A symptom of apologiaphobia is the issuing of apologies on behalf of others to avoid apologising for one’s own actions. So it was with Kevin Rudd apologising for the so-called ‘stolen generation(s)’ and now Julia Gillard apologising for adoptions in the 1950s to 1970s.
Gillard has much to apologise for, including stabbing Kevin Rudd in the back, compromising our national security, destroying the commonweal, raiding the Treasury, recommending to the Governor-General that Wayne Swan, Stephen Conroy and Nicola Roxon be Ministers of the Crown, sacrificing the interests of the public in favour of the sectional interest of union mates and many other examples of error for which an abject apology is called for. Indeed, Gillard’s errors are so great and so frequent she should promptly vanish in a puff of remorse.
But no, Gillard wants to copy Kevin Rudd and make a national apology. Well, she can’t. Only a Head of State can issue a national apology, not a Head of Government. That aside, why does she defame the families who have adopted children in the 1950s to 1970s (including a couple of my relatives)? Children who have been raised in happy and healthy families and lead a safe, prosperous and fulfilled life? Why does she apologise to some of the biological mothers who were right to give up their children to a better life? Who is she to apologise for the past? This is a highly objectionable practice for which she should apologise for even contemplating.
How dare she say
And to the children of forced adoption, we can say that you deserved so much better. You deserved the chance to know, and love, your mother and father.
when many (although not all) of those who were adopted have wonderful adoptive parents who love and care with a passion that their biological parents may have been unable or unwilling to provide?
The gross generalisation of her comments demeans her office.
How dare she say
Yet this is part of the process of a nation growing up: Holding the mirror to ourselves and our past, and not flinching from what we see. Friends, what we see in that mirror is deeply shameful and distressing.
Insulting previous generations who suffered and built this country and who experienced hardships Gillard cannot imagine.
Enough I say. Begone this apology for a prime minister. I am outraged that she has so insulted my wonderful aunt and uncle and my first cousins who I have been privileged to know.
Well done, indeed. It was a pleasure to read this; an adult response to a grovelling and pointless act by this tragedy of a Prim Minister. Little wonder the concept of the Australian “cringe” is still with us.
Dexter Rous
21 Mar 13 at 9:38 am
She looks in the mirror and is deeply ashamed of…. THAT PERSON OVER THERE!
Yeah we’re real grown-ups in Australia today.
wreckage
21 Mar 13 at 9:42 am
This apology seems to be targeting doctors, nurses and welfare officers who did what they did according to cultures and beliefs of the day, and now they’re told they were “shameful”. It’s just pointless.
candy
21 Mar 13 at 9:48 am
Kerryn Pholi was good on this topic at the Quadrant dinner on dangerous ideas last night.
Should blog on the evening, it was a great night and a very good crowd.
Rafe
21 Mar 13 at 9:49 am
I wish I had written this. Not only is it bullshit to apologise and project today’s mores onto past generations it is a tragedy that adoption is not common-place today. You only have to walk into a shopping centre to see hordes of children who would be much better off.
Tracey
21 Mar 13 at 9:51 am
As for me, it is the past. Let the dead past lie in peace. I have moved on from the forced upbringing in the North Coast Childrens Home.
Life is too short to put up with this political bullshit.
Winston Smith
21 Mar 13 at 9:52 am
I am so ashamed of this illegitimate occupant of the Office of Prime Minister. She shames the office and she shames the nation by her every utterance.
That she dares speak on matters of morality given her immorality on so many levels invokes an apoplectic anger. Thank goodness I don’t ever watch or listen to her and thank you the brave Cats who do.
Tintarella di Luna
21 Mar 13 at 9:53 am
Looking at the number of children being killed or abuse by the welfare defacto relationships today, where babies and kids live squalor and fear, what was wrong with the adoption policies of the past
As you do Samuel J, I know a number of Children adopted and they are happy for lives they have grown up with and the joys of their adopted parents – yes there is some introspection as to why their mother gave them up, but on re-uniting with their original mother, still love for their adopted parents.
OldOzzie
21 Mar 13 at 9:53 am
When he becomes PM, perhaps Tony Abbott could issue an apology on behalf of everyone for the actions of the current ALP government. Given their sheer love of public apologies, Labor supporters would probably join in.
south
21 Mar 13 at 9:56 am
Oh, she’s just so compassionate.
But how about she makes a public apology to the wife of Bruce Wilson and his two sons?
She bonked him for yonks while he was married to that poor woman and while he was father to those young boys.
She should try this:
“And to the mother and the children of forced adultery, I can say that you deserved so much better than me. You deserved the chance to know, and love, your father without having me in his pants while he (allegedly) swindled loot from the workers.”
Ant
21 Mar 13 at 10:01 am
Ant — It should be an apology to all the children of the married men she had adulterous relationships for whom she had no regard — they were merely the offspring of prostitute-wives who used their marriages as havens of security. And this is the Prime Minister of Australia.
Tintarella di Luna
21 Mar 13 at 10:05 am
But why are you surprised at this latest gaffe ? She’s told what to say by McTernan who is returning to Scotland to run the NO case for Scottish independence next year, the Conservative party position. Sometimes I think McTernan is a closet Conservative/Liberal, so appalling has this PM’s public utterances been since she came to power and took on McTernan from another failed ALP leader, Mike “I’m a mate of Lance Armstrong” Rann.
davey street
21 Mar 13 at 10:06 am
Apologising on behalf of others is a symptom of Leftism. Being Left means never admitting error. Since everything is a means to an end for the Left there are no mistakes, only a determination to push on…
ar
21 Mar 13 at 10:13 am
Candym
it is worse than pointless, it insults those who at the time thought they were, and most probably were in most circumstances, doing the right thing for the child.
duncanm
21 Mar 13 at 10:13 am
Another hollow McSporran smokescreen. He must be counting the days until his 457 visa runs out and he can dismount this dead horse. Perhaps he will one day actually back a winner.
H B Bear
21 Mar 13 at 10:15 am
How could she ever say something so heteronormative!
dover_beach
21 Mar 13 at 10:17 am
What a bunch of poisonous loons inhabit this blog.
This apology, I would have thought before I read the spite and hatred of the PM that colours absolutely everything here, would be less controversial than the aboriginal one as the policies and treatment in question are more recent than many claims regarding aboriginal “stolen generation” children, and those who have told their stories have direct first hand knowledge. I very much doubt that there is much in the way of exaggerating going on: the stories have been consistent over the years.
And being able to know and love your biological mother does not mean an adoptive child will love their adoptive mother less.
In any event, Tony Abbott and the Coalition are completely on side:
Suck on that.
steve from brisbane
21 Mar 13 at 10:27 am
We have a number of adoptions in our family.
Of the two oldest, we have a cousin who arrived in our family as part of the forced adoptions policy from a mother who was not ablve to look after her child and another who was fostered so the link to her addicted mother was not broken.
Who can guess which cousin accepted their new family better and is mentally stronger?
Which adult has serious self esteem issues due to a manipulitive mother who values her addiction more than her child?
FFS, there should be apologies to the poor girl who will only be free of her fallen mother when her addiction kills the tragic lady.
Token
21 Mar 13 at 10:29 am
Once again the black hearted creepy Labor shill is talking about an issue he does not understand.
Go back to your boring blog SoB where you can push ALP press releases to your hearts content.
Token
21 Mar 13 at 10:31 am
Coalition have got to support it. If they didn’t they’d be accused of being heartless. There’s no choice in matters like these for an opposition party, even if they individually privately feel its bollocks.
candy
21 Mar 13 at 10:36 am
Token: just how many adoptions in the 1950′s and 60′s were due to an addicted mother, you reckon?
steve from brisbane
21 Mar 13 at 10:39 am
I bet they weren’t all forced adoptions, but where the girls knew they couldn’t have a baby alone in those days. The percentage of “forced” would be debatable and how could you calculate it.
candy
21 Mar 13 at 10:46 am
Incidentally: it may well be that the sentiment against adoption has swung too far the other way now, in that it would likely be better if some women (such as those in households with serious addiction issues) did avail themselves of it.
However, the stories of the cavalier way it used to be done – as a mark of dishonour for getting knocked up in the first place – is very likely part of the reason that it cannot now be seen by most women who probably should consider it as the right thing to do.
steve from brisbane
21 Mar 13 at 10:50 am
Oh dear, their ABC24 just dun tol’ me there were 250,000.
Gab
21 Mar 13 at 10:50 am
Nobody knows for certain. That Crikey article certainly does not.
My broader family has adopted a number of children across the years due to infertility issues and from experience when the children find their biological mothers it is clear they got a better life, and drug addiction was not the only systemic problem the kids dodged.
What does not surprise me is you CHOSE not to ask the contributors why they made their judgement, rather you launched into a diatribe based upon your rigid prejudices.
Token
21 Mar 13 at 10:54 am
Because, you moron, there’s bipartisan support for an apology, no media stories about anyone who finds it controversial, I had an aunt who gave up a baby as a single mother when there was no hope of ever contacting it again and it did play on her mind for decades, and I come on her to read a bunch of people bitching about what a nasty piece of work the PM is for making an apology.
steve from brisbane
21 Mar 13 at 10:59 am
Piss off, SFB, you worthless, sick, sycophantic troll.
perturbed
21 Mar 13 at 10:59 am
Ah yes, there’s the rub. That’s the real issue for SFB.
Gab
21 Mar 13 at 11:01 am
Was this forced, or a response to the mores of the time?
dover_beach
21 Mar 13 at 11:03 am
consider who you are responding to Token.
Par for the course….
Maws
21 Mar 13 at 11:03 am
Token: just how many adoptions in the 1950′s and 60′s were due to an addicted mother, you reckon?
Well the alternative for unwed mothers in the 1800s was to have their babies in the bush around Moore Park, not tie off the chord and let the babies bleed to death. So I think adoptions was a much better choice for those times where the “sins” of the fathers/mothers were visited on the poor little “bastards”
There were few alternatives: In research I was doing I had to read the newspaper of the day the Government Gazette which in those days came out every day – and in it there were Notices which read “INFANTICIDE” information is sought in relation to the death of an infant found in Moore Park or some other bushland location …etc.. there were several of these notices each and every day —
There was also this Hatpin
And this
Thank goodness there are choices now though I don’t know whether the choices provide better outcomes for children who have no choices at all.
Tintarella di Luna
21 Mar 13 at 11:04 am
Gab, yes it is partly the point. Because as I said – most comments here attack the PM personally – crapping on about her love life, for example.
Look Gab, you’re the one who’s fretting about whether Labor will steal money from your bank account or have scrutineers who will erase pencil marks on ballets.
You’re about as deranged with Gillard hatred as they come.
steve from brisbane
21 Mar 13 at 11:05 am
You’re an angry old male, SFB. You’ll swallow anything from gillard without question.
Gab
21 Mar 13 at 11:08 am
So steve from brisbane,
you support the current system, where, during a time when I was in Fitzroy Crossing, an 18 month old baby had been raped, yet when the Police were called, they were unable to find a sober adult in the house, let alone someone who was related to the child.
Yes, there was societal pressure in the 50s and late 60s, but why apologise for what was done for the best – I prefer that to the total disaster that is todays policy, for which, under the leftist loony mindset, there will have to be another apology in the future
OldOzzie
21 Mar 13 at 11:08 am
It’s called Gillarditis SFB – I suffer terribly from it — it’sa kind of madness — bit like AbbbotAbbottAbbottitis
Tintarella di Luna
21 Mar 13 at 11:08 am
Of course, they start off with the fake ‘welcome to country’ before the apologfest.
Gab
21 Mar 13 at 11:09 am
It’s hard not to be cynical Steve
Tal
21 Mar 13 at 11:10 am
Liar Steve lying again.
Before you posted your ideologically driven diatribe SoB there were 16 posts. 3 referred to the PM’s love life.
Token
21 Mar 13 at 11:10 am
Interesting. So Gillard agrees with me that giving over a child to two homosexuals to act as ‘parents’ is child abuse.
C.L.
21 Mar 13 at 11:10 am
Semenblogger shitferbrains ruins yet another thread with his creepy, deranged love of all things lardarse.
Rabz
21 Mar 13 at 11:11 am
I’m sorry your aunt made bad life decisions.
I’m extremely happy her child was given a better life.
Infidel Tiger
21 Mar 13 at 11:13 am
Look you black-hearted Labor shill, if you had explored this point with an intent to outline why the apology is important on an emotional level to the women who were girls at the time, no-one would have objected to your post.
It is time you give up the hate and re-learn how to be civil.
Token
21 Mar 13 at 11:13 am
Julia is apologising to the survivors. The ones who were not adopted probably died because the mothers were not able to care for them. The same applies to the so-called ‘stolen generation’. Warm fuzzy feelings do not make good decisions.
Old saying
stackja
21 Mar 13 at 11:13 am
back in those days the children were called ‘bastards’, that was what society saw them as back then. But also back in those days, were people who held the best interests of the child first and foremost, unlike today where the interests of the parents come first.
Gab
21 Mar 13 at 11:15 am
Man, woman, child is a family – Martin Luther King Jr
Tintarella di Luna
21 Mar 13 at 11:18 am
Stephen Conroy (a ‘Catholic’) had a child by rustling up an ovum from one woman (not his wife) and having it implanted in a second woman (also not his wife). Will an apology be issued to this child – who, presumably, will never be allowed to know who she really is?
C.L.
21 Mar 13 at 11:25 am
Bolt sums it up.
Gab
21 Mar 13 at 11:28 am
Rudd and Gillard have never apologised for the four dead insulation workers, the 200 incinerated houses or the 1100 dead asylum seekers.
C.L.
21 Mar 13 at 11:30 am
A case of – just because you can does it mean you should?
Tintarella di Luna
21 Mar 13 at 11:31 am
A hilarious joke from an uncivil tool.
steve from brisbane
21 Mar 13 at 11:31 am
Every person who voted for Labor & the Greens in 2007 and 2010 should also apologise.
Token
21 Mar 13 at 11:31 am
gillard should apologise to Rudd for stabbing him in the back especially now as we learn the polling was not as bad as gillard made it out to be.
Gab
21 Mar 13 at 11:34 am
I acknowledged the substance of your point in my post and you are too petty to see it. The women who were naive girls at the time deserver everyone’s sympathy, regardless of how they got pregnant.
Go back to your boring blog and have a rant with the your emotionally stunted intellectual pygmies peers.
Token
21 Mar 13 at 11:34 am
Linda Mottram had someone called Christine Cole on her ABC 702 program this morning. The woman was decribing the horrorshow taking of babies from young mothers back in the 1950s as if they had a choice back then.
There’s precious little acknowledgement of young women signing off for adoption because they knew that the alternative would be painful as well in terms of family shame and lack of support for single mothers – that taxpayer support which is now a major discouragement to (i) abstention, (ii) marriage and (iii) societal “stabilidy”.
It got completely into fantasy land when she said that if a doctor was running late for the birth the nurses would push the baby back up he birth canal.
Nice class of guest Mottram showcases.
blogstrop
21 Mar 13 at 11:39 am
True but we shouldn’t demand that of liar-steve® as that would be the very least of what he ought apologise for.
It would be akin to an apology for staining the carpet after a machine gun massacre
JamesK
21 Mar 13 at 11:39 am
Ha. Token you started your cryptic “recognition” of something I said with “Look you black-hearted Labor shill” and ended by telling me to learn to be civil.
steve from brisbane
21 Mar 13 at 11:57 am
Tal, in the case of this apology, I do find it hard to cynical. Hence my annoyance with the vehemence of the attack on it.
There was race politics at play in the aboriginal policy, and I did not think it was a great idea before it was made. However, following the reaction to the apology, which virtually all commentators found was heartfelt and (to use a hackneyed but probably accurate way of putting it) potentially healing, I decided I had been wrong.
steve from brisbane
21 Mar 13 at 12:07 pm
She is not expressing remorse or compassion. She is trying to highlight her ‘virtue’ by apologising for something she clearly had nothing to do with while those she would hold up as culpable say nothing (perhaps because they knew what they were doing and do not feel guilty).
She is adorning herself with ‘morals laurels’.
As with money so with virtue, the left always feasts on what others’.
Toiling Mass
21 Mar 13 at 12:21 pm
Sob at 10:27am
SoB at 11:57am
Stop sooking you big girls blouse. Instead open a dialog by posting an entry which is not laden with left wing emotive statements and see what you get in return.
Token
21 Mar 13 at 12:23 pm
If she’s so caught up on apologising for past behaviours, when will she issue the formal apology for the ALP’s “White Australia” Policy?
– AWU Workplace Refrom Association Number 1
– The Kalgoorlie Widows and Orphans fund
– Medicare Gold
– The ‘Malaysian Solution’
– The ‘East Timor Solution’
– The MRRT (a tax which doesn’t actually raise any money)
– “There will be no Carbon Tax undar a government I lead”
– etc
– etc
– etc
Yes Julia. It certainly is shameful and distressing.
Pity you refuse point blank to acknowledge events of your recent past; instead choosing to issue pointless apologies for things that happened over 50 years ago…
Brian of Moorabbin
21 Mar 13 at 12:25 pm
The bottom line is to do an apology like Mr Rudd’s and get acclaim. But it can’t be compared; one was a wonderful gesture of reconcililation to the indigenous that was meaningful and hearfelt and signficant in Australia’s history.
This is just a vote buying exercise.
candy
21 Mar 13 at 12:25 pm
Too true, and like Krudd, she is doing so with a simplistic cowardly attack on people who are dead so can not defend themselves and explain the complexity of the moral dilemmas they faced.
Token
21 Mar 13 at 12:26 pm
Steve, while I understand that people are often wronged in this world, I’m questioning the need for continual apologies by the Prime Minister on every matter. We have the courts to officially recognize wrongs and award compensation, and the media to tell their stories. Any more than that looks either like a cheap political stunt, or more cultural self-loathing.
south
21 Mar 13 at 12:28 pm
I look away from these self-indulgent apology-gatherings.
The “heartfelt” thing might bring a good feeling on the day.
It won’t last.
It’s pointless.
Giffy
21 Mar 13 at 12:28 pm
Not even a hat-tip to the LBGT community.
What a Conservative Bigot.
twostix
21 Mar 13 at 12:30 pm
That would have brought a tear to the Legover Man. Greater love hath no man than he gets jiggy at the ALP conference…
H B Bear
21 Mar 13 at 12:32 pm
Somebody should issue an apology to anyone who has ever listened to Linda Mottram.
H B Bear
21 Mar 13 at 12:37 pm
Behold the wonders of the leftist mind: Idiocy is excused if it’s heartfelt idiocy.
Infidel Tiger
21 Mar 13 at 12:42 pm
Luckily we don’t have forced adoptions any more. Now we either kill the kid in the mum or leave it with the mum to die a bit later in life after a shitty life.
Infidel Tiger
21 Mar 13 at 12:44 pm
I will not be lectured on shame for past actions by this woman.
Leigh Lowe
21 Mar 13 at 12:49 pm
Apolophobia
I think the next Parliamentary apology should be to
men who had there foreskin removed through circumsicion.
There must be millions of Australia Men who can’t sleep not knowing what happended to their foreskins. I know by not having a circumsicion I feel a complete man. I weep for those who don’t have one.
Socks rule!!!!!!!!
Bear Necessities
21 Mar 13 at 12:51 pm
Bear
Thanks for that have just coffee-ed the keyboard.
Tintarella di Luna
21 Mar 13 at 12:59 pm
Knowing your history SoB, you liked the way the Labor staffers lead the crowd in the stage managed way to embarass Nelson.
Abbot has been burned in the same way for indulging similar stupidity:
He deserves it for being a moron and falling for this left-wing game.
Token
21 Mar 13 at 12:59 pm
Politicians are what they are Steve. Most would f*$k a snake to get re-elected. The point is we pay them to get shit done, shit that matters. This is rank symbolism, the purpose of which is to distract from the real task at hand.
Would some children have been better off with birth mothers? No doubt yes. Keep in mind the policy of the time was a state remit, so just another example of the feds sticking their beak where they shouldn’t.
Empire Strikes Back
21 Mar 13 at 1:00 pm
This is the supposedly offensive term:
Token
21 Mar 13 at 1:00 pm
Blogstrop, don’t be too quick – I’ve heard of similar occurrences from the 60s, although not in Oz. We’re talking of a time when doctor really did know best, and we were supposed to give over all autonomy at the time.
nilk
21 Mar 13 at 1:06 pm
There’s nothing to apologise for.
The old system of societal shame wasn’t perfect but it was far superior to what we have now – unmarried deadbeats having children and living off taxpayers. That’s if they don’t kill the child in utero.
C.L.
21 Mar 13 at 1:10 pm
Those protestors about the words “birth parents” would be just the usual Abbott and Catholic haters, means nothing.
candy
21 Mar 13 at 1:29 pm
From the manners displayed towards Abbott I think we can gauge what sort of people had their kids taken away.
P.S – Suck shit Abbott. Your attempts to get leftists to like you once again got you the inevitable result.
Infidel Tiger
21 Mar 13 at 1:38 pm
I’m fairly sure you’re right there, Empire. Julia is apologising for something that someone else did. She has no connection, professionally or personally, to this act.
Typical bloody Lefty. It’s all about the viiiibe.
Winston Smith
21 Mar 13 at 2:37 pm
Unless your two parents are gay and ‘married’ and thus can ‘procreate’ you and write off your real mum, dad or both?
When do we start making these paarticular apologies in Parliament, Ms. Gillard? And paying out the compensation for suffering and denial of natural justice?
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
21 Mar 13 at 3:47 pm
Abbott wasn’t pitching to the lefties.
wreckage
21 Mar 13 at 3:51 pm
How can we possibly think that our cultural norms have improved because a mother chooses to kill her baby rather than give him/her the chance of a happy life with adoptive parents?
I wonder if the ‘horror-of-adoption’ meme has been used to forward the abortion campaign. How many women have felt pressured into choosing to abort?
Ellen of Tasmania
21 Mar 13 at 6:05 pm
Better dead than adopted! Except if the prospective adopters are gay of course!
Really, come on, heterosexual adoptive parents are just not that wildly inferior to gay ones.
wreckage
21 Mar 13 at 8:28 pm
The thing about gay ‘adoption’ of children is that the children are deliberately created to fabricate parenthood, denying biological origins. OK, so this already happens.
But – with gay ‘marriage’ it happens with the full legitimation of the state as an absolute right of the married pair. No question about that: it is their ‘right’ to create a child to order and deny biological parentage of that child if they so wish.
Also, on the adoption issue, we should recall that Tony Abbott contributed to the support of an ex-wedlock child whom he thought for all of that child’s childhood was in fact his – when the child turned out not to be. He must personally know something of the heartache that can eventuate from a lack of clarity when it comes to biological parenting. He would know too about what the term ‘birth’ mother entailed in those days for the father of the child, who was seen as having few if any rights if he did not marry the mother. I doubt if he was in any way wanting to be deliberately insensitive on this matter, as he is one of those affected, although not in ways that politically correct femi-rabids would care about.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
21 Mar 13 at 8:33 pm
Even more importantly the reason abortion was accepted in the first place was because of the tragedy of failed back-alley abortions which in turn were based on the social disdain and contempt for unmarried pregnancy.
That is no longer operative.
No one advises these pregnant women of the lifelong guilt after extinguishing the life gestating within.
Not for everyone perhaps but for a significant proportion certainly, a very real burden
JamesK
21 Mar 13 at 8:43 pm
I can’t understand why the term birth mother is insensitive,I just don’t get that.
candy
21 Mar 13 at 10:47 pm
Because it sort of gives a kind of equal weight to the adoptive mother and there were some leftwing stooges in the audience that feigned offense at that.
JC
21 Mar 13 at 10:49 pm
The little I saw of all this was a glimpse of adults sitting as if in a school hall, sobbing.
Comrade The Slapper appeared on screen addressing them, and they sobbed some more.
I nearly sobbed too ‘cos about then a domestic missile whizzed past me for not being swift with the TV remote. A salt shaker or a fileting knife or a wok or something.
They gathered to hear a complete stranger
and oooh how they did sob. Listening to a known liar, a scheming, unscrupulous, deceitful bitch who will say anything to advantage herself they blubbed like babies.
Just how stupid are those adults???
Mick Gold Coast QLD
21 Mar 13 at 11:22 pm
I agree, candy, but you are dealing here with some very emotional people, who probably feel an admixture of guilt, shame, innocence and loss over the whole situation. Even so, I am a little sick of seeing these emotional responses during speeches.
dover_beach
21 Mar 13 at 11:51 pm
Not stupid, vulnerable. And useful props in a piece of political theatre.
wreckage
22 Mar 13 at 1:11 am
Well said, Samuel J.
Gillard is simply demagoguing another form of *denial* – an inability to accept that in most cases, to the best of the system’s ability (which inevitably included a few exceptions and failures), ‘stealing’ a child from its birth parent gave it the best possible chance in life. In popular parlance, people who are in denial should ‘deal with it!’.
one old bruce
23 Mar 13 at 7:33 am