Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

White Male Privilege

1…1718202223…27

Comments

  • #572
    Cold War Kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,353 ✭✭✭Cold War Kid


    No different to the phenomenon of "Look at this maniac who thinks women should have abortions if they find out they're having a boy, and her blog that nobody follows, and everyone agrees she's a headcase... look at that now, that's feminism for ya!" which is quite prevalent, including on this very site.


  • #573
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,515 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    Cold War Kid wrote: »
    No different to the phenomenon of "Look at this maniac who thinks women should have abortions if they find out they're having a boy, and her blog that nobody follows, and everyone agrees she's a headcase... look at that now, that's feminism for ya!" which is quite prevalent, including on this very site.

    My particular favorites are the "I want to **** as many sluts as I like and if any of them get pregnant by me not have to pay a penny to the upkeep bastard." Couched in reproductive equality rights.


  • #574
    Cold War Kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,353 ✭✭✭Cold War Kid


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    My particular favorites are the "I want to **** as many sluts as I like and if any of them get pregnant by me not have to pay a penny to the upkeep bastard." Couched in reproductive equality rights.
    Here you see a handful of posters supporting that vomit, you don't see anyone supporting the woman who thinks boys should be aborted though.


  • #575
    ColadaSolada
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3 ✭ColadaSolada


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    My particular favorites are the "I want to **** as many sluts as I like and if any of them get pregnant by me not have to pay a penny to the upkeep bastard." Couched in reproductive equality rights.

    I haven't heard that one.


  • #576
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,515 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    ColadaSolada wrote: »
    I haven't heard that one.

    Don;t worry, you will....eventually. It usually happens when someone has been caught out and they then couch it in all sorts of political theory.


  • Advertisement
  • #577
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    ColadaSolada wrote: »
    I haven't heard that one.

    The idea is if a woman can give up her parental right with abortion till a certain period, men should be allowed to too by signing away rights and not being chased for child support as it takes two to make the baby and both are equally as much sluts for sleeping around

    Not really a valid argument here as women cannot abort babies legally.


  • #578
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    NI24 wrote: »
    No, but when you only question certain claims, out of context, then your questions are invalid. You questioned my claim that men were happy and asked me to provide anecdotal evidence-- but it wasn't a claim, it was an opinion, and I specified that at the time that I wrote it.
    So if someone comes out with ten claims and I only point out that one of those claims is false, ergo this is invalid and all claims are true? An interesting take on logic there.
    Male privilege is not a myth. And unlike the female privileges that are written into law, the privileges I mentioned are bestowed to men at birth, so they are inherent.
    OK, so let's look at your central claim. You contend that male privilege is a biological one and specifically cite that our biology causes men to remain attractive to the opposite sex for far longer than the reverse because female fertility ends sooner. Correct me if this is incorrect.

    This is true, or at least evidence does point to this. However, for men to be privileged overall, you can't simply cherry-pick one biological advantage but look on balance at both the advantages and disadvantages of both genders, which you have not done - you simply focused on male advantages / female disadvantages and ignored all else.

    For example, where it comes to biological advantage in younger people, women and not men have the advantage. Women get to pick and choose whom they wish to have sex with, not men.

    Norah Vincent, when she underwent research to live life disguised as a man, in her book "Self-Made Man: One Woman's Year Disguised as a Man" noted that women held all the cards in the mating game, could accept or reject a man at will and often, as a result, treated men "like dirt".

    So what you've described is not that men have an overall biological sexual advantage, but that women begin with a biological sexual advantage and later lose it.

    Additionally, you've ignored both female advantages and male disadvantages. Greater male mortality rates you've rejected on the basis that you believe them to be social rather than biological (which you've determined is irrelevant to the discussion), but this isn't entirely true as an important factor is that men have the problem of testosterone, which actively lowers our immune systems and contributes to this rate.

    But notably, I would cite pregnancy to be a significant biological advantage for women. Women just need sperm from a male, after which they no longer need the biological input of a man. Men can't do this; after all, to quote Monty Python, where's it going to gestate? In a box?

    This biological advantage has been central to women's position in our species, compared to men, who are 'expendable'.

    So you've ignored anything other than the strictly biological. Anything that is an advantage for women or disadvantage for men has been similarly ignored. And your principle example turns out not to be an 'unfair' advantage for men, but a loss of an 'unfair' advantage for women.

    Sorry but it really does sound like the sour grapes of someone who still wishes they got the same amount of attention they got at 20.


  • #579
    Maguined
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    gravehold wrote: »
    The idea is if a woman can give up her parental right with abortion till a certain period, men should be allowed to too by signing away rights and not being chased for child support as it takes two to make the baby and both are equally as much sluts for sleeping around

    Not really a valid argument here as women cannot abort babies legally.

    The idea is linked to adoption not abortion. You can give birth to a child and then give that child up for adoption thereby voiding all your responsibilities and obligations as a parent. Giving a child up for adoption outside marriage only requires the mothers consent not the fathers.


  • #580
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    Maguined wrote: »
    The idea is linked to adoption not abortion. You can give birth to a child and then give that child up for adoption thereby voiding all your responsibilities and obligations as a parent. Giving a child up for adoption outside marriage only requires the mothers consent not the fathers.

    Can the mother give the baby up for adoption even say if the father says he want's to take it?


  • #581
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    gravehold wrote: »
    Can the mother give the baby up for adoption even say if the father says he want's to take it?
    In theory, if unmarried, yes. An unmarried father is a legal stranger to the child. Only guardianship, via the courts or through marriage, can change this position to the point that a child cannot be adopted without his consent.

    In practice, I don't know if this can or does happen as I've heard conflicting reports of some cases where the social workers involved being happy enough to ignore any potential fathers and other cases where they will drag their heels until it is overwhelmingly clear that a father is out of the picture.

    But legally, yes.


  • Advertisement
  • #582
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    In theory, if unmarried, yes. An unmarried father is a legal stranger to the child. Only guardianship, via the courts or through marriage, can change this position to the point that a child cannot be adopted without his consent.

    In practice, I don't know if this can or does happen as I've heard conflicting reports of some cases where the social workers involved being happy enough to ignore any potential fathers and other cases where they will drag their heels until it is overwhelmingly clear that a father is out of the picture.

    But legally, yes.

    Even with the new children's and family act, I thought that was meant to fix all those issues


  • #583
    Maguined
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    gravehold wrote: »
    Can the mother give the baby up for adoption even say if the father says he want's to take it?

    Yes, though a father is entitled to be consulted so they basically get first choice in adopting the child however this entitlement is not really enforcible and is not punished if the mother does not inform them.


  • #584
    Maguined
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    gravehold wrote: »
    Even with the new children's and family act, I thought that was meant to fix all those issues

    The fixes for adoption was to do with who can qualify to adopt, making the process easier and also the issue of donor assissted births but made no changes to who can give their child up for adoption.


  • #585
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    gravehold wrote: »
    Even with the new children's and family act, I thought that was meant to fix all those issues
    I don't know, but my reading of the proposed legislation on guardianship in the last government was that it fixed nothing and in fact introduced that married fathers could lose their rights.
    Maguined wrote: »
    Yes, though a father is entitled to be consulted so they basically get first choice in adopting the child however this entitlement is not really enforcible and is not punished if the mother does not inform them.
    Consultation does not imply any such first choice at adoption. I don't think that's mentioned anywhere in the legislation. Consultation basically means informed. Nothing more.


  • #586
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I don't know, but my reading of the proposed legislation on guardianship in the last government was that it fixed nothing and in fact introduced that married fathers could lose their rights.

    Consultation does not imply any such first choice at adoption. I don't think that's mentioned anywhere in the legislation. Consultation basically means informed. Nothing more.

    Wow that's absolutely disgusting especially on the children's act.


  • #587
    NI24
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    So if someone comes out with ten claims and I only point out that one of those claims is false, ergo this is invalid and all claims are true? An interesting take on logic there.

    No, what I'm saying is that you are in no position to decide what is or isn't a false claim when you thank a post that comes out with drivel like "Age is unattractive, and women don't find middle-aged men attractive". Something that is so laughably untrue, I could write an entire sitcom around it. You thanked that post immediately, because it fit in with your biased world view. And yet, when I say that in my life I find men to be, on the whole, happy, you ask for evidence and I say "WTF?". In my experience, I have found women to suffer from depression more, to take more anti-depressant drugs (and maybe that's because they are over-prescribed, I don't know), and to suffer from anxiety more, so that is how I base my conclusion that women are more depressed.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    OK, so let's look at your central claim. You contend that male privilege is a biological one and specifically cite that our biology causes men to remain attractive to the opposite sex for far longer than the reverse because female fertility ends sooner. Correct me if this is incorrect.

    I do contend that, but not just for that reason alone. I think the fact that men do not have to inherently suffer for their fertility in any way is what constitutes the concept of "male privilege".
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    This is true, or at least evidence does point to this. However, for men to be privileged overall, you can't simply cherry-pick one biological advantage but look on balance at both the advantages and disadvantages of both genders, which you have not done - you simply focused on male advantages / female disadvantages and ignored all else.

    I agree, however, I would like an example of how men intrinsically suffer for their fertility.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    For example, where it comes to biological advantage in younger people, women and not men have the advantage.

    Young men can have the advantage if they work hard enough. I know guys who were very popular in high school, and now they're not. Men's fertility is very fluid.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Women get to pick and choose whom they wish to have sex with, not men.

    Disagree completely    . Both men and women have a choice.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Norah Vincent, when she underwent research to live life disguised as a man, in her book "Self-Made Man: One Woman's Year Disguised as a Man" noted that women held all the cards in the mating game, could accept or reject a man at will and often, as a result, treated men "like dirt".

    Who cares? Like what some woman (who obviously has no life) says about her experiences dressed as a man, in any way, validates the claim that women treat men like dirt.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    So what you've described is not that men have an overall biological sexual advantage, but that women begin with a biological sexual advantage and later lose it.

    No, what I'm saying is that if you had a choice, would you choose the side that is luck, but that you know the luck will run out, or would you choose the side that is earned, but you know you can keep the earnings?
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Additionally, you've ignored both female advantages and male disadvantages. Greater male mortality rates you've rejected on the basis that you believe them to be social rather than biological (which you've determined is irrelevant to the discussion), but this isn't entirely true as an important factor is that men have the problem of testosterone, which actively lowers our immune systems and contributes to this rate.

    No, I haven't, but some idiotic poster claimed that men live shorter lives, which is simplistic bull, because their is no guarantee that men live shorter lives, and even if they do live shorter lives, it is not entirely biological, or even, necessarily, largely biological. So "men live shorter lives", while it can be true, is a sweeping generalization (or statement, I'm not sure which).
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    But notably, I would cite pregnancy to be a significant biological advantage for women. Women just need sperm from a male, after which they no longer need the biological input of a man. Men can't do this; after all, to quote Monty Python, where's it going to gestate? In a box?

    As would I. I'm not disputing that at all. But remember, only relatively young women have that advantage. Which is why you here posters in AH say things like "Women at that age are of no use to men" (paraphrasing, but an almost direct quote).
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    This biological advantage has been central to women's position in our species, compared to men, who are 'expendable'.

    Older women are expendable too. It's just that by that time, they're too old to fight in wars, so their lives are largely unneeded in that area.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    So you've ignored anything other than the strictly biological. Anything that is an advantage for women or disadvantage for men has been similarly ignored. And your principle example turns out not to be an 'unfair' advantage for men, but a loss of an 'unfair' advantage for women.

    Nope. That's your conclusion. And it's necessary to point out that my post was partly satire, partly truth. But I just could not fathom how anyone-- man, woman, child-- could thank a post that gave examples like "male sexuality is demonized" and "video games are demonized because they're largely male" and conclude that a)male privilege does not exist or b)that those are examples of misandry. It boggles my mind.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Sorry but it really does sound like the sour grapes of someone who still wishes they got the same amount of attention they got at 20.

    You know, corinthian, I've mentioned before I'm only 25. Come back to me in 5, 10, or better yet, 15 years time, and you would have a basis for your petty and cowardly insult. But I would like to point out that the underlying concept of your insult actually proves what I said when I first posted--that when misogynists insult women, they aren't attacking their character, but rather, their biology (in this case, my age), which is completely out of my control. And that this is why misogyny runs much deeper than any misandry ever could.


  • #588
    The J Stands for Jay
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,910 ✭✭✭The J Stands for Jay


    NI24 wrote: »
    No, I haven't, but some idiotic poster claimed that men live shorter lives, which is simplistic bull, because their is no guarantee that men live shorter lives, and even if they do live shorter lives, it is not entirely biological, or even, necessarily, largely biological. So "men live shorter lives", while it can be true, is a sweeping generalization (or statement, I'm not sure which

    Don't make me get out the actuarial tables....


  • #589
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    NI24 wrote: »
    You thanked that post immediately, because it fit in with your biased world view. And yet, when I say that in my life I find men to be, on the whole, happy, you ask for evidence and I say "WTF?". In my experience, I have found women to suffer from depression more, to take more anti-depressant drugs (and maybe that's because they are over-prescribed, I don't know), and to suffer from anxiety more, so that is how I base my conclusion that women are more depressed.
    I'll get to this at the end.
    I do contend that, but not just for that reason alone. I think the fact that men do not have to inherently suffer for their fertility in any way is what constitutes the concept of "male privilege".
    And again you change the goalposts. First of all, you reject any argument that does not focus on biological advantages or disadvantages, now you've narrowed it further and unless it's related to fertility. As a result, your claim of male privilege has frankly lost all meaning or credibility.

    Even where it comes to fertility, it's not as black and white as you seem to think. Post conception it has been women and not men that have had the only control over fertility. Abortion and infanticide has been carried out since prehistoric times, by women, because they are carrying and giving birth to the offspring, and that's only from a biological standpoint.

    But even if you reject this, your position has become ridiculous; it would be like arguing female privilege on the basis that male mortality rates are much higher - and no other factors may be allowed.
    Disagree completely. Both men and women have a choice.
    Then your own argument collapses; older women also have a choice. It may not be as good as it was in their twenties, they may have to lower their expectations more than men might, but it's still there.

    So arguing that men, who are disadvantaged when younger, compared to women, have a choice and then ignoring that the same is true of older women, when the tables turn to a degree, is just arguing against yourself.
    Who cares? Like what some woman (who obviously has no life) says about her experiences dressed as a man, in any way, validates the claim that women treat men like dirt.
    If that's the case, given you also have given nothing but anecdotal evidence, who cares what you think? Or is your experience worth more than hers, or anyone else's?
    No, what I'm saying is that if you had a choice, would you choose the side that is luck, but that you know the luck will run out, or would you choose the side that is earned, but you know you can keep the earnings?
    You know, you're going to have to decide if we're discussing biological advantage or social. You can't rule the latter out of the discussion and then dip in whenever it suits.
    No, I haven't, but some idiotic poster claimed that men live shorter lives, which is simplistic bull, because their is no guarantee that men live shorter lives, and even if they do live shorter lives, it is not entirely biological, or even, necessarily, largely biological. So "men live shorter lives", while it can be true, is a sweeping generalization (or statement, I'm not sure which).
    It's a statistic. It means that in all probability a man will live a shorter life than a woman. That doesn't mean that all men will, but to dismiss it as if it is bull is pretty disingenuous too.
    Older women are expendable too.
    Oh, that women had a sexual advantage only when younger didn't matter a moment ago, but suddenly it does when they become expendable when older. Cherry pick much?
    You know, corinthian, I've mentioned before I'm only 25. Come back to me in 5, 10, or better yet, 15 years time, and you would have a basis for your petty and cowardly insult.
    I said what you sound like, not what you are, so seriously get over yourself.

    But since you brought up age and have been happy to push your entire argument on the basis of your own experiences, I've got about twenty years on you, so I suspect my repository of anecdotal evidence is a bit larger than yours.

    And I can tell you that it's not as simple as that. Not losing your fertility as you grow older does not help if your a man, because it's not going to make it any easier to have children unless you have a woman to carry them to term for you. You may have a better chance of being 'more attractive' when you're older than a woman of the same age, but it doesn't mean you will - any more than most men would not still give their right arm to end up with Monica Bellucci. But apparently generalizations though are good in this case for you, unlike when we discuss areas where men are disadvantaged.

    And any gender privilege isn't simply limited to some narrow biological definition that suits your own conclusions, but a far wider and more complex series of pros and cons that also involve age and other factors. So fundamentally, your entire argument is nonsense in the end.

    But do come back in 5, 10, or better yet, 15 years time, and you might have a basis for your own biased World view, as your anecdotal evidence might be a bit more credible then.


  • #590
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,515 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    The Corinthian wrote: »

    Even where it comes to fertility, it's not as black and white as you seem to think. Post conception it has been women and not men that have had the only control over fertility. Abortion and infanticide has been carried out since prehistoric times, by women, because they are carrying and giving birth to the offspring, and that's only from a biological standpoint.

    Sorry but infanticide is illegal, and abortion is illegal after a certain amount of weeks. It's not legal at all in Ireland still.

    This is down to legislators and whomever decides what it best medical practise, so let's not pretend women have any control over that.

    The Corinthian wrote: »

    I said what you sound like, not what you are, so seriously get over yourself.

    It amounts to the same thing, and it's shame neither of you are capable of presenting an argument without personally insulting other people.


  • #591
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    Sorry but infanticide is illegal, and abortion is illegal after a certain amount of weeks. It's not legal at all in Ireland still.
    Irrelevant; NI24 isn't interested in legal or social, she's talking simply about biological advantage.
    It amounts to the same thing, and it's shame neither of you are capable of presenting an argument without personally insulting other people.
    You're one to talk.


  • Advertisement
  • #592
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,515 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Irrelevant; NI24 isn't interested in legal or social, she's talking simply about biological advantage.

    You're one to talk.

    So let me get this straight...you are arguing that women have a biological advantage because they can commit infanticide but a man can't? Really a man can't do that? News to me.

    Infanticide, if anything proves the opposite that females are at the disadvantage, as globally they are more often the victims of it, think India and China.

    So a woman can get an abortion, albeit in another country, up to a specific time period, of 12 weeks with the exception of amnio results or life threats...again IN ANOTHER COUNTRY, with all those CAVEATS are a biological advantage but again only because of legal and social acts. Let's remove the legalities,

    Purely biologically...a woman can have an abortion divorced from social and legal facilitation how exactly? In the bathtub with a gin bottle and a coat hanger?

    Is this seriously your argument?


  • #593
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    So let me get this straight...you are arguing that women have a biological advantage because they can commit infanticide but a man can't? Really a man can't do that? News to me.
    Purely biologically, yes. How is a man going to abort a child he doesn't carry or infantizize an infant he is nowhere near at birth. Sure he could seek the mother to carry this out, but that doesn't change the fact that the mother biologically is in a better position to do this for obivious reasons.
    Infanticide, if anything proves the opposite that females are at the disadvantage, as globally they are more often the victims of it, think India and China.
    Oh, now you're bringing in social or legal factors, which NI24 ruled out of the discussion. I was responding to her using only the parameters she imposed, strictly biological, remember?

    If you don't like that, then fair enough, but take it up with her, not me.


  • #594
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,515 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Purely biologically, yes. How is a man going to abort a child he doesn't carry or infantizize an infant he is nowhere near at birth. Sure he could seek the mother to carry this out, but that doesn't change the fact that the mother biologically is in a better position to do this for obivious reasons.

    Oh, now you're bringing in social or legal factors, which NI24 ruled out of the discussion. I was responding to her using only the parameters she imposed, strictly biological, remember?

    If you don't like that, then fair enough, but take it up with her, not me.

    I'm sorry, but you have really done a good job of arguing NI24's case for her. Thanks to your argument, yes on balance she is right.


  • #595
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but you have really done a good job of arguing NI24's case for her.
    I didn't argue her case for her. If you think that you've not been reading.
    Defeated by a 25 year old female.
    What was that about presenting an argument without personally insulting someone? You gave up on that particular principle and got personal pretty quickly.


  • #596
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,515 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I didn't argue her case for her. If you think that you've not been reading.

    What was that about presenting an argument without personally insulting someone? You gave up on that particular principle and got personal pretty quickly.

    Ah yeah, you have a number of own goals there.

    Yes I deleted my comment about being defeated by 25 year old female, I just found it kind of quaint. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings.


  • #597
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    Ah yeah, you have a number of own goals there.
    Like?
    Yes I deleted my comment about being defeated by 25 year old female, I just found it kind of quaint. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings.
    Not at all. I found it amusing that you managed to be so hypocritical so quickly.


  • #598
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,515 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Like?

    Not at all. I found it amusing that you managed to be so hypocritical so quickly.

    Ah no...I recognised that it was not really ok, so I edited it ...but by the time I did, you had already quoted it, which left me forced to ackowledge it, even though I had erased it out of my original post.

    But saying that, given the amount of personal attacks you have dished out, surely you are by example, granting permission to others to do the same to you?

    EIther way, you have proved NI24s points spectacularly well, and while I was dubious at first to her arguments, I am now pretty convinced by them, but mostly thanks to you.


  • #599
    Saturnshuttle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1 ✭Saturnshuttle


    In order to determine if there exists privilege for men or women you need to look at all pros and cons comprehensively. NI24, you are just cherry picking a few arguments to suit your agenda.


  • #600
    Boom_Bap
    Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,740 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    MOD - The Corithian & zeffabelli - keep things civil please


  • Advertisement
  • #601
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    EIther way, you have proved NI24s points spectacularly well, and while I was dubious at first to her arguments, I am now pretty convinced by them, but mostly thanks to you.
    Again, how have I done this?


Advertisement