Not cuteoverload to peddle products harmful to cute furry stars

Yesterday, the owner of left an alert on our BEWARE Hartz tick and flea control products post.

I was disturbed to find that sadoverload was born because of the money-making ads FOR Hartz on, a well-known and well-liked centre for pictures of fluffy cuteness, in essence, snugglecore. Like many websites out there, cuteoverload uses adsense to generate income from click-throughs. Ads can be rotated, and so you may not see the same ads everytime you visit an adsense site.

Out of my principle for objectivity, or innocent until proven guilty, I had kept cuteoverload on our blogroll until I could see the offending ad for myself. Well, I just did, at about 1.45pm, local time.


I am disappointed to learn on both sadoverload and that the owner of cuteoverload has ignored all their attempts at communications on this, and has erased all comments about this that appears on any of the cuteoverload postings. In addition, the owner of sadoverload, an avid longtime fan of cuteoverload has been banned for her attempts to bring the attention of her fellow-cuteoverload fans to the presence of the ads and to warn them about the harmful effects of Hartz on kitties and doggies, like this poor soul found out, the painful way.

Incidentally, I will be posting shortly, have posted a link to a post that shows it is possible to keep your pets free of fleas and keep them out of harm’s way at the same time.


5 responses to “Not cuteoverload to peddle products harmful to cute furry stars

  1. The most ironic thing about the ad is that it claims you don’t have to take your pets to the vet for fleas and ticks…however you WILL have to take them to the vet if they use Hartz products. Seems a little counter-productive.

  2. The whole thing is so appalling!

    CO’s Meg Frost attempted a little damage control in the “Hamster Ts” comments area. Check out a screenshot here:

    The hilarious part is that she erased the very comment (from Kate) that inspired the comment (from Mary) into which Meg inserted her transparently rationalizing remarks. Not surprisingly, she continues to erase comments about the subject. And still no response to those of us whose initial attempts to communicate with her privately fell on deaf ears!

    Please visit Sad Overload ( for updates!

  3. Been an opponent of Hartz and fan of cuteoverload for awhile now. Will be watching this with interest…

    For the record, though, Erin L, most “-Ed” comments are Theo, not Meg.

  4. Wow, two of my comments (that were actually diplomatic and giving Meg the benefit of the doubt) were just deleted from one of cuteoverload’s threads. Now I’m ticked.

    My suggestion: Lots of cuteoverload readers read other popular blogs, too. Post in the comments of THOSE blogs with the URL to this site and a short explanation. Try to catch a new post early in the day – that way more people will see your comment.

  5. Just FYI: It doesn’t surprise me that CO deletes your comments. They don’t like any intrusion of unpleasant reality in their comment section.

    I stopped visiting CO months ago because they occasionally post material that encourages animal exploitation for people’s amusement. For example, a few months ago they posted a series of pictures of some jerk tossing his pets around for fun. Not cute at all.

    Oddly enough, people who post comments expressing concern for the welfare of an exploited animal, are routinely mocked and verbally abused by other commenters. This combative atmosphere is encouraged by the editor “theo”, who likes to inject sarcastic and rude remarks into the comments of other people. Again, not cute.