTC

[info]seiberwing
2006-04-04 08:14 pm UTC (link)
Didn't this happen somewhere before with a cute picture of a frog blankie that happened to have a baby human on it?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]frenzy
2006-04-05 12:15 am UTC (link)
I think that one was race!wank, though.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]seiberwing, 2006-04-05 12:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]chaimonkey, 2006-04-05 03:48 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]seiberwing, 2006-04-05 10:49 am UTC

[info]ashenmote
2006-04-04 08:24 pm UTC (link)
Is that a remake? It sounds strangely familiar.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]oxydosic
2006-04-04 10:10 pm UTC (link)
Aww, i love that icon.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]emiweebee
2006-04-04 08:31 pm UTC (link)
Okay. I get that babies are baby animal humans. I get it, I really do.

But at this point, it's like all the baby human! posts are just pushing for wank. Or pushing for adoration of their kid. It's not like there aren't eight billion communities devoted to posting pictures of your kid.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]quinctia
2006-04-04 08:40 pm UTC (link)
But what if you had the cutest baby animal picture EVER, but it happened to have (O NOES) a baby human in it, in a way you couldn't crop it out?

What if you didn't even know the baby?

Are you still being a stupid entitled breeder, or maybe you just like teh cute?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]emiweebee, 2006-04-04 10:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kannaophelia, 2006-04-05 12:30 pm UTC

[info]ladyvorkosigan
2006-04-04 08:50 pm UTC (link)
But it's not like people don't post pictures of their kittens hoping for adoration of them.

I guess I just don't understand why it's a deal one way or another. I don't think baby rabbits are particularly cute. I don't bother to click on cut tags of pictures of baby rabbits. If it was a picture of a baby rabbit and a kitten together I'd probably click on it, ooh over the kitten, and ignore/be indifferent to the rabbit. Why the drama for a baby human?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]plazmah, 2006-04-04 09:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]miss_padfoot, 2006-04-04 10:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kannaophelia, 2006-04-05 12:31 pm UTC

[info]honorh
2006-04-04 08:50 pm UTC (link)
Well, here's what I'm seeing here: The OP happened to have some cute pictures of baby animals with baby humans. She posted them behind a cut to let people know what they were.

Therefore, the CF-er was bound by law to click on the cut just so s/h/it could make a comment about "crotchdroppings."

Guess who I'm blaming for the wank?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]emiweebee, 2006-04-04 10:05 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]squib, 2006-04-04 11:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]puipui, 2006-04-04 11:54 pm UTC

[info]snacky
2006-04-04 08:55 pm UTC (link)
This person isn't posting pictures of their kids. They said they googled for them. And since it looks like they're having a theme week of "babies with babies" and the post was clearly labeled as containing human babies...

well, of course, it was utterly and horrifically wanky of them to post pictures of crotchdroppings human babies under such circumstances.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]emiweebee, 2006-04-04 10:07 pm UTC

[info]symbeline
2006-04-04 09:08 pm UTC (link)
All those are valid points, which are exactly the things that no one listens to.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]emiweebee, 2006-04-04 10:08 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]miss_padfoot, 2006-04-04 10:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]emiweebee, 2006-04-04 11:04 pm UTC

[info]yubsie
2006-04-05 03:21 pm UTC (link)
These pictures were actually found on Google, the cute babies weren't the OP's kids.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]sisterelwood
2006-04-04 08:32 pm UTC (link)
Is it sad that I had to sit and think about what was meant by 'crotchdroppings'? Seriously, I don't care if people have kids or not- it's all about personal choice but... if they consider babies to be crotchdroppings then everyone and every living creature is a crotchdropping. Get over yourselves people.

As for the baby animals- awwww!!!

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]emiweebee
2006-04-04 10:09 pm UTC (link)
Well, poor giraffes are kind of literally crotchdroppings...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]singe, 2006-04-04 11:22 pm UTC

[info]rachel_pi
2006-04-04 08:36 pm UTC (link)
[info]mercedeslove sounds familiar. Has she been wanking somewhere else recently? customers_suck maybe?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]exdee, 2006-04-04 09:28 pm UTC

[info]quinctia
2006-04-04 08:43 pm UTC (link)
That second picture? The kid with the glazed look and the bizarre puppy in its arms that looks like a poodle/OSTRICH crossbreed? The puppy looking like "OMG MUST GET AWAY?"

...that's quite cute and hilarious and needs the crazy looking baby to pull it off. XD

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]singe, 2006-04-04 11:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]quinctia, 2006-04-05 01:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]singe, 2006-04-05 03:57 pm UTC

[info]ashenmote
2006-04-04 08:44 pm UTC (link)
And I can't say I like babies, but the last one is a cutie.
The one that they found in a detonated gift shop, not so much. Heavens, who inflicts such outfits on their poor kids? Even Emma Watson would refuse to wear that.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]chaimonkey, 2006-04-04 09:05 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]emiweebee, 2006-04-04 10:09 pm UTC

[info]breecita
2006-04-04 09:08 pm UTC (link)
I think the modly hammer was brought down upon the wank with impressive speed. I see nothing but happy replies.

Oh well. The puppies are cute, and the last pic is adorable.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]singe, 2006-04-04 11:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sorchar, 2006-04-04 11:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]singe, 2006-04-05 04:59 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]breecita, 2006-04-05 01:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]miss_padfoot, 2006-04-05 01:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]breecita, 2006-04-05 01:51 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]miss_padfoot, 2006-04-05 01:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]breecita, 2006-04-05 02:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]singe, 2006-04-05 04:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]breecita, 2006-04-05 06:02 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]singe, 2006-04-05 06:26 pm UTC

[info]khym_chanur
2006-04-04 11:18 pm UTC (link)
I can kind of understand hating babies when they're up close and personal: noisy, messy, needy and demanging, sometimes smelly, can't carry on a good conversation, etc. But pictures of baby animals that just happen to also have human babies? That seems to pass the line from hatred to downright loathing, which I don't get.

(Reply to this)


[info]sorchar
2006-04-04 11:20 pm UTC (link)
I swear to God, some of the psycho CF people are in a sekrit contest to see who can be the most annoying, bizarre, and strident in their CFness.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]lady7jane, 2006-04-04 11:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sorchar, 2006-04-04 11:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady7jane, 2006-04-05 12:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]puipui, 2006-04-05 12:13 am UTC

[info]felinephoenix
2006-04-05 03:58 am UTC (link)
Has anyone told the CF gang that baby animals are crotchdroppings too? I mean, technically, most of the mammals dropped out of a crotch.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]hellespont, 2006-04-05 04:13 am UTC

[info]coffee_mug
2006-04-05 11:01 am UTC (link)
I should be used to this by now but anytime baaaabyanimals brings on teh wank, my mind just BOGGLES.

Then again, cf_hardcore folk are usually involved so it's not that amazing, I guess.

(Reply to this)


[info]ailei
2006-04-05 11:55 am UTC (link)
All I can say is OMG I about died of cute at the little girl with the baby pug (?).

(Reply to this)

  
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map