this banner ad was taken from thomas hawk's website this morning. i don't know much about crying, or children, or crying children, so help me out here: does that, or does that not, look like a wee one feeling bad?
cough hypocrite cough hmmm what? well, it's apparently not so bad to "abuse children" (ed. note, not an admission of anything, just the largest amount of sarcasm i could compress into two words) if you are getting paid to advertise.
Umm, i'm not really into this controversy or the blog debate - but seriously, that doesen't hold up at all. You just want to sink the guy so bad. He probably has no direct control over that ad spot, only allowing some kind of big profile ad cycle on it that's trustable. He didn't authorize that specific ad, neither disallow it. Maybe he didn't even see it, maybe the cycle went on thirty minutes later, or if it was a more direct cycleing of a bunch of adds going on for a period of time varying with your visit or clicks around the site.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, not because it really matters, the kid is most likely not more than one year by the looks of it, and photographing a kid that basically cries without reason totally unprovoked, like they do, not needing to get hurt, then moving on is hardly the same thing.
And im not really anonymous, I just dont have an account.
Viktor eriksson