Is the fear of Paedophilia preventing positive male role models?

Piliger

Zulu wrote: »

I don't think it's "wrong" to choose either on personal preference, so long as you're not ignorant to your prejudice. That said, it is very wrong not to choose the male simply because you think he's a sexual predator.

That is EXACTLY the point ... and the point he is trying to whitewash over.

And what he conveniently choses to ignore and yet infer a defence of, is that maybe it is true that the choice split would not be 50:50 ... but it certainly would NOT be 100:0. And THAT is yet again at the heart of this discussion.

smash

Zulu wrote: »

Wut?

You didn't really think that through, did you? So it's nothing, like, say, a teacher? or a nurse? or a doctor? or a bus driver? or a pilot? or a marine captain? or a....
Point is, a babysitter isn't the only employee that has that level of responsibility.

It's a position that give an extra level of responsibility in the fact that they are 100% alone with the child for extended periods of time.

Zulu

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

a babysitter isn´t like any other employee in that when you hire a babysitter, you are risking the security and wellbeing of other people (your children). An important difference

Actually, on this, you are essentially saying that sexual discrimination is ok when it comes to child care. Women are naturally good at looking after kids, anyways - sure it's what nature intended.

So now we've established sexual discrimination is ok in certain roles (childcare), we should probably extend it out to military service...

smash

Zulu wrote: »

Actually, on this, you are essentially saying that sexual discrimination is ok when it comes to child care.

Just read her post a few more times and can not see that implied anywhere. Pease elaborate.

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

Certainly not if people like you lend support to such prejudices through your acceptance of them and do nothing to alter them.

He does not only accept them ........ he says they are a NECESSARY evil. i.e. that this prejudice and exclusion of men is NECESSARY.

Thankfully I do not believe for a moment that this is a widely held belief. I believe that the vast majority of people are behaving as they do without any real thought, or having their actions challenged in a conscious way. Like most mindless and senseless prejudices.

We need to have a platform where the people are confronted with the irrationality and illogic of their actions and show them that not only do their actions not make sense, but that their actions are harming society AND their children.

Bigotry against homosexuals was not changed by people calling a necessary evil. Nor was racism against Black people or Irish people. Nor against the working classes. EDUCATION and FACTS, and the law, are what changed society, driven by activists who presented the people with the nonsense of their perverted prejudice.

Zulu

smash wrote: »

Just read her post a few more times and can not see that implied anywhere. Pease elaborate.

Have another read, I'm sure you'll get it.

Piliger

Zulu wrote: »

Actually, on this, you are essentially saying that sexual discrimination is ok when it comes to child care. Women are naturally good at looking after kids, anyways - sure it's what nature intended.

So now we've established sexual discrimination is ok in certain roles (childcare), we should probably extend it out to military service...

Exactly. This poster is saying that is acceptable to allow people use their irrational and baseless fear as a basis for excluding boys from this role.

The poster is also saying that excluding boys is logical because there is a 'real' risk.

But the fact of the situation is that there is risk in everything in life. There is a risk in allowing your child to play in the garden, in allowing a child to be on it's own for 5 minutes. But the actual truth, based on actual facts of actual incidents of abuse, is that the risk of abuse by a stranger neighbour boy known to the family is tiny ! and it does not merit or excuse excluding one gender completely.

That is the point.

smash

Piliger wrote: »

He does not only accept them ........ he says they are a NECESSARY evil. i.e. that this prejudice and exclusion of men is NECESSARY.

Do you understand the difference between a need for parents to be on their toes regarding the threat of paedophelia vs the need for parents to be on their toes based of the belief that all men are paedophelia?

Because I never said the latter.

LeeHoffmann

Actually, on this, you are essentially saying that sexual discrimination is ok when it comes to child care. Women are naturally good at looking after kids, anyways - sure it's what nature intended

show me where I said that. Quote it

walshb

Like it or not humans react to numbers and data and statictics. They do, and saying that they should not is illogical. They do, end of. Now, in relation to this topic I do not at all find it wrong, and nor would I criticise any parents for feeling that males poses greater risks to children in a sexual sense. I would not at all criticise parents for preferring that their children were cared for by females as opposed to males.

Zulu

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

show me where I said that.

hummm, it would appear that you don't fully understand "essentially saying". Suffice to say, I'm not quoting you directly when I say that.

smash

Zulu wrote: »

Have another read, I'm sure you'll get it.

Nope, still don't see it. I must ave left my extreme end of the spectrum eye balls at home. I believe they're in my cupboard filed under 'irrational' and kept in a box labeled 'delusional'.

LeeHoffmann

hummm, it would appear that you don't fully understand "essentially saying". Suffice to say, I'm not quoting you directly when I say that.

show me where I said it. You can´t? I wonder why

Zulu

smash wrote: »

Nope, still don't see it.

Not to worry.

walshb

smash wrote: »

Nope, still don't see it. .

Makes two of us. It's irritating when posts are twisted so to argue against.

Zulu

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

show me where I said it. You can´t? I wonder why

Sigh.
You say that it's acceptable to prejudice men when it come to minding children, because: "you are risking the security and wellbeing of other people (your children)".

Your assertion is that men are a greater risk.

If men are a greater risk, then, women are less of a risk.
If women are less of a risk, then, it follows that they are better at caring for children (unless you feel security and wellbeing are bad things in childcare).
Thus women, through the joys of their nature, are better at caring for children.

...according to your very own logic.

smash

Zulu wrote: »

Sigh.
You say that it's acceptable to prejudice men when it come to minding children, because: "you are risking the security and wellbeing of other people (your children)".

Nope, she said a babysitter is more important than other employees because your child is potentially at risk. This is fact. She also never once mentioned males. You are adding this into the equation.

Zulu wrote: »

Your assertion is that men are a greater risk.

No it wasn't.

Zulu wrote: »

If men are a greater risk, then, women are less of a risk.
If women are less of a risk, then, it follows that they are better at caring for children (unless you feel security and wellbeing are bad things in childcare).
Thus women, through the joys of their nature, are better at caring for children.

...according to your very own logic.

No, that's logic that you are assuming and assigning to her post.

jaffacakesyum

Haven't had time to keep up with this thread but of what I've read, it's a real shame that people seem to be completely twisting each others words to try and prove they are right It is an interesting topic, though.

I think it is a real shame that men feel they cannot go for teaching positions, child care positions etc. While I have plenty of male friends who are in such careers, I recognise there are a lot of guys in here who have had bad experiences in this area so I am not doubting that it is an issue. However, my opinion on it is as follow:

-I think there IS genuine cases of stupid people prejudicing and making jokes with regards to men left alone caring for a child. This is a problem

-I think there is a lot of cases here of people simply saying "Oh I would like to do this but I'm afraid of getting accused of x, y and z". Fair enough BUT you can't blame this on anyone. It's like me saying I would love a particular job in a particular company but it's 100% men, office based and I would be afraid of the consequences in working in such an environment. If I take the job, there is a small chance of my irking assumptions that I will be treated differently, maybe challenged about my abilities in a "mans world" etc. OR I take the job, and find there are no problems at all.

Zulu

smash wrote: »

No it wasn't.

Oh right, my bad.

So if men aren't a greater risk, why do people have a preference for female babysitters again?

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

Again, I don't support them. This is becoming a joke at this stage! And I do not accept them either, but I accept why they are there. It's 2 different things completely.

If one stays silent and accepts something, you're ultimately tacitly supporting it through your silence and your refusal to speak out, let alone act, against it.

Shall we continue going around in circles and talk about why this prejudice is around and avoid the topic of counteracting it, some more? If so, I suggest the thread is truly spoiled. Well done.

Zulu

The Corinthian wrote: »

If so, I suggest the thread is truly spoiled. Well done.

I have to concur.

Piliger

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Haven't had time to keep up with this thread but of what I've read, it's a real shame that people seem to be completely twisting each others words to try and prove they are right

I don't see this - perhaps you would point out where this is happening.

I think it is a real shame that men feel they cannot go for teaching positions, child care positions etc. While I have plenty of male friends who are in such careers, I recognise there are a lot of guys in here who have had bad experiences in this area so I am not doubting that it is an issue.

-I think there is a lot of cases here of people simply saying "Oh I would like to do this but I'm afraid of getting accused of x, y and z". Fair enough BUT you can't blame this on anyone. It's like me saying I would love a particular job in a particular company but it's 100% men, office based and I would be afraid of the consequences in working in such an environment. If I take the job, there is a small chance of my irking assumptions that I will be treated differently, maybe challenged about my abilities in a "mans world" etc. OR I take the job, and find there are no problems at all.

You appear to be confused about what is happening if you can make this very poor comparison.

In your job situation what is your risk ? being treated badly ? really ? The men who have posted bad experiences in this thread alone are looking at a risk of being accused of being a pedophile ! The risk of having their lives destroyed ! How can you possibly make that comparison ?

You appear to have no grasp of the comparative fallout here. You also don't appear to grasp how it feels to be in a totally innocent and normal situation in life as a man, yet looked at as a potential abuser, a potential pedophile and to have people treat you as such.

LeeHoffmann

Your assertion is that men are a greater risk

Nope. That´s where you´re mistaken. If you read what I actually wrote (post 300) you´ll see that I said that it´s ignorant to think that all men are untrustowrthy.

Now having said that, if a person decided that black people/homosexuals/all males/all females/all Americans etc were untrustworthy - I´d find that ignorant, but I would defend their right to make that decision.

jaffacakesyum

Piliger wrote: »

I don't see this - perhaps you would point out where this is happening.

Oh God...there are too many examples to begin with :pac: But there is no point going around in circles as TC said. I suspect whatever I point out will be dismissed somehow.

You appear to be confused about what is happening if you can make this very poor comparison.

In your job situation what is your risk ? being treated badly ? really ? The men who have posted bad experiences in this thread alone are looking at a risk of being accused of being a pedophile ! The risk of having their lives destroyed ! How can you possibly make that comparison ?

You appear to have no grasp of the comparative fallout here. You also don't appear to grasp how it feels to be in a totally innocent and normal situation in life as a man, yet looked at as a potential abuser, a potential pedophile and to have people treat you as such.

What is the risk? Well, the risk (and I'm not saying I hold this viewpoint, it's just an example) is that my abilities are questioned as a woman in a man's world, comments made about me behind my back/to my face every day, I am objectified, maybe groped etc. I know some women who have had troubles in the workplace like this, but it's a different topic for a different day. What I will say is that it was pretty life destroying for them. It's just an example.

Another example would be choosing to become a doctor. If you choose to become a doctor, you may face the risk of being accused of inappropriate behaviour or abuse or malpractice, when in fact you are completely innocent. Does this stop anyone, men or women, from becoming doctors? No, because the risk is very small and if someone is accused, the appropriate investigations are taken.

smash

Zulu wrote: »

So if men aren't a greater risk, why do people have a preference for female babysitters again?

In my case, as I assume it is with a lot of people, it's not a preference. It's just that I've never met a male babysitter. Or maybe people feel more comfortable because historically it's how it was done. That's not sexist though.

The Corinthian wrote: »

If one stays silent and accepts something, you're ultimately tacitly supporting it through your silence

That's not true. As not speaking out against males not being babysitters is a non issue in my eyes, it's just a silly excuse to start an argument.

The Corinthian wrote: »

and your refusal to speak out, let alone act, against it.

I'd love to hear how you suggest this is done.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Shall we continue going around in circles and talk about why this prejudice is around and avoid the topic of counteracting it, some more? If so, I suggest the thread is truly spoiled. Well done.

Don't dare accuse me of spoiling a thread when in fact it's been you and 2 others who have been arguing because I don't accept the words you're twisting in my posts.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

That's not true. As not speaking out against males not being babysitters is a non issue in my eyes, it's just a silly excuse to start an argument.

Not speaking out against gender-based prejudice is tacitly supporting that prejudice. Were we having a discussion about how Travellers or Africans are discriminated against and all you did was tell us why they're discriminated against, but never bothered to speak out against it, what would you conclude?

I'd love to hear how you suggest this is done.

Better education for parents, children and potential child carers about the safety implications. Better psychological screening of potential child carers, regardless of gender. Better representation in the media of male child carers, not just professionally, but even in the family. Better legislation that recognizes men's role as child carers.

That's off the top of my head. Do you have anything constructive to add?

Don't dare accuse me of spoiling a thread when in fact it's been you and 2 others who have been arguing because I don't accept the words you're twisting in my posts.

I am neither twisting your or walshb's posts. You're the one who's done nothing other that wax lyrical on why this prejudice exists without touching on remedying it. You're even the one who's even cited some of these gender-based generalisations (such as boys being less mature than girls) as 'facts' that justify (and the moment you called it a fact, this is what you did) such prejudices.

It's not my fault if you actually share some of these prejudices and feel uncomfortable when it's pointed out to you.

LeeHoffmann

OK OK can we cut out the sniping and just discuss the topic? I think we´re all on the same side here, even if we don´t all agree about the severity of the problem or particular aspects of it.

Better education for parents, children and potential child carers about the safety implications. Better psychological screening of potential child carers, regardless of gender. Better representation in the media of male child carers, not just professionally, but even in the family

the above are things we can aspire to, although some might be difficult to implement (eg psychological screening - I´m a teacher and I know the hoops you have to jump through to get garda screening. I can´t see the Irish government paying for mass psychological screening of teachers atm...or were you referring to babysitters/creches exclusively?).

I do think the media should be challenged a lot more - both genders are negatively misrepresented. Something that really irritates me is that fathers in ads are usually clueless, lazy, incapable fathers who can´t cook. There is an ad out atm where the mother has to work and the Dad cooks the dinner for his son and daughter. Mum comes home just as the family sits down to dinner and asks the kids for their verdict on Dad´s cooking (with ´that look´ on her face). Surprisingly Dad has pulled it off :eek: The ad is notable for me in that it flies in that face of the usual media representation of fathers. Maybe this is a topic for another thread though...

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not speaking out against gender-based prejudice is tacitly supporting that prejudice. Were we having a discussion about how Travellers or Africans are discriminated against and all you did was tell us why they're discriminated against, but never bothered to speak out against it, what would you conclude?

But I did speak out, I said multiple times it was wrong.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Better education for parents, children and potential child carers about the safety implications.

Like what? Not all men are child abusers. I know that the vast majority of abusers are male and that's a fact, but just ignore that and remember that all men are not abusers.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Better psychological screening of potential child carers, regardless of gender.

Expensive.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Better representation in the media of male child carers, not just professionally, but even in the family.

Male babysitter does a good job... yea that's a real headline if ever I saw one.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Better legislation that recognizes men's role as child carers.

Is there currently legislation that discriminates against them?

The Corinthian wrote: »

I am neither twisting your or walshb's posts. You're the one who's done nothing other that wax lyrical on why this prejudice exists without touching on remedying it.

But you are twisting words. a lot!

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're even the one who's even cited some of these gender-based generalisations (such as boys being less mature than girls) as 'facts' that justify (and the moment you called it a fact, this is what you did) such prejudices.

Do girls mature faster than boys? Are girls generally more responsible than boys?

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's not my fault if you actually share some of these prejudices and feel uncomfortable when it's pointed out to you.

What's uncomfortable is the down right arrogance and finger pointing in what some of you have been saying.

walshb

smash wrote: »

Like what? Not all men are child abusers. I know that the vast majority of abusers are male and that's a fact, but just ignore that and remember that all men are not abusers.

This was and is my point too. And yes, we know well that many many men are not abusers, but the statistics show us that men commit these crimes at a far greater rate than women. Why then should it be wrong, odd, or strange for people to place a higher sense of alertness should they need or want to leave their child alone with a male. It goes without saying that they may well feel that bit less comfortable when a man is involved.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

Not all men are child abusers. I know that the vast majority of abusers are male and that's a fact, but just ignore that and remember that all men are not abusers.

So, by your logic, in the US, one could argue, not all African Americans are criminals, but given that they represent the vast majority of criminals, both in and out of prison, then we should it is natural that we view them as potential criminals.

Oddly, were you to say that publicly, outside of a KKK meeting, you'd probably be branded a racist. And this is where I object to your and walshb's positions, because beneath the attempts to appear balanced, you're actually down deep holding those very prejudices you claim not to support.

As to your responses to what I suggested to deal with the situation, I did specify you might add something constructive.

walshb

I said that in a perfect world that these views would/should not exist. I also said earlier that I as a man would have zero issue with not being allowed sit beside an unaccompanied child on a flight. I can understand and appreciate the perceptions and views in the world we live in. If there was no sex abuse, or if males and females were committing these crimes at an equal rate then I would be wholly against that airline rule. But, the facts are that men are the ones committing the child sexual crimes far more than women. I live in the real world.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

So, by your logic, in the US, one could argue, not all African Americans are criminals, but given that they represent the vast majority of criminals, both in and out of prison, then we should it is natural that we view them as potential criminals.

No, that's racial profiling. It's like looking at a dog knowing that not all dogs bite.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Oddly, were you to say that publicly, outside of a KKK meeting, you'd probably be branded a racist.

but I didn't say it, you added that analogy yourself.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And this is where I object to your and walshb's positions, because beneath the attempts to appear balanced, you're actually down deep holding those very prejudices you claim not to support.

you're right, I hate men, all of them and I hate that I'm a man too :rolleyes: ffs

The Corinthian wrote: »

As to your responses to what I suggested to deal with the situation, I did specify you might add something constructive.

Well here's something constructive for you then. A lot more constructive than your vague examples anyway... How about a push towards getting more men to enroll in childcare courses or to get more involved in social activities with children. Or to get businesses to get more behind the idea, you know like "Daddy's day at the zoo" or something to entice father figures. How about a 'big brother' type society where men can get engaged in a child's life where a father figure isn't present?

Then again, if 1 thing were to go wrong these could easily be labeled as an 'in' for paedophiles just like the church was.

The Corinthian

walshb wrote: »

I live in the real world.

Not really, because you are still damning an entire group based upon a tiny minorty of within it, just as a racist in the US will see all African-Americans as suspect based upon a minority of them. That's not the real world, it's just lazy pigeon-holing based upon simplistic profiling - better known as bigotry.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

No, that's racial profiling. It's like looking at a dog knowing that not all dogs bite.

And racial profiling differs from other types of profiling how exactly?

Well here's something constructive for you then. A lot more constructive than your vague examples anyway... How about a push towards getting more men to enroll in childcare courses or to get more involved in social activities with children. Or to get businesses to get more behind the idea, you know like "Daddy's day at the zoo" or something to entice father figures. How about a 'big brother' type society where men can get engaged in a child's life where a father figure isn't present?

These are actually not bad ideas.

Then again, if 1 thing were to go wrong these could easily be labeled as an 'in' for paedophiles just like the church was.

So, shall we just forget it then and just accept the hysteria? Does that work for you?

sha the man

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

that´s not what you said. You said you do not interact with society, not that you don´t have relationships :rolleyes:

there one and the same not engaging in relationships is part of not interacting with society. then only reason i brought that aspect of it was because you did originally

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

So, shall we just forget it then and just accept the hysteria? Does that work for you?

I came up with the ideas, which you admit are good. I'm not saying forget them, it's just a warning regarding getting involved in such ideas in the same way you'd tell someone who was doing a parachute jump to be careful... the vast majority of parachutes don't fail, but some do.

Such platforms as big brother scenarios would need screening and would more than likely be better off as organised voluntary group events.

LeeHoffmann

there one and the same not engaging in relationships is part of not interacting with society.

part of but not equal to - ie not engaging in relationships is a subset of not interacting with society. What you actually said is that you

outwardly avoid all contact with everyone

I don´t know what this means:

then only reason i brought that aspect of it was because you did originally

sha the man

for what it worth i think the best solution is for me to castrate myself put it in a jar and hand it over to my local boss (woman) and she can hand it back whenever she feels like it. you know just because i drive a car does not been i want to run someone down. we men have a penis the penis has two functions expelling of urine and penetration of the vagina. that is a mechanical fact. what is not a mechanical fact is that we have the desire or need to stick it into everything and everyone we come across. if that was the case my dog would not be same around me. end of rant

LeeHoffmann

for what it worth i think the best solution is for me to castrate myself put it in a jar and hand it over to my local boss (woman) and she can hand it back whenever she feels like it. you know just because i drive a car does not been i want to run someone down. we men have a penis the penis has two functions expelling of urine and penetration of the vagina. that is a mechanical fact. what is not a mechanical fact is that we have the desire or need to stick it into everything and everyone we come across. if that was the case my dog would not be same around me. end of rant

damn right that´s a rant and a half. :pac: Was it aimed at any post/poster in particular?

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

I came up with the ideas, which you admit are good. I'm not saying forget them, it's just a warning regarding getting involved in such ideas in the same way you'd tell someone who was doing a parachute jump to be careful... the vast majority of parachutes don't fail, but some do.

Such platforms as big brother scenarios would need screening and would more than likely be better off as organised voluntary group events.

Fair enough.

iptba

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

-I think there is a lot of cases here of people simply saying "Oh I would like to do this but I'm afraid of getting accused of x, y and z". Fair enough BUT you can't blame this on anyone. It's like me saying I would love a particular job in a particular company but it's 100% men, office based and I would be afraid of the consequences in working in such an environment. If I take the job, there is a small chance of my irking assumptions that I will be treated differently, maybe challenged about my abilities in a "mans world" etc. OR I take the job, and find there are no problems at all.

But there has been all sorts of drives to make the workplace a safe place for women. And there are all sorts of laws against sexual discrimination, sexual harrassment, etc. I do not see similar drives or laws to deal with the issues that are being raised.

What you wrote perhaps could be summarised as people should "man up" and stop complaining?

jaffacakesyum

iptba wrote: »

But there has been all sorts of drives to make the workplace a safe place for women. And there are all sorts of laws against sexual discrimination, sexual harrassment, etc. I do not see similar drives or laws to deal with the issues that are being raised.

What you wrote perhaps could be summarised as people should "man up" and stop complaining?

Nope, not at all. Yet another case of putting words in my mouth. Seems pretty common in this thread to do that.

What laws would you suggest are put in place? (Not being smart, I genuinely am interested because as I said, which people choose to ignore, is that I think it's a shame men are turned off these careers. And on that note, I think a far greater turn off for men in these careers is simply that they're not interested in these careers, same way historically women aren't as interested in engineering/mathematical careers).

If a woman goes into the workplace, there is a risk she will be sexually assaulted. Should, therefore, all women stay at home and not bother working?

If a man takes a job as a teacher, there is a risk he may be accused of being a paedophile. Should, therefore, all men never become teachers?

If a man or woman becomes a doctor, there is a risk he/she will be accused of malpractice. Should, therefore nobody become doctors?

If a man is accused of being a paedophile on no basis whatsoever, no children ever coming forward to say he did something inappropriate, no evidence, no nothing. Then come forward and say that. Sue the person who is slandering your name.

I had a male teacher as a primary school teacher, nothing was ever said, no jokes or anything. I've had male PE school teachers. I've only ever had male coaches in the sports I took part in in school, college and outside of those. I really don't think it's such a huge problem as people are making it out in this thread. It is a problem nonetheless.

Piliger

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Nope, not at all. Yet another case of putting words in my mouth. Seems pretty common in this thread to do that.

The only one putting words in your mouth is you, and then you back off and back track.

Your naivete is profound. Your sense of proportionality disturbingly daft, and your sense of smug security is scary.

sha the man

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

damn right that´s a rant and a half. :pac: Was it aimed at any post/poster in particular?

you are attempting to draw me out are you sure you are not in the legal profession or are you a woman. i am shutting down this topic n my brain for the time being goodbye :cool:

smash

Piliger wrote: »

The only one putting words in your mouth is you, and then you back off and back track.

Your naivete is profound. Your sense of proportionality disturbingly daft, and your sense of smug security is scary.

Not the first time you've attacked a poster and not the post in this thread.

I do believe that's against boards rules which results in a ban.

jaffacakesyum

Piliger wrote: »

The only one putting words in your mouth is you, and then you back off and back track.

Your naivete is profound. Your sense of proportionality disturbingly daft, and your sense of smug security is scary.

Well aren't you lovely. :pac: If I was the type to bother reporting posts, this one would be it.

Are we here to have a discussion like adults are we here to be petty and snide?

I've responded to your post, outlining my views. It's up to you if you want to respond to my points like a mature adult.

iptba

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I've responded to your post, outlining my views. It's up to you if you want to respond to my points like a mature adult.

Are you getting Piliger and me mixed up?

jaffacakesyum

iptba wrote: »

Are you getting Piliger and me mixed up?

Apologies, iptba.

Nonetheless, I don't see the value in Piliger quoting my post if he's not going to respond to the points in it. No point in resorting to name calling.

iptba

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Apologies, iptba.

No worries.

LeeHoffmann

you are attempting to draw me out are you sure you are not in the legal profession or are you a woman. i am shutting down this topic n my brain for the time being goodbye

wha? goodbye i guess