As I said, I dont concern myself with why Shanks was called the 1st son.
Where was I wrong about saying Buggy is 2nd son of Rocks?
You do know the result of this claim has yet to be determined?
Or you just want me to be wrong that bad?
Come on you're being thick on purpose.
Buggy gets called
second son, you say there is an hidden meaning.
In the same phrase, Shanks gets called
first son, but now there is no hidden meaning.
So the
same description (first son, second son) is given to two people in the same role (apprentice) in the same discussion in the same context but one has a
hidden meaning.
The only explanation is that Shanks is the secret
first son of somebody, but it's already been refuted last chapter.
Please acknowledge that this is your line of thought and realise how contradictory you're being.