Written by: plague angel
Don't believe everything you are told ... by anyone.
... question everything ...
... do your own research ...
... form your own conclusions ...
If the majority believes it, it is probably wrong.
Written by: plague angel
While it is true that fiber is an important part of your diet, even necessary to protect you from some diseases, carbohydrates themselves are not necessary. There are "essential" fatty acids and "essential" amino acids (from protein), however there are no known essential carbohydrates.
back
Written by: DSM-IV Criteria for Anorexia Nervosa
1. Refusal to maintain body weight at or above a minimally normal weight for age and height (eg, weight loss leading to maintenance of body weight less than 85% of that expected or failure to make expected weight gain during period of growth, leading to body weight less than 85% of that expected).
2. Intense fear of gaining weight or becoming fat, even though underweight.
3. Disturbance in the way in which one's body weight or shape is experienced, undue influence of body weight or shape on self-evaluation, or denial of the seriousness of the current low body weight.
4. In postmenarchal females, amenorrhea ie, the absence of at least three consecutive cycles. (A woman is considered to have amenorrhea if her periods occur only following hormone, eg, estrogen administration.)
Boo x
I intend to live forever - so far, so good.
If it costs "a penny for your thoughts", but people give you their "two-pence worth", who is getting the extra penny?
Written by: Patriarch917
I never said never, I just said not to dwell on it.
There are too many good ways to refute her site than to just dismiss her as mentally ill.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
You can only be young once but you can always be immature.
Written by: french23
Coleman you so totally rock
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
Written by: coleman
i realise there's little point in a rebuttal since you never seen to respond, preferring instead to just state more increasingly non-sensical arguments until we get bored pointing out the inconsistencies in them.
Written by: coleman
as far as i can tell, there's no point typing measured and coherent arguments out since you simply ignore them and choose instead to argue against the ones you find it easiest to
Written by: colemanWritten by: pat
She draws a clear difference between those that are involuntarily anarexic (can't help themselves because of mental problems), and those that voluntarily choose it as an alternative lifestyle.
first of all, who is she?
the pro-ana movement is bigger than one person with one website.
secondly, i contest your point that the distinction between the behaviour of an anorxic person and someone that has chosen to be pro-ana is clearly made on pro-ana websites.
The optimist claims that we are living in the best of all possible worlds.
The pessimist fears this is true.
Always make time to play in the snow.
"Ours is not to question The Head; it is enough to revel in the ubiquitous inanity of The Head, the unwanted proximity of The Head, the unrelenting HellPresence of The Head, indeed the very UNYIELDING IRRELEVANCE of The Head!" --Revelation X
Written by: polythene
Coleman's was a good question. The background of the author will affect (at least in my mind, but I am a scientist at heart and so do prefer to get information from reliable sources) the way in which people view the information, for example if it is written by a respected researcher in this field or a near catatonic, skeletal anorexic person who spends her time writing the website because she is no longer strong enough to walk or leave her hospital bed.
Written by: Gnarly Cranium
What is this, with slinging terms like 'ana-phobic' at us like we're going to scramble over ourselves to avoid unhappy-sounding labels?
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Written by: Patriarch917
Instead of focusing on who is saying it, perhaps it is better to focus on what is being said. We should treat her claims no differently if “she” were a fat male just trying to screw with us.
The optimist claims that we are living in the best of all possible worlds.
The pessimist fears this is true.
Always make time to play in the snow.
Written by: Patriarch917
We should treat her claims no differently if “she” were a fat male just trying to screw with us. Our beef does not have to be with her personally, it could simply be with the ideas.
"I used to want to change the world, now I just wanna leave the room with a little dignity..." - Lotus Weinstock
Written by: polythene
I should treat a 'scientific article' written by a fast food chain, with no evidence, that says a lardburger will decrease my odds of heart disease no differently to an independantly-financed piece of medical research.
Written by: Neon_ShaolinWritten by: Patriarch917
We should treat her claims no differently if “she” were a fat male just trying to screw with us. Our beef does not have to be with her personally, it could simply be with the ideas.
If 'She' were a Fat male talking about anti-gravity goldfish, no we shouldn't judge her. But if 'she' were a fat male trying to screw with us. The we ARE gonna take it personally - especially since she's trying to screw with us. And if it was a fat male, it says something about HIS attitude towards females and what HE deems to be attractive and how he can take it into his own hands to shape women to his ideals.
The optimist claims that we are living in the best of all possible worlds.
The pessimist fears this is true.
Always make time to play in the snow.
The optimist claims that we are living in the best of all possible worlds.
The pessimist fears this is true.
Always make time to play in the snow.
Written by: Patriarch917
Anyone who peruses the site need not stretch themselves mentally in order to know that it is wrong. It is so clearly absurd as to be almost not worth bothering with. However, we cannot ignore the fact that there are people who will spend a lot of time and effort trying to justify their foolishness by calling it an “alternative lifestyle.”
I think "foolishness" is the key word here. Yes, her behavior is destructive, but many things we do in life are destructive without rising to the level that she advocates. Many people risk injury and death merely for thrills and recreation, and we may call them stupid for it, but we do not condemn them the way that this site can be condemned.
Written by:
The pendent arguments, such as the argument that children might visit her site despite her intentions, are persuasive enough to justify asking her to take down the site. It seems obvious that her site might encourage those truly suffering from a mental illness to think that there is nothing wrong with them, and that they should seek help. I suspect that most who agree with her were not “normal” eaters who decided to convert from sheer force of will, but rather girls suffering from a debilitating condition taking comfort in someone who seems to be telling them that their weakness is actually a sign of strength.
It is hard to find the precise words and concepts that can be used to counter her most basic, foundational idea. She claims that she should have the right to voluntarily eat as little as she wishes. It is hard to deny her this right. I suspect (especially from reading her emails) that this site is merely her way of justifying her own problem, but I will not stoop to ad hominem attacks. She has set forth an idea, and she deserves to have that idea considered on its own merits.
Written by:
Essentially, she claims to want to hurt herself in the pursuit of beauty. She can point to many people who have this right, from those that lift weights to those that pierce their tongues.
We can first consider distinguish it on the level of pain. A bodybuilder may have sore muscles the next morning, and a piercing may sting for a good while, but the pain of constant starvation seems unreasonable in relation to the goal in mind. It deviates very far from the norm. At a certain point, we as society draw a line between what is normal, and what is abnormal. Starving yourself seems abnormal, since most of us want to avoid it.
This works well to a point. We can agree democratically that she is “wrong” and even “a bit looney.” However, what we have just told her is that she should confine herself to within a certain range of the mode. We have said nothing inherent about her actions, but merely expressed that we do not wish to do it, and that we think she is weird for disagreeing with us.
Written by:
Likewise, the same with her “perverse” concept of beauty. We all know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
A greater level of distinction can be drawn based on the fact that eating so little has a high likelihood of killing you, and will almost certainly shorten your lifespan.
To this, she could argue that she should have a right to assume whatever risk of death she wants. If she were simply base jumping or flying “ultralight” aircraft, she probably would not be condemned by us, even though those things carry a relatively high risk of death.
Written by:
She could point out that many of us choose to engage in unsafe activities that we know could cause death, such as driving in a car or joining the military. She has simply chosen a risk that is higher than what we are willing to accept. Again, we have merely come to the point where we say “we are more risk averse than you, you are very different, and we do not approve.”
We could point out then, that eating so little does not carry just a “risk” of death. Rather, prolonged anarexia will almost certainly end in a severely shortened lifespan.
To this, she would no doubt point out that many people do not do all that is necessary to lengthen their lifespan. Many overeat, smoke, don’t exercise, and do not have their prostates checked regularly. We would reply that, yes, we accept certain actions that will shorten our lifespans, but they shorten it by a mere 5 – 20 years at the end of our maximum healthy lifespan of 80 to 100 years. In contrast, a 20 year old who begins starving themselves may not live to see 30.
To this, she may reply that she is willing to accept that lifespan, that she has no delusions about living forever, that she thinks the world is overpopulated anyways, and that she doesn’t want to grow old. We would call her weird. Many of us have an aversion to death, and want to put it off for as long as possible. It is abnormal to be willing to die at 30.
Written by:
Again, we have merely drawn a bell curve, pointed out that her opinion is an outlier, and insisted that she conform more to the norm. We have yet to find an argument that at some point doesn’t find its justification in conformity.
It may be that conformity is enough for us. There is a lot of good to be had for unity of opinions. Without it, we could not have democracy, and we would hardly be able to cooperate with each other. It seems built in to most of us to want to fit in with a group, but many of us also recognize that diversity of opinions may be a good thing to tolerate, on occasion.
We could take issue with her web site convincing other people to join her in her views, but this only becomes bad if we decide that her views are bad. I saw a website the other day trying to convince everyone that the Xbox is great, but I do not condemn it merely because most people prefer the Playstation.
Libertarianism would tell us that as long as the practice is being done by consenting adults, and is not encroaching on the rights and freedoms of others, we should let people voluntarily do whatever they want. We could condemn her if she were to convince the mentally ill to join her, or perhaps immature children. However, we could not condemn her for starving herself, or promoting that idea to responsible adults.
Written by:
Can we find a biological imperative that would condemn her actions? Yes. It’s clearly stupid from a competitive biological standpoint to starve yourself and make yourself less likely to reproduce. However, if she personally does not want to reproduce or be healthy, then she is doing what is healthy. If our ultimate goal in life is not merely to be healthy and reproduce, but rather to be happy, then she is fulfilling her biological destiny.
Like other alternative lifestyles that severely inhibit your likelihood to procreate, she is not likely to bear and raise many children that will follow in her footsteps. Our fat kids will probably do better than hers. Thus, her delusions of grandeur such as “Pro-anas are becoming the next elite secret society ... soon we shall rule the world!” are not likely to come to fruition. We can put her on the endangered species list I suppose, but I do not yet see the need to force feed her.
I cannot identify a moral imperative that she is violating, which I think is weird. Surely someone out there has a moral system that has something equivalent to “thou shalt eat” but I haven’t been able to think of a really good one. The closest I can get is comparing it to suicide, or some vague idea that our bodies are valuable and should be kept healthy. Although I suspect that some platitude could be constructed, unless it is founded on something pretty substantial (a universal truth that everyone must accept), she can always wiggle out of it by saying that she follows a different moral code, and that we can’t “shove ours down her throat.”
Written by:
By the way... I think it is highly likely that she would refer to our criticisms as “shoving things down her throat.” It just seems like a natural way to phrase things from someone with her philosophical bent.
I think this is what is frustrating about her site. We can condemn it for all kinds of things, encouraging mental illness, hurting children, being a sham for her own disease, but it is hard to really find the right way to attack her core premise.
In the end, I am content to call it foolish. She speaks of willpower, and she may have it in spades, but she is accomplishing nothing useful with it. It would take a great deal of willpower to cut out my eyes, but this would not be a wise use of my strength of will. If she is truly doing what she claims, then she is destroying herself with her own strength.
This is just foolish. A man does not exercise so that he can become strong enough to tear his own legs off. If he were to do this, we would not call his action immoral, we would call him foolish.
She is simply deceiving herself into thinking the opposite of what is true. She says she has made herself strong, when in fact she has made herself weak. She claims to be wise, when she really only demonstrates her foolishness.
Who can argue with such a position? If a man has convinced himself that he can see when he is in fact blind, what can we do to help? If one of you thinks that you can impart wisdom to her, she has a link on her site that will allow you to email her. I do not know that the task of giving wisdom to the foolish is any easier than giving sight to the blind, but we can always try.
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
Written by: patriarch917
She is simply deceiving herself into thinking the opposite of what is true. She says she has made herself strong, when in fact she has made herself weak. She claims to be wise, when she really only demonstrates her foolishness.
Written by: patriarch917
So your theory is that she isn't doing this voluntarily, but is really just trying to justify her disorder as an "alternative lifestyle?"
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
Written by: PhellanWritten by: Patriarch917
Anyone who peruses the site need not stretch themselves mentally in order to know that it is wrong. It is so clearly absurd as to be almost not worth bothering with. However, we cannot ignore the fact that there are people who will spend a lot of time and effort trying to justify their foolishness by calling it an “alternative lifestyle.”
I think "foolishness" is the key word here. Yes, her behavior is destructive, but many things we do in life are destructive without rising to the level that she advocates. Many people risk injury and death merely for thrills and recreation, and we may call them stupid for it, but we do not condemn them the way that this site can be condemned.
You use the term "foolishness" which is unfortunate, because it indicates your lack of understanding of mental disorders and in specific the lengths to which someone suffering Anorexia Nervosa will go to justify and legitimize their actions and rituals.
Written by: PhellanWritten by: Patriarch917
The pendent arguments, such as the argument that children might visit her site despite her intentions, are persuasive enough to justify asking her to take down the site. It seems obvious that her site might encourage those truly suffering from a mental illness to think that there is nothing wrong with them, and that they should seek help. I suspect that most who agree with her were not “normal” eaters who decided to convert from sheer force of will, but rather girls suffering from a debilitating condition taking comfort in someone who seems to be telling them that their weakness is actually a sign of strength.
It is hard to find the precise words and concepts that can be used to counter her most basic, foundational idea. She claims that she should have the right to voluntarily eat as little as she wishes. It is hard to deny her this right. I suspect (especially from reading her emails) that this site is merely her way of justifying her own problem, but I will not stoop to ad hominem attacks. She has set forth an idea, and she deserves to have that idea considered on its own merits.
Again you seem to fail to realize that there is little to no distinction between an individual who KNOWS they suffer an eating disorder, one who refuses to admit to it, or one who is unaware -- all three rationalize and create elaborate and complex realities that affirm and support their eating habits, indeed a sufferer of an eating disorder is an exceptional tough individual to convince they suffer a disorder because of their body dismorphia and their generally adept grasp on reality.
That you would suggest her idea holds merit and her opinions have some integrity to them makes your own actions and concepts questionable --- you like to use metaphors and similes -- is it reasonable to take the opinions of a schizophrenic literally? An individual suffering schizophrenia can have clearly delusional and unreasonable fixations. Do these too merit a full study of their opinions? Should the police investigate a schizophrenics boss for trying to poison him if that is his delusion? Does that idea hold "merit"?
Written by: PhellanWritten by: Patriarch917
Essentially, she claims to want to hurt herself in the pursuit of beauty. She can point to many people who have this right, from those that lift weights to those that pierce their tongues.
We can first consider distinguish it on the level of pain. A bodybuilder may have sore muscles the next morning, and a piercing may sting for a good while, but the pain of constant starvation seems unreasonable in relation to the goal in mind. It deviates very far from the norm. At a certain point, we as society draw a line between what is normal, and what is abnormal. Starving yourself seems abnormal, since most of us want to avoid it.
This works well to a point. We can agree democratically that she is “wrong” and even “a bit looney.” However, what we have just told her is that she should confine herself to within a certain range of the mode. We have said nothing inherent about her actions, but merely expressed that we do not wish to do it, and that we think she is weird for disagreeing with us.
You're "essentially" is incorrect here. Her fixation on willpower is the true key to understanding anorexia, and what drives it. If you had a more robust understanding of the disorder and other distructive mental issues you would find that "control" is the key behind them, the control over ones body in Anorexia is a source of pride, withholding from food, controlling their "impulses", etc. All which can bee seen in her site, though she glorifies them -- as anorexic's tend to do -- as badges of honour almost.
Written by: PhellanWritten by: Patriarch917
Likewise, the same with her “perverse” concept of beauty. We all know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
A greater level of distinction can be drawn based on the fact that eating so little has a high likelihood of killing you, and will almost certainly shorten your lifespan.
To this, she could argue that she should have a right to assume whatever risk of death she wants. If she were simply base jumping or flying “ultralight” aircraft, she probably would not be condemned by us, even though those things carry a relatively high risk of death.
Again, it is not a perverse concept to the individual holding it, and perhaps you should read up on body dismorphia to learn more about that particular disorder before trying to make a critical debate analyzing an exceptionally complex and disturbing disorder.
Written by: Phellan
You tend to use examples of other actions to which a "sane" individual would partake--- a more accurate and reasonable action would be to compare Starving oneself with cutting or self-mutilation, both of which carry a high risk of injury or death, neither of which meet society's standards of "norms" and are thus much more similar to starving oneself "willfully".
Written by: PhellanWritten by: Patriarch917
She could point out that many of us choose to engage in unsafe activities that we know could cause death, such as driving in a car or joining the military. She has simply chosen a risk that is higher than what we are willing to accept. Again, we have merely come to the point where we say “we are more risk averse than you, you are very different, and we do not approve.”
We could point out then, that eating so little does not carry just a “risk” of death. Rather, prolonged anarexia will almost certainly end in a severely shortened lifespan.
To this, she would no doubt point out that many people do not do all that is necessary to lengthen their lifespan. Many overeat, smoke, don’t exercise, and do not have their prostates checked regularly. We would reply that, yes, we accept certain actions that will shorten our lifespans, but they shorten it by a mere 5 – 20 years at the end of our maximum healthy lifespan of 80 to 100 years. In contrast, a 20 year old who begins starving themselves may not live to see 30.
To this, she may reply that she is willing to accept that lifespan, that she has no delusions about living forever, that she thinks the world is overpopulated anyways, and that she doesn’t want to grow old. We would call her weird. Many of us have an aversion to death, and want to put it off for as long as possible. It is abnormal to be willing to die at 30.
Again you make elaborations between potentially dangerous actions, and ones that truly are. You fail to differentiate between the two, not even based on "societal norms". Starving onesself WILL result in a varying degree of physical illnesses ranging from organ impairment and failure to death. Driving a car carries an inherent "risk", but is not dangerous in and of itself, only if something unfortunate occurs. It is quite possible to never receive injury or impairment for operating a vehicle, however long-term malnutrition has a long list of destructive consequences. They are not comparable, and that you would indicate they are is disrespectful if not flat out incompetant.
Written by: Phellan
Again, you make rationalizations to be "constructive" and to elaborate points -- yet what you fail to consider is that those view ponits she would espouse and hold are what would be enough to term one as "mentally ill" or "mentally incompetant". An individual with Anorexia Nervosa is not aware they have an eating disorder, and will even rationalize and justify their actions to doctors, family, and friends in an excessively rationally and usually well thought out manner. They can be quite convincing. Having said that however, an individual who believes they are the second-coming-of-christ, no matter HOW convincing is still seen by society as being ill, and without a doubt they almost certainly are.
Written by: Phellan
While I appreciate that there is a wide variety of belief systems and concepts there is however certainly justifiable classifications of mental illnesses, it is of poor judgement to hold that all beliefs and opinions held by people are rational and sane -- some things are so truly abnormal from the human psyche that there can be little doubt of the individuals comprimised views of reality.
Written by: PhellanWritten by: Patriarch917
Again, we have merely drawn a bell curve, pointed out that her opinion is an outlier, and insisted that she conform more to the norm. We have yet to find an argument that at some point doesn’t find its justification in conformity.
It may be that conformity is enough for us. There is a lot of good to be had for unity of opinions. Without it, we could not have democracy, and we would hardly be able to cooperate with each other. It seems built in to most of us to want to fit in with a group, but many of us also recognize that diversity of opinions may be a good thing to tolerate, on occasion.
We could take issue with her web site convincing other people to join her in her views, but this only becomes bad if we decide that her views are bad. I saw a website the other day trying to convince everyone that the Xbox is great, but I do not condemn it merely because most people prefer the Playstation.
Libertarianism would tell us that as long as the practice is being done by consenting adults, and is not encroaching on the rights and freedoms of others, we should let people voluntarily do whatever they want. We could condemn her if she were to convince the mentally ill to join her, or perhaps immature children. However, we could not condemn her for starving herself, or promoting that idea to responsible adults.
Yet once more, the belief that the "norm" here is negative -- yes conformity can be a negative aspect in life. However at the same time, if you were deathly ill would you rather your doctor treat you, or decide that you were just being anti-conformist, and that indeed you were fine, just willfully deciding to hold the sick-roll in society.
As a Socialist, I would argue vehemetly about the importance of embracing various ideals and concepts, and as a Canadian I would argue that individuals can hold drastically different views, backgrounds, and beliefs, and still find common ground on which to build life. Yet that is not the issue here, nor should it be -- that is a widely larger topic. This is not about conformity, this is an examination of how to determine the differences between ill and not. One can be ill and conform, one can be healthy and be against the institution, they are not the same. The indication and implication that they are is troubling in that it verifies the belief that those who go against the system are "sick", when indeed they are not.
Written by: Phellan
As for your topic of Liberatarianism-- you mock it and your comments are immature and foolish.
Written by: PhellanWritten by: Patriarch917
Can we find a biological imperative that would condemn her actions? Yes. It’s clearly stupid from a competitive biological standpoint to starve yourself and make yourself less likely to reproduce. However, if she personally does not want to reproduce or be healthy, then she is doing what is healthy. If our ultimate goal in life is not merely to be healthy and reproduce, but rather to be happy, then she is fulfilling her biological destiny.
Like other alternative lifestyles that severely inhibit your likelihood to procreate, she is not likely to bear and raise many children that will follow in her footsteps. Our fat kids will probably do better than hers. Thus, her delusions of grandeur such as “Pro-anas are becoming the next elite secret society ... soon we shall rule the world!” are not likely to come to fruition. We can put her on the endangered species list I suppose, but I do not yet see the need to force feed her.
I cannot identify a moral imperative that she is violating, which I think is weird. Surely someone out there has a moral system that has something equivalent to “thou shalt eat” but I haven’t been able to think of a really good one. The closest I can get is comparing it to suicide, or some vague idea that our bodies are valuable and should be kept healthy. Although I suspect that some platitude could be constructed, unless it is founded on something pretty substantial (a universal truth that everyone must accept), she can always wiggle out of it by saying that she follows a different moral code, and that we can’t “shove ours down her throat.”
Of course if one wants to examine things from a biological standpoint, one would simply indicate that not fullfilling the only true biological roll every species has -- that to reproduce would be infact -- ill. Shocking truly.
Again you mock the subject of this topic, you show little empathy and a marked lack of understanding of Anorexia and those who suffer it, this overall impedes any constructive or believable analysis you have made, as you clearly have little idea or comprehensiona bout how truly warped and distorted reality can become for individuals suffering eating disorders. I am not talking about "comformity" -- I am talking about someone at 70lbs, half their healthy body weight, suffering from cardiac difficulties, sitting in a ICU TELLING ME that the doctors were lying to them -- telling them that they were "ill" when they "felt fine" and just needed to "lose a few more pounds". Your total disregard and lack of knowledge about this topic I personally find offensive and distasteful.
Written by: Phellan
Of course she would take it as us shoving it down her throat -- her point of view is that what she is doing is perfectly healthy and normal. She has rationalize and jsutified her eating disorder under the guise of her extreme self-control.
Written by: Phellan
A defining characteristic in many destructive behaviours relating to things such as ED's and Self-Injury. Control over the body, control over themselves. What you call "foolish" is just your lack of understanding of mental disorders and how deeply they afflict patients and how destruvtive they can become.
Written by: Phellan
And as to who can argue with such a position -- as we have pointed out many times, that is perhaps the key to:
1) Your total and utter failure to post relevant and rational arguements. Picking and choosing very "iffy" topics such as claiming we are forcing conformity or labelling with such ideas as "mental" illnesses is not only poor criticism on your part, it infact shows your lack of debating and argumentative skills.
Written by: Phellan
2) Shows the extent to which mental illnesses effect patients. This is why it is called a illness, the extent to which a persons reality is altered to the point where they seem irrational and illogical. A well formed and legitimate argument has no basis with someone who refuses to acknowledge even the most basic and agreed upon "realities" to which we must adhere to even form a social discourse.
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
Written by: Patriarch917
To show that she is truly suffering from an illness, you shouldn’t just call her ill. Instead, it would be best if you could in fact show that her views are irrational and illogical. Do not attack the motives that you think she might have. Attack the logic and rationality of her argument.
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood