nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

Sky King

People do know this is a character right? And not an actual person?

Does it strike anyone else as strange that a made-up persona with a fake voice, parody accent and a fking plastic bag on his head is treated like a normal, regular person in debates and current affairs TV shows? And given the same credibility and respect as an actual real person?

Imagine Fr. Dougal Mcguire, Dustin the Turkey and Fortycoats appearing our incisive current affairs shows discussing mental health with Alan Partridge adjudicating.

Or discussing the 8th amendment and feminism with Mrs Brown, The Bottler and Podge and Rodge? It would be treated like a joke (obviously), but when the prank phone call making, glue-huffing, spastic hawk-toting Blindboy talks serious we all suddenly have to sit up take it seriously.

If I was asked to debate on the same show as a parody character I'd be more than a little pissed off.

By all means share your story on mental health or offer an opinion on our education system. But for fk sake would you give us and the other people on the show the respect of doing it yourself, in a real voice? Without a fking bag on your head?

Alternatively if you prefer holding on to the bag, you could try going back to... you know... being funny. And less preachy.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

RGDATA! wrote: »

link us to your tunes and your book.

In fairness, yer man that YouTuber cian whatsisface has a book out atm..if someone has any bit of a public profile it seems it's the first thing they do now..is it just a revenue streams thing maybe?..how many books has roz Purcell out now?

Mokuba

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But you only quoted half of what was said there. And quotes taken out of context almost always get distorted.

He THEN went on to clarify what he meant by that. And what he meant by it is that he sees feminism as making women and men equal and that this attitude he has encountered in some men of "I as a man need to have something to offer women" needs to be replaced by the concept of seeing the man and woman in any relationship as equals.

So this view of the man's place to be about "providing for a woman" is outdated in his view and he defines feminism as "Not about females being powerful but about redressing a balance and being about equality".

Not seeing any wrong with any of what he said myself to be honest. And rather than listen to what he said on the matter of feminism we see people on this thread introduce THEIR interpretation of "feminism" or "modern feminism" and judging what the speaker said by THOSE lights and definitions rather than his own.

So rather than single sentences taken out of the whole, people are welcome to listen to the entire monologue here.

Men are always going to want to be a provider, feminism or not. It's a natural instinct. Feminism would have you believe otherwise. Yes it's increasingly likely that both partners will be on the same money or women could be the primary breadwinner, but the natural biological impulse will exist regardless.

Are you telling me that that is reason alone to buy into feminism?

Because if you're a lost/depressed young man and you are looking for help on a male issue - feminism is not going to help you.

It doesn't care about how boys do in school. Only girls. It doesn't care about men being under-represented in certain jobs. Only women. It doesn't care about male domestic abuse rates, about male suicide rates, about fathers rights, about the constant coverage in the media of a man as a buffoon and a woman as the one with cop-on. Constantly hearing about rape culture, gender pay gap, men being dominant/overpowering etc.

You can't just join feminism and take one thing on board.

Ulysses Gaze

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But you only quoted half of what was said there. And quotes taken out of context almost always get distorted.

He THEN went on to clarify what he meant by that. And what he meant by it is that he sees feminism as making women and men equal and that this attitude he has encountered in some men of "I as a man need to have something to offer women" needs to be replaced by the concept of seeing the man and woman in any relationship as equals.

So this view of the man's place to be about "providing for a woman" is outdated in his view and he defines feminism as "Not about females being powerful but about redressing a balance and being about equality".

Not seeing any wrong with any of what he said myself to be honest. And rather than listen to what he said on the matter of feminism we see people on this thread introduce THEIR interpretation of "feminism" or "modern feminism" and judging what the speaker said by THOSE lights and definitions rather than his own. As with many things alas, I think we have a single word "feminism" which has come to mean too many different things to too many people. And as always when a word comes to mean too much, it ends up meaning too little.

So rather than single sentences taken out of the whole, people are welcome to listen to the entire monologue here.

So how is his interpretation on feminism the correct one? It is, after all, just his opinion. And it should be open to criticism.

How is it any more correct than some of the posters here, many of whom may admire traditional feminist discourse but cannot abide the modern third/fourth wave equivalents?

Insect Overlord

Mokuba wrote: »

Men are always going to want to be a provider, feminism or not. It's a natural instinct. Feminism would have you believe otherwise. Yes it's increasingly likely that both partners will be on the same money or women could be the primary breadwinner, but the natural biological impulse will exist regardless.

Are you telling me that that is reason alone to buy into feminism?

Because if you're a lost/depressed young man and you are looking for help on a male issue - feminism is not going to help you.

The point is not to take on board the entire complicated mess that is feminism. One simply has to recognise men and women as equal, and to remember that when they feel under pressure to provide. It's about building a sense of self-esteem and self-worth and seeing the good in yourself, instead of judging yourself by your failures to live up to traditional or old-fashioned ideals.

nozzferrahhtoo

Mokuba wrote: »

Men are always going to want to be a provider, feminism or not. It's a natural instinct.

Speak for yourself I guess. It certainly does not represent me. I see my partner as just that, a partner. We do not provide for each other. We provide equally for our relationship and our children. The concept that I as a male am somehow the provider for my mate is one I have divested myself of a LONG time ago.

But I am not making that point so much as I was pointing out that that IS the point Blindboy was making. I am making the distinction between being clear what his point was, and whether the point is a good one or not. And I think when one or two sentences was taken out of the monologue as a whole........ it lost much of the meaning it originally held.

Mokuba wrote: »

Because if you're a lost/depressed young man and you are looking for help on a male issue - feminism is not going to help you.

Again that does not appear to be what the guy was saying when you listen to the entire talk rather than the sentences pulled out of it. Rather he was specifically addressing the issue of men who have problems due to their feelings they have "nothing to offer a woman". And he suggested certain aspects of feminism.... that of equality between the sexes...... would address that issue.

To then generalize his statement to all "young men with male issues" and ask does feminism help GENERALLY with that..... I think is to miss the point that was made in context.

His specific point..... that feelings of having nothing to offer women might be addressed by combating the narrative that men have to provide for women......... is not one I can find much to disagree with.

Mokuba wrote: »

You can't just join feminism and take one thing on board.

Again I think the issue there is that the word means too many things to too many people. You are taking the most noxious definition of it, and representations of it, and judging the comments of another person by YOUR definition of it rather than by theirs. Which in just about no conversation ever, is that going to be a useful approach.

If you parse his comments through HIS definition of feminism, rather than your own, you find they get rendered somewhat more sensibly. Try listening to the entire talk again, but every time he says feminism replace it in your mind with his definition of "Women not being powerful, but equality between the sexes" and THEN tell me what part of his statement does not parse as useful or true to you.

sentient_6

There's a certain irony about his persona being attacked on boards of all places, when everyone here hides behind a handle.

The OP ranting about him calls himself Sky King, to quote the Bandits if it was anymore ironic it would be Fe on the periodic table.

Stonedpilot

Insect Overlord wrote: »

The point is not to take on board the entire complicated mess that is feminism. One simply has to recognise men and women as equal, and to remember that when they feel under pressure to provide. It's about building a sense of self-esteem and self-worth and seeing the good in yourself, instead of judging yourself by your failures to live up to traditional or old-fashioned ideals.

And how does promoting feminism which is one gender only (in fact see's men in a adversarial position) advocate equality?.

His point was a garbled illogical mess. He's sucking in too much fumes from them plastic bags, only God knows what chemical garbage is in them.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

So how is his interpretation on feminism the correct one?

I didn't say it was

Rather what I am saying is that when ANYONE uses a word X, and you have a different definition of X than that person does........ then it is not sensible to parse THEIR comments through YOUR definition of the word.

I think words and language are contextual and many words have very fixed meanings, but many words also have very diverse meanings to different people. And some words are so general as to have little meaning at all (take the word sport for example, which describes MMA fighting and lawn bowling. Then consider just how much MMA and lawn bowling have in common really. Or take the word "religion" and then use it to find the common ground between a dedicated Muslim and a dedicated Jain.).

The only thing I see useful coming out of it is to realize just how dilute and useless the WORD has become, rather than the movements and ideas people have while using that word.

Mokuba

Insect Overlord wrote: »

The point is not to take on board the entire complicated mess that is feminism. One simply has to recognise men and women as equal, and to remember that when they feel under pressure to provide. It's about building a sense of self-esteem and self-worth and seeing the good in yourself, instead of judging yourself by your failures to live up to traditional or old-fashioned ideals.

Absolutely men and women are equal and should be seen as such. But feminism is not going to take away a natural biological impulse. Women are seen as the nurturer and are supported as such in custody cases but nobody cares about that. People can say whatever they want but on some level these are always going to exist because we have been programmed that way since the dawn of mankind.

He talks about paying for dates, and I can't believe I'm going to use this as an example, but on the show First Dates, there is almost an obligation on the man to pay and should he offer to go equal - then he is looked at as a leper. Feminism is not telling men to only pay half for meals out. It's happy for men to go on doing that - only equal with it suits women in my opinion (not every woman obviously)

If it's about building up a sense of self esteem and self worth then why is he not advocating exercise, hobbies and education to young men? If you feel down on yourself then invest in yourself as a person rather than investing in an often toxic ideology. Saying feminism is the answer is rubbish in my view.

kylith

Wibbs wrote: »

And it's still mindbendingly moronic a suggestion. Why the hell would any man look to feminism to help him? Feminism is as the name suggests always has been and is for women(fair enough), modern feminism demonises men at every turn, so what the fcuk it has to do with young men is beyond me, beyond idiotic to believe otherwise and beyond a joke to promote it.

Men have a lot to thank feminism for: contraceptives being available, not being expected to get married young cos you've gotten someone pregnant, not being expected to be sole provider for a family, expanding the definition of rape to include men, liberating women to work outside the home and be doctors (for example) liberated men to be stay-at-home dads and pursue more 'female' careers such as nursing, expanding parental leave to include men, allowing men to feel more comfortable expressing emotion.

Feminism has done a hell of a lot more for men than 'men's rights activists' have done. The fact that some feminists (#NotAllX works both ways) are msandrist bibes is beside the point.

Ulysses Gaze

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Speak for yourself I guess. It certainly does not represent me. I see my partner as just that, a partner. We do not provide for each other. We provide equally for our relationship and our children. The concept that I as a male am somehow the provider for my mate is one I have divested myself of a LONG time ago.

But I am not making that point so much as I was pointing out that that IS the point Blindboy was making. I am making the distinction between being clear what his point was, and whether the point is a good one or not. And I think when one or two sentences was taken out of the monologue as a whole........ it lost much of the meaning it originally held.

Again that does not appear to be what the guy was saying when you listen to the entire talk rather than the sentences pulled out of it. Rather he was specifically addressing the issue of men who have problems due to their feelings they have "nothing to offer a woman". And he suggested certain aspects of feminism.... that of equality between the sexes...... would address that issue.

To then generalize his statement to all "young men with male issues" and ask does feminism help GENERALLY with that..... I think is to miss the point that was made in context.

His specific point..... that feelings of having nothing to offer women might be addressed by combating the narrative that men have to provide for women......... is not one I can find much to disagree with.

Again I think the issue there is that the word means too many things to too many people. You are taking the most noxious definition of it, and representations of it, and judging the comments of another person by YOUR definition of it rather than by theirs. Which in just about no conversation ever, is that going to be a useful approach.

If you parse his comments through HIS definition of feminism, rather than your own, you find they get rendered somewhat more sensibly. Try listening to the entire talk again, but every time he says feminism replace it in your mind with his definition of "Women not being powerful, but equality between the sexes" and THEN tell me what part of his statement does not parse as useful or true to you.

But his definition is too broad because the most visible elements of feminism in the media or online are the most virulent and noxious strains of it.

These are the elements that contradict a lot of the theory posited by traditional gender equality theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kylith
Men have a lot to thank feminism for: contraceptives being available, not being expected to get married young cos you've gotten someone pregnant, not being expected to be sole provider for a family, expanding the definition of rape to include men, liberating women to work outside the home and be doctors (for example) liberated men to be stay-at-home dads and pursue more 'female' careers such as nursing, expanding parental leave to include men, allowing men to feel more comfortable expressing emotion.

Bingo. Traditional feminism.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

But his definition is too broad because the most visible elements of feminism in the media or online are the most virulent and noxious strains of it.

Again language is contextual though. He gave his definition of it that was relevant to what he was saying in that moment. What his actual and full definition of it is is anyone's guess.

The point, again, being that he used the word feminism while making a point. Rather than consider the point and parse it through HIS usage of that word.......... people here are moving to parse his point through their OWN usage of that word.

And that, for me, is simply not how language and discourse works. But granted, when a word becomes that toxic and dilute in it's meaning to many people, it is questionable as to the wisdom of using it at all. Sam Harris made a similar speech a few years back for example on the utility of using the word "atheism" any more for many reasons I would think similar.

Hande hoche!

Stonedpilot wrote: »

And how does promoting feminism which is one gender only (in fact see's men in a adversarial position) advocate equality?.

His point was a garbled illogical mess. He's sucking in too much fumes from them plastic bags, only God knows what chemical garbage is in them.

That's an interesting point. Could be all the BPA and only knows what else leaching into his skin.

david75

I took him to mean he was speaking about lads on housing estates hanging out in a very much bs typical macho lad culture cos that’s what their mates do and they don’t feel they fit into that but they do it to fit in.
He wasn’t pushing some feminazi agenda on them ffs. He was just suggesting it’s ok for them to tune into a softer edge to begin with and it’s ok to do that and grow some respect for themselves and others out if that.

Insect Overlord

Mokuba wrote: »

If it's about building up a sense of self esteem and self worth then why is he not advocating exercise, hobbies and education to young men? If you feel down on yourself then invest in yourself as a person rather than investing in an often toxic ideology. Saying feminism is the answer is rubbish in my view.

That's definitely part of the process, of course. It's something he covered in a bit more detail in one of the podcasts, but not on the Late Late Show.

The feminism conversation is only a small part of finding solutions to a much wider, more complicated problem. Suicide continues to be a major issue in Blindboy's home city. Hobbies, education, exercise, better diet, not being dependent on alcohol and/or other drugs, there are many other elements to the debate. It's all about developing healthy coping mechanisms for when life gets hard.

Learning how to communicate is a big part of that. Recognising one's own emotions, identifying why you feel a particular way at a particular time, expressing those feelings in a healthy way, etc. Some people are great at listening and chatting. Some write songs or poems or essays. Some come on Boards and argue with strangers. :pac:

Unfortunately, too many people binge, over-dose, or go for a long lie down in the deepest, coldest part of the river. Changing someone's mindset about success/failure as "a man" can help prevent that in some cases.

Stonedpilot

david75 wrote: »

I took him to mean he was speaking about lads on housing estates hanging out in a very much bs typical macho lad culture cos that’s what their mates do and they don’t feel they fit into that but they do it to fit in.
He wasn’t pushing some feminazi agenda on them ffs. He was just suggesting it’s ok for them to tune into a softer edge to begin with and it’s ok to do that and grow some respect for themselves and others out if that.

Therfore why not say it like yourself so rather than shyte on men need feminism?.
Say there is no need to be macho, it's OK be vunerable and scared etc.

Also going on be happy to have women pay for your meal. Not really something feminism pushes in fairness.

'Let a woman pay for your dinner, if you're cool with that you are a feminist'?.

Yet to see one article ever by a feminist writer telling women to pay for men's meals. I believe it adovates the total opposite.

The guy was so contradictory with his point I'd say he was dizzy.

david75

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Therfore why not say it like yourself so rather than shyte on men need feminism?.
Say there is no need to be macho, it's OK be vunerable and scared etc.

Also going on be happy to have women pay for your meal. Not really something feminism pushes in fairness.

'Let a woman pay for your dinner, if you're cool with that you are a feminist'?.

Yet to see one article ever by a feminist writer telling women to pay for men's meals. I believe it adovates the total opposite.

The guy was so contradictory with his point I'd say he was dizzy.

As to the meal aspect I think you missed the point. Your typical lad in that situation would no way never allow a woman pay for his meal. He used that example as a simple one to talk to lads in that’s situation andxlet them know it’s ok to not be dominate male / classic stereotype of the man being provider.
He’s using fairly simple examples to unlock it for lads on a basic level.

You’re bringing a high mindedness to it and that’s ok but the lads he’s speaking to and trying to reach don’t think in those terms or In your view of it.

He has a HUGE follwowing in 18-30 year olds all over the world. And he’s trying to do his bit to open their minds a bit and disarm them of some possibly toxic notions of their own masculinity.

What harm in that?

Mokuba

Insect Overlord wrote: »

That's definitely part of the process, of course. It's something he covered in a bit more detail in one of the podcasts, but not on the Late Late Show.

The feminism conversation is only a small part of finding solutions to a much wider, more complicated problem. Suicide continues to be a major issue in Blindboy's home city. Hobbies, education, exercise, better diet, not being dependent on alcohol and/or other drugs, there are many other elements to the debate. It's all about developing healthy coping mechanisms for when life gets hard.

Learning how to communicate is a big part of that. Recognising one's own emotions, identifying why you feel a particular way at a particular time, expressing those feelings in a healthy way, etc. Some people are great at listening and chatting. Some write songs or poems or essays. Some come on Boards and argue with strangers. :pac:

Unfortunately, too many people binge, over-dose, or go for a long lie down in the deepest, coldest part of the river. Changing someone's mindset about success/failure as "a man" can help prevent that in some cases.

Fair enough.

Wibbs

kylith wrote: »

Men have a lot to thank feminism for: contraceptives being available,

The invention or availability of modern contraceptives had eff all to do with feminism.

not being expected to get married young cos you've gotten someone pregnant, not being expected to be sole provider for a family, expanding the definition of rape to include men, liberating women to work outside the home and be doctors (for example) liberated men to be stay-at-home dads and pursue more 'female' careers such as nursing, expanding parental leave to include men, allowing men to feel more comfortable expressing emotion.

Much of that has eff all to do with feminism either(or hasn't changed much at all). Economics has had far more of an influence for example. Oh and BTW male rape has always been recognised as a crime in law. So yeah I'll have whatever you're smoking because it's clearly good stuff.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I would argue that modern feminism is more likely to make a young man even more depressed if he was depressed already. Men are often portrayed as being dangerous and a problem by many modern feminists.

Stonedpilot

david75 wrote: »

As to the meal aspect I think you missed the point. Your typical lad in that situation would no way never allow a woman pay for his meal. He used that example as a simple one to talk to lads in that’s situation andxlet them know it’s ok to not be dominate male / classic stereotype of the man being provider.
He’s using fairly simple examples to unlock it for lads on a basic level.

You’re bringing a high mindedness to it and that’s ok but the lads he’s speaking to and trying to reach don’t think in those terms or In your view of it.

He has a HUGE follwowing in 18-30 year olds all over the world. And he’s trying to do his bit to open their minds a bit and disarm them of some possibly toxic notions of their own masculinity.

What harm in that?

Two different things though.
Being a stong minded male and patriarchy type male are two different things though.

A strong minded masculine man would have no problem with a woman paying for his meal, indeed might expect it.

A patriarchy thinking man might have a problem with it as he has to be the provider.

But the first guy might not be a provider type at all. Think Frank TJ Mackie type from Memento.

Anyways that's my concern, people like Blindboy having a huge following.

Really is a case of the Blind leading the blinds.

Insect Overlord

sentient_6 wrote: »

There's a certain irony about his persona being attacked on boards of all places, when everyone here hides behind a handle.

The OP ranting about him calls himself Sky King, to quote the Bandits if it was anymore ironic it would be Fe on the periodic table.

I think it's fitting, in a way. The Bandits are majorly influenced by the work of Brian O'Nolan. He's more often recognised by the pen-names Flann O'Brien and Myles na gCopaleen, and also used to write letters to the Irish Times under a variety of other pseudonyms, and then respond to himself with still other names. The original sock-puppet of Irish media!

Dannyriver

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, yer man that YouTuber cian whatsisface has a book out atm..if someone has any bit of a public profile it seems it's the first thing they do now..is it just a revenue streams thing maybe?..how many books has roz Purcell out now?

Did Kevin Barry call Cian's book 'mad wild hysterical a brilliant debut' or Danny Boyle call Cian's book 'Essential' ...If you don't know who those guys are google them. And just so you know in your future work as art critic on here all books don t have the same words inside them.

Stonedpilot

Kinsley Future Carrot wrote: »

I would argue that modern feminism is more likely to make a young man even more depressed if he was depressed already. Men are often portrayed as being dangerous and a problem by many modern feminists.

+1. Very true.

[Deleted User]

Dannyriver wrote: »

Did Kevin Barry call Cian's book 'mad wild hysterical a brilliant debut' or Danny Boyle call Cian's book 'Essential' ...If you don't know who those guys are google them. And just so you know in your future work as art critic on here all books don t have the same words inside them.

yeah, it's a modern day crime and punishment I'm sure..

Dannyriver

Insect Overlord wrote: »

The point is not to take on board the entire complicated mess that is feminism. One simply has to recognise men and women as equal, and to remember that when they feel under pressure to provide. It's about building a sense of self-esteem and self-worth and seeing the good in yourself, instead of judging yourself by your failures to live up to traditional or old-fashioned ideals.

Finally a simple explanation in bite-size, fair play.

Dannyriver

Deleted User wrote: »

yeah, it's a modern day crime and punishment I'm sure..

Yeah I know you dont like the guy but what do you think of the point Im making re all books arent the same.
Awards and honours[edit]
2007: Rooney Prize for Irish Literature (There are Little Kingdoms)
2011: Costa Book Award, shortlist (City of Bohane)
2012: The Sunday Times EFG Private Bank Short Story Award (Beer Trip to Llandudno)[18][19]
2012: Authors' Club First Novel Award (City of Bohane)[20]
2013: International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award (City of Bohane)[21]
2013: Edge Hill University Short Story Prize (Dark Lies the Island)[22]
2015: Goldsmiths Prize (Beatlebone)[1

And What do you make of the winner of the following awards for literature calling it 'A Brilliant Debut'

Ulysses Gaze

Dannyriver wrote: »

Did Kevin Barry call Cian's book 'mad wild hysterical a brilliant debut' or Danny Boyle call Cian's book 'Essential' ...If you don't know who those guys are google them. And just so you know in your future work as art critic on here all books don t have the same words inside them.

Ahem..

From Anthony Horowitz....

How many books can one man recommend? I sometimes feel that my name is on the cover of more books than I've actually written myself, which is worrying. I've endorsed children's authors as diverse as Suzanne Collins, Meg Rosoff, Simon Mayo and the late, great Robert Cormier. I found the historian, Nicholas Rankin, to be "completely delightful", and the poet, Roger McGough, "wise, funny and sad". The thriller writer, Stephen Leather, delivered in my opinion, "a wicked read" although I notice I've been bumped off the front cover of the latest edition by James Herbert ("another great thriller with a devilish twist"), which I do find slightly hurtful. I even turned up on a self-help book I hadn't read – the publishers took my name and helped themselves.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2012/may/11/cover-blurb-book-recommendation

[Deleted User]

Dannyriver wrote: »

Yeah I know you dont like the guy but what do you think of the point Im making re all books arent the same.
Awards and honours[edit]
2007: Rooney Prize for Irish Literature (There are Little Kingdoms)
2011: Costa Book Award, shortlist (City of Bohane)
2012: The Sunday Times EFG Private Bank Short Story Award (Beer Trip to Llandudno)[18][19]
2012: Authors' Club First Novel Award (City of Bohane)[20]
2013: International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award (City of Bohane)[21]
2013: Edge Hill University Short Story Prize (Dark Lies the Island)[22]
2015: Goldsmiths Prize (Beatlebone)[1

And What do you make of the winner of the following awards for literature calling it 'A Brilliant Debut'

Meh, tbh I don't necessarily not like the guy..I thought a couple of his early videos were funny ish..He got annoying then though, as most of them do that seem to hit the spotlight playing a character, and then get stuck in some kind of loop playing the same character ad finitum..same as happened to blindboy in a sense..but yeah, my comment was more in relation to releasing a book being the done thing by certain minor celebrities..
I actually checked Amazon to see how many books roz Purcell had released after making that comment, and I'm seeing her face in ads here and on Facebook since..you see..some of us suffer for our art..

david75

If he bothers you that much you could just not pay attention to him and tune him out. Jus sayin.