Cockhold Toilet Slave: I love how you edit the wording and then reply to it. Do you think people can not go back and see what was originally written?
That statement, that I am addressing, is what you actually said. Yes, people can go back and see what was originally written. So, if you were to go back to the post that I'm replying to, you would see that you did, indeed, say the following:
"Okay as I will on many of your replies here." -- Cockhold Toilet Slave
Go ahead, nobody is looking. Follow the trail back to where you originally made the post that I'm replying to. You would see, for yourself, that no editing was done. This is just another example of you not doing what you're talking about. Even when it comes to what you have done, or what you will do in the future for that matter, you get it wrong. If you cannot get straight what you have done, what makes you think that anything else you say is valid? This is just an example of you being constantly wrong.
This is more proof that you are full of shit, understandable given your SCAT fetish.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: You see I said I thought it was you. But you stated it was.
What you actually said:
"I think I found a pic of old HFC." -- Cockhold Toilet Slave
What did you think? You thought that you found an old photo of me. The implication was clear. You attempted to identify me as the person being facesat. Unlike you, I understood that you were using humor. So, in response, I used similar humor in showing a picture of you in a toilet slave position.
If your cognitive skills were as you claim mine should be, you would've understood that this was a back and forth jab. Your reactions, on the other hand, indicated that I got you good. Your responses were priceless, watching you drop from "humor mode" to "serious mode" spoke volumes of the fact that you can dish it, but not take it.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: I think you should brush up on your cognitive skills a bit.
First, my cognitive skills are great, as opposed to yours. You're the one that is taking me out of context, and addressing what you wish, or thought, I said instead of addressing what I actually said. I hammered you over that not too long ago. The fact that you keep coming back to get destroyed speaks volumes against your cognitive skills.
Second, my cognitive skills accurately pointed out the fact that this initially started as a back-and-forth humor insult between the two of us. This is no different from what other members here are doing. They also tell me that your reactions indicate that you have a thin skin, and that you are very sensitive. This on top of you being narcissistic. Your reactions here reinforce, and substantiate, the profile that I have on you.
Third, it speaks volumes for my cognitive skills when I can identify your psychological makeup, and craft my replies in a way to get you to respond a specific way. I get a good laugh at reading your replies. In fact, my reactions, while reading your reply, go back and forth between smiling, and laughing.
I'm spinning you like a top, and taking sadistic pleasure while I'm at it. You, on the other hand, don't realize what I'm doing, even when I spell it out for you. You see my explanation, but narcissism drives you on.
Fourth, your cognitive skills are such that you do not realize that the longer you keep making a fool out of yourself on this thread, the more credibility you lose. In case you haven't noticed, those on this message board, on my side of the argument, are learning from what I am doing. The longer you keep putting yourself through the grinder, the more they learn, the more tools they place in their own handbag when it comes to handing you guys your assess long after I stop posting here... Which will happen after your side of the argument wizens up by stopping the "X" in the X/Y relationship.
I don't need to worry about "spoiling" my intentions with your actions here, as your narcissism is such that you would disregard, why I'm spinning you like a top, and keep plowing through.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: That oxygen deprivation is a bitch isn't it.
You, as the toilet slave, would know what it's like to be deprived of oxygen, wouldn't you? You know, with all of that poo covering your mouth, your nostrils, and face, you know what it is like to be deprived of oxygen. That is, until you start hacking to catch a few precious stinky breaths before more poo is dropped into your mouth.
I have no problems breathing with the brand of SOMF that I partake in. In fact, I also do not have problems breathing generating this reply, or others like it, destroying you and those on your side of the argument.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: Remember, wait you do not remember I never said it was you.
If you bothered reading replies, free of emotion and narcissism, you would notice that like you, I'm jabbing you for humor purposes. You, who insinuates that my cognitive abilities "are not" what they are, should have the cognitive ability to see that. However, this isn't the case. What started off as my giving you a taste of your medicine has resulted in you getting defensive and backpedaling.
This is a clear-cut sign that you are willing to have humor at somebody else's expense, but when that somebody else gives you a taste of your own medicine, they get under your thin skin and your narcissism takes over. Now, I have you trying to explain yourself when I understood that you were attempting to use humor. I've explained this more than once already, and here you are, still trying to explain yourself and what should obviously be, to you, a humor exchange.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: So your argument does not hold water.
Not only does my argument hold water, it's consistently on point. I accurately described what is going on between us, with regards to your posting of a photo, and my posting of a counter photo. In order to claim that someone's argument "doesn't hold water", you actually have to be on topic, and know what you are talking about. You obviously don't know what you're talking about, and are speaking out of your ass, because I got you good in the jugular and you are reacting exactly the way I intended for you to react.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: Try again.
I don't need to "try again" with regards to providing a response that you wouldn't be offended by. As I demonstrated here, you didn't know what you were talking about. I've been consistent in my rebuttals to you, in my message, as well as in my counter humor posts. You, on the other hand, consistently get it wrong. It's you that has to try again until you get it correct.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: I am willing to take all you can dish. I think you on the other hand are not.
Your actions here contradict what you claim. No, you aren't willing to take what I dish to you. By extension, you aren't willing to take what you dish out. If you were, you wouldn't be here attempting to backpedal from your original humor slam, and you wouldn't be getting defensive. You're attempting to argue against what you intended originally, in an attempt to argue against my counter humor slam. The fact that I would provide that counter humor slam is proof that I could take what you dish, and turn around and shove your own dish down your throat. If you were able to take that, you would not have said many of the things that you said here in an attempt to back away from your original humor posts that started this specific exchange.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: You have already made several missteps.
Wrong. I've been consistent in both argument and strategy, as well as with the tools that I use in carrying both out. I've done what's needed to be done, made the right steps, advanced the right arguments, fired accurate flames, etc.
You, on the other hand, consistently engage in several missteps. I have consistently called you out on those missteps. For example, you claimed, originally, that unless I had something constructive to say, you would not reply to me. Yet, since then, your replies to me insinuated that my posts were other than something that was constructive. That misstep gave away what your actual mindset was. There are others as well, but I'm hammering you so hard that I've lost count of how many missteps you've engaged in.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: the only tool you have is the willingness to blab till the cows come home.
First, don't mistake a reasoned, logical argument, destroying your own argument, as "blabbing to the cows come home". It isn't. What you're complaining about, here, is my refusal to let your BS stand. You are willing to keep spewing the crap that you've previously chugged during your toilet slave sessions, onto this thread, and you have no problem with your doing that until the cows come home. However, heaven forbid that one of us keeps hammering you for as long as you're willing to spew your crap. It's blatantly obvious that you are not used to having someone, like me, constantly reply to you. You would rather that I would let your BS stand then to do what I am actually doing here. Not happening. I take sadistic pleasure in consistently hammering you.
Second, as those, on my side of the argument here recognize, I have multiple tools in my tool bag. I've described some of them here, on this thread. One of them is my ability to get a good idea of what your psychological profile is based on how you reply. I've successfully tested that profile by saying certain things that I know would get you to react a certain way. I've consistently been successful in causing you to react in a way that exposes your psychological profile more.
You're simply too sensitive, emotional, dense, etc., to see that.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: Most people get tired of having to reply to your never ending novellas that break every sentence down
Unlike you, those people exercise better judgment. That's what it boils down to. I found, in my 13 years of debating liberals like you, that there is an inverse relationship between the willingness of someone to argue with me, and good judgment. In other words, the more someone is willing to argue against me, the more likely they are to exercise poor judgment.
After all, replying to me is piss poor judgement. Why is that?
I don't argue just any topic under the sun. There are certain conditions that have to be met before I would argue a topic.
1. I have to have more knowledge, on the topic being argued, then the opposition. This knowledge has to be based on first-hand experience, studied/research experience, or a combination of them.
2. The opposition, that I intend to argue against, that I will continue to argue against, have to clearly be wrong.
As soon as I jump in, a third requirement kicks in:
3. The opposition has to continue to argue.
In other words, if I'm on a thread telling a person, or a group of people, that they are wrong, or showing them that they are wrong, they are indeed wrong. See points 1 and 2 above. When the opposition insists on arguing what is clearly an erroneous position, the opposition is showing that they are driven by arrogance/narcissism in arguing an invalid argument, and thus are exercising poor judgment.
You guys exercise poor judgment by thinking that you guys are right, when you are wrong, and by continuing to against someone, or a group of people, telling you that you are wrong. My series of posts here, countering your arguments as well as those advanced by your allies, represent me showing, and proving, you guys are wrong. Arrogance drives you guys to exercise poor judgment in attempting to argue an invalid argument.
I started noticing this inverse relationship when I started debating liberals. This was verified on Facebook when I started debating there. As I suspected, from my debates in anonymous forms like this before facebook existed, none of the successful people on my friends list pursued an argument against me. Every single Facebook person that I knew, that was successful in the real world, quickly disengaged from an argument against me.
Those are my Facebook friends list who insisted on arguing against me? The very people that complained about being passed over for promotion, for not getting a pay raise, or the very people who go from one dead-end job to another. Many of the people, that I have argued against repeatedly, have "self-employed" in their profile based on a MLM scheme. The reality is that they were unemployed, or were unable to hold a job.
What ties this to their decision to keep arguing against me? Piss poor judgment, both with the decision to argue with me, and whatever decision, or set of decisions, they've made that prevented them from being successful career wise. That is the piss poor judgment that I see you exercising over here. There is an excellent chance that you exercise this piss poor judgment outside of ECCIE.
Meaning, these other people that you talked about, although they have exercised poor judgment by previously arguing against me, don't exercise it as much as you do.
THAT's what you have just admitted to and that statement above.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: and even edit some of them.
This is both your narcissism and emotion speaking. I've been hammering you, long enough, for you to notice that I would take what you actually say and break it down by the individual points, or collection of similar points, that you make. I address what you actually say, unlike you, who has taken me out of context repeatedly just so that you would have an argument.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: It is pointless.
If it is pointless, why are you continuing to reply? As usual, your actions betray your arguments. If you honest to God believe that replying to me is "pointless", you would follow that up with action. You wouldn't have even replied to me.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: You have one strategy.
I have multiple strategies. The reason that you insist that I "only" have "one" strategy is that your arrogance/narcissism blinds you to the multiple strategies that I am using. I repeatedly pointed out one strategy, that I use, to get you to react a certain way. There are other strategies that I use as well to destroy your argument, as well as the arguments of those on your side of the argument.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: That is to type the most
You see, even when you are provided the facts, here, you disregard them on the account of your narcissism and emotion working in overdrive. Given the amount of "writing" that I have to do, it would be insane for me to attempt to do it by typing. Keep in mind that I'm working on my dissertation. There is a lot of "writing" involved with that. I take a break from the dissertation to come here in order to smack you around for the retarded comments that you make. Given the documentations that I have to keep generating, each day, "typing" would be insane.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: and the last.
I already explained to you the process, between us, that you should have gotten down by now. This is a pattern of you replying, and of my providing you with a counter reply. Again, let "X" be your reply to me. Let "Y" be my counter reply to you. If X, then Y. In other words, I warned you that your replies to me will draw counter replies from me.
Again, I take sadistic pleasure in doing this. As you have complained, I take your posts apart, and counter them point by point. I have fun doing this, and have indicated that out could, and would, do this indefinitely.
Meaning, it shouldn't surprise you that I would provide you with a reply. I could tell, by your mentioning this, that it bothers you that I would "type last". Why don't you be honest with us and tell me that you would rather have me not reply to you, thus letting you post your BS as the "last post".
Not happening! I have every intention of providing you with a counter rebuttal for as long as you insist on arguing here. Remember, I've done this for 13 years, I'll be doing it for much longer after this post. I'll never tire of doing this either.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: Funny how you take my comments out of context.
Go back to the comment that I made, you will notice that I quoted your statement as you made it. I included a group of three sentences, the first sentence that you make contradicts the third sentence that you make. Go ahead, nobody is looking. Go back and re-read the comment that you made, both in my post and in the post that I am replying to. I didn't take you out of context. I accurately explained the fact that you contradicted yourself with those two sentences.
That is a far cry then you cherry picking my posts, and addressing specific sentences out of context of the entire paragraph that those sentences came from. This is simply you denying that you made an argument, representing the fact that you are backpedaling from your argument.
Did you get that? Not only are you backpedaling from your initial humor post that started this specific argument, you appear to be backpedaling from your other arguments on this thread. You're seeing that you're getting your ass handed to you, but your arrogance isn't allowing you to admit to that.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: If you were as witty as you claim you would not have to LOL.
Go back to the statement that I made, were you made this reply. I went back to my original reply, I didn't see where I "LOL". However, I did see where I said this: YOU! This is more proof that I got you in the jogular, that you are purely emotional, driven by narcissism and a thin skin, in your reply to me. You're not even understanding what I'm saying, or even addressing what I am actually saying. Instead, you are making assumptions about what I said, and addressing those assumptions rather than what I actually said. You are so angry that you misinterpreted an entirely capitalized word, "YOU," as "LOL".
Cockhold Toilet Slave: As far as I see, only one of us is in to face sitting. But If you feel better thinking it is more commonplace then sure go for it.
What I actually said, in the statement that you are directly addressing:
"There's no need to be ashamed of your fetish, we both know that only one person, in this exchange, is into being a toilet slave, YOU!" -- herfacechair
Where, in that statement, do I insist that you are into facesitting? There is a whole world of difference between SCAT and facesitting with regards to what is entailed. Nowhere, in the statement that you addressed, do I insist that you are into my fetish, being face sat.
I already know that my fetish isn't commonplace. The women that I have been with have verified that. However, I'm not identifying you as having my fetish. In my return fire, regarding humor insults, I've humor insulted you as having the toilet slave fetish.
But, the fact that you would completely take me out of context, and address something that I did not say, speaks volumes to the fact that you saw my reply, and got pissed. Your replies reflect a lot of narcissism driven emotion from a guy with thin skin.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: Blah Blah?
Good! Good! Let the anger flooow through you!
Cockhold Toilet Slave: Again you are acting as though it really is me after just saying the pic is fictional. Using your insults as a basis for your assertions is pretty feeble
You do realize that I'm giving you your medicine, do you? Again, what was going through your mind when you posted a picture claiming that you "may have found" an old picture of me? An attempt to be humorous at may expense, maybe? It's obvious that I am still in that mindset when returning that humor to you. What you are addressing is my continuance of that humor.
This is you demonstrating, again, that you are unable to take what you dish out. You are looking at the same treatment given to you, that you gave to me. However, instead of recognizing your own medicine, you are letting your thin skin speak for you. You are making it blatantly obvious that I am getting on your skin, and that I am getting you to spin like a top.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: More fodder based on your fictitious pic again?
That's more of your medicine, I could see that you cannot handle the taste of your own medicine. what you are witnessing is my continuously getting under your skin, and getting you to reply in a way that's causing a lot of laughter. If you bothered reading my posts, with the intention of understanding what you are reading, you would see that I'm giving you a taste of your treatment. Your reaction tells me that you can't take what you dish out. Consequently, you are getting sensitive and replying accordingly.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: Really?
Yes, really. What you are seeing is my continuously doing to you what you initially did to me. This goes back to the "dishing out" again. You dished out some humor, and I dished it back. Instead of recognizing your own antics, you start to act defensive, indicating that you have thin skin, are sensitive, and are very narcissistic.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: How can I respond?
You can respond like someone that can take what he dishes out. Unfortunately, for you, instead of taking what you dish out, you go "snowflake" mode when things get dished back to you. Consequently, the effects of my using certain words, to get a reaction from you, end up getting amplified.
Or, you can simply take a course of action that would stop me from hammering you. I have explained, what you could do, multiple times with my X/Y analogy.
Want me to stop hammering you? Stop replying to me. It's THAT simple!
If you insist on replying to me, you don't have a leg to stand on complaining about how I hammer you, or about the fact that I keep hammering you. When it comes to arguments, the opposition can't have their cake and eat it too.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: You make insults then comment on them.
Which is exactly what you are doing, but you have no problem doing it on your end. It's when I do it on my end, in response to you, that all of a sudden, it becomes a problem. Hence, you can't take what you dish out.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: That is typical MO of a few on here.
You described your side of the argument to the "T". That is one of your strategies, as well as that of those that I have argued against both on ECCIE and elsewhere. The other things that you've done include taking comments out of context, arguing against what you thought was said vice what was actually said, using strawman arguments, etc.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: Must be a GOP thing.
Nope, it's a Democrat/liberal/regressive thing. I see that constantly in your arguments, as well as that of those on your side of the argument.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: Wow another wild story with no real connection to the comment.
False, there is a purpose behind every word, sentence, paragraph, etc., that I use in reply. Every single thing that I said, in response to you, has everything to do with what I am responding to. Yes, the analogy that I used had everything to do with responding to your failed analogy. There was a strong connection between my response and your screed.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: Since we both know that is not me.
Wrong, we both know that is you. The difference, between you and me, is that your arrogance/narcissism is preventing you to see what your intellect is trying to tell you. Your intellect is telling you the same thing that is obvious to me, that you're getting smoked in this argument. You're getting your ass handed to you repeatedly, and shoved down your throat. You refuse to acknowledge that, typical of a thin skinned, snowflake, narcissistic poster.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: Why do you keep basing all your elaborations about it?
Wrong, not basing "all of my elaborations about it". With regards to the insult, I'm adding to it, and elaborating on it, knowing full well that I am getting under your skin. Based on my getting on your skin, you are reacting accordingly. You don't realize that, all you are doing is reacting in a way that shows that you have a thin skin, you are sensitive, that you have control issues, that your narcissistic, etc.
With regards to building on my explanation, I'm explaining to you how you are getting destroyed in this exchange.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: Now we both know you are full of shit and blow smoke up people asses all day.
Wrong. Both your intellect, and I, know that it's YOU that's full of shit, who attempts to baffle people with your BS. Your intellect is trying to tell you this, and, on a deeper level, you are seeing this. Your narcissism; however, prevents you from acknowledging the fact that you are getting destroyed in this exchange, and that you are getting smoked.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: So my comment was in context. Yours? Not so much.
Wrong. In order for your comment to be in context, you would have to reply free of raging emotions, driven by a thin skin and narcissism. What you're doing is equivalent to pointing in the general direction of the enemy and randomly squeezing rounds downrange, without hitting anything.
Not only were my comments in context, which you took out of context, but they were dead accurate. Dead accurate in that where I made valid points, I hit the target. Dead accurate with regards to eliciting a certain type of response from you, I hit the target again.
You're not making your comments in context, and you take me out of context when you reply to me. You, stating otherwise, are speaking from narcissism.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: I do see how you worked that Army angle in there that was good at least. Just wasted on a failed reply.
Yes, the Army angle was good, extremely good on the account that I took your words and showed you how you shot yourself on the foot. You walked right into that one.
My use of that was very applicable to my reply to the specific statement that you made that I'm encountering. Nope, not wasted. If it was, you would not have replied to it. Your entire reply, on the other hand, was a failed reply. Understandable given that you are driven by emotion and narcissism in this exchange.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: Still more bullshit that has no bearing on a reply to any facts.
Again, that is me returning fire regarding a humor insult. Once again, you prove that you cannot take what you dish out. You would recognize when you throw out a humor insult, but when one is thrown back in your direction, you get defensive. Do keep showing me that you are sensitive, thin-skinned, narcissistic, etc.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: Just the usual waste of words
I got you so good, with my counter insult, that you were left speechless. However, given your narcissism, you refused to be in position to where you got destroyed in a way that you recognize that you got destroyed. So, you "dismissed" my comment as "waste of words".
To use your own words, I assure you, none of my words are wasted. Your replies indicate that my intent with my words, sentences, and paragraphs, was achieved. The only way that my words would be "the usual waste", would be for you to ignore my posts and me. That would be the only way to deny the action, from you, that I intended to elicit with the words that I use.
The fact that you keep coming back, as intended by the way I put my words together, speaks volumes to the fact that my words aren't wasted.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: by the token blabbermouth.
Says the guy that is showing that he is increasingly becoming unhinged. The only blabbermouth, between the two of us, is you. There's no organization, or discipline, coming from your posts. You're giving me the usual emotional knee jerk response typical of someone who is thin skinned and sensitive. You've been reduced to being a liberal windbag, blowing empty air out as if you were a vehicle with wheels rapidly spinning, but with the vehicle going nowhere.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: Man you went all out to cover that one tiny comment.
Because you were colossally wrong, that's why. Again, there's a purpose behind every word, sentence, and paragraph that I use in my reply. My response had multiple purposes. One of them was to call you out on your BS, where you tried to back pedal from your insults after I insulted you harder and you proved to be unable to take what you dished out. I subsequently followed that up with two likely scenarios.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: I figured you were a shallow Hal type. Seems like a conman trait among the weirdos.
First, the "Steve Hawkins" reference, now the "Hal" reference. You do realize that your intellect is trying to tell you that you're getting destroyed by someone with a better vantage point than you, do you? This tells me that even you see that I'm hammering you in debate, that my arguments have validity to where yours has none... So now you're left doing nothing but pulling shit out of your ass as you strive to regain control of what you feel you've lost control in... Given that you're reacting like you've lost control throughout this thread.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: Like I said, I thought it might be one of the ladies you saw because just as you said, not many can do much with you gnashing on them besides pray to God you hurry up and they can get the fuck out of there.
First, where, in any of my posts, do I claim that not many women could SOMF me per my definition of SOMF, because of my "gnashing" on them? Where, in any of my posts, do I claim that these women pray to God that I hurry up, "so that they could get the fuck out of there"? Where?
This, you cockhold toilet slave, is an example of what I mean when I say that you take people's comments out of context. So, in your next reply to me, I expect you to link to a post that I made where I've used those exact words.
What I actually said:
"Actually, I've had a hard time getting a woman to do things that she wouldn't normally do while sitting, while she is making me live up to my username. The DATY that I'm giving her makes it impossible for her to focus on anything else." -- herfacechair
If your cognitive abilities, and your reading comprehension abilities, were where they're supposed to be at, you'd understand that to mean that I provide them pleasure, thus they're consumed by pleasure. These women sit until they're satisfied with the number or orgasms they've had, or the intensity of the orgasms that they've had.
You, having premium access, would know that just by reading the reviews that I have. But again, liberals like you treat having to do actual research the way superman reacts to kryptonite.
Given your narcissism, you'd see something that you want to see, and not what's actually there to see. You refuse to see reality, because reality tells you that you're getting pulverized, and that I don't share your misfortunes.
Second, like I said, you intended for that to be an insult, deliberately choosing an obese, no, make that a woman that appears to be morbidly obese, instead of the numerous pictures that you came across depicting hot women doing the facesitting. Choosing a woman that appears morbidly obese was intended as an insult.
If you don't see her as being obese, guess what? That's a powerful indication that YOU are obese, and thus would not see her as being obese. Luke_Wyatt? Is this you?
Let's add this to the fact that you resorted to an attempt to use "formal English" in the face of my hitting you good with a humor insult, in the form of you saying, "I assure you..." The only other poster that I've seen, who attempted to resort to "formal English" in response to another one of my humor insults, was bigtext.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: Since I do not "chug poo" I will sent all the inquiry's to you. It seems like you are an expert at those things.
Again, you don't have to be bashful regarding your SCAT fetish. Your daily dose of poo gives you the ammunition you need to keep coming back to reply to us. Unlike you, I don't have any experience in the toilet slave arena. I could only imagine what it'd be like. You, on the other hand, know this first hand. Why, you're afraid that the SCAT mistresses would stop using you as their toilet slave, as you'd run out of things to say here if they did.
My hat's off to you for your ability to chug poo and piss better than many people could chug beer. CHUG CHUG CHUG CHUG... That's you chugging poo.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: How hard is it to let a woman sit on your face? Is there no gravity at your house.
Getting them to sit on my face is no problem. It shouldn't surprise me that you, not having that much experience with women, can't figure out what I meant, even after I specified what I meant. I thought you'd understand this, but I guess I'll have to explain it to you to make up for your lack of experience with women.
How many times have I mentioned "full weight" with regards to facesitting? From here, there's a wonderful thing called "common sense" that could tell you what's meant by this:
"I prefer the reverse facesit, or riding the south face. The animated picture in this link is close to what I prefer. The woman in the picture looks like she's using her legs to carry her weight, she should relax those muscles and settle down for a full weight facesit... The real facesit:" -- herfacechair
What part of "full weight" did you not understand? What part of "using her legs to carry her weight" did you not understand?
HEELLLOOOO! McFly! Anybody home McFly?
You do realize that many women are conscious of their weight when it comes to facesitting, do you? Most women are afraid that they'll crush the face, or suffocate the guy, and not realize that they won't do either when it comes to me.
Gravity isn't the issue, your lack of understand of women, and your lack of common sense, logic, etc., are the issues.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: I know it is full of hot air
How could you not know about the hot air part given that whenever I access your comments, all the hot air from your head flows into my house?
Cockhold Toilet Slave: but I don't think that would make them float.
But you're so full of shit that YOU float! Thanks to all of those scat mistresses, you wouldn't have to worry about drawing in a flood, you'd float, and the rest of your neighborhood would be able to save themselves by sitting on you, and hanging on your sides, rowing to the call of someone on you saying, ROW! ROW! ROW! ROW!
Cockhold Toilet Slave: LOL.
"If you were as witty as you claim you would not have to LOL." -- MT Pockets
Countering you with your own words is like beating a man up with his own prosthetic limb.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: I bet you can pulverize a piece of meat!
That's another area that you have experience in, that I don't, pulverizing pee pees, given your hobby of hanging out at the HEB parking lot, with the rest of the reach around crew, enjoying those tube steak sandwiches with healthy doses of man mayo.
I am; however, pulverizing your arguments and your attempts to be lame here.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: Again. You being so picky about your accomplice
Says the very fat guy who has a problem seeing an obese woman as being obese. I noticed that you have nothing to say regarding my perspective of you thinking of her as "attractive" and as "not being fat". Again, this is an indication that you yourself are fat. Not only is this an indication of your potential obesity, but if that overweight woman was "attractive" to you, that is an indication that you have a problem, in the woman department, when it comes to sex, or having sex.
You appear to go for long periods of time without having sex, that you would identify as "attractive" what others would not find as "attractive". I wouldn't be surprised if that woman in the picture, that is sitting on a guy's face, looks to you as a "Miss Universe" type of woman.
That speak strongly of you being sexually frustrated. Given your attitude on this message board, that wouldn't surprise me.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: does not mean you have good taste, or them either for that matter!
Your opinion, on my taste in women, is invalid. I have a very good taste when it comes to types of women. Three of the women, that I have reviewed here, have porn star experiences. Two of them are retired porn stars. Another one of them is an international porn star.
Guess what that means, stupid? It means that I partied with women that thousands of men have masturbated to. Two of these women I partied with more than once. The way they've grabbed me, to DKF me, speaks volumes to the fact that they have good tastes in men.
Also, I've had a facesitting session with Head Mistress Porsche Lynn. She's also a former porn star.
I have very good taste in women, your narcissism refuses to accept that given that you are more than likely a sexually frustrated oversized man.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: LOL! see what I did there! Ha ha I crack myself up! Oh shit I did it again! You know "crack"
Take it away MT Pockets:
"If you were as witty as you claim you would not have to LOL." -- MT Pockets
Thanks. Countering you with your own words is like beating a man up with his own prosthetic limb.
Yes, I see what you did, you're proving to me that you're losing it even more. LOL! Yes, you're "cracking yourself up", alright, cracking under pressure! BWAAAAHAAAAAHAAAA
You're so frustrated at the defeat that you're experiencing that you're starting to do the crazy laugh.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: Man this is fun!
You need to be honest here, you're not having fun. I could tell, by the responses that you are giving, that you're getting frustrated, angry, more unhinged, etc. I could tell, but what you write, that you are livid hot with anger. No, you aren't having fun.
The only one, between the two of us, that is having so much fun doing this, is me. You do realize, that in addition to the other things that I explained here, that impact the length of my post, my having fun doing this also contribute to the length of my posts, my replies to you.
I've been debating liberals like you, for the past 13 years. How is it that I could debate you liberals for the past 13 years, and that I have every intention of debating with you liberals for much longer than that? Well, one of the reasons I could do that is that this is fun. I love watching you melt down, you are melting down worse than you were earlier in this thread.
In fact, pointing to your "MT Pockets" post, you are having a hard time containing the different personalities that you have had with previous personalities. Thanks to your reply that I am replying to, I suspect you of not only being Luke_Wyatt, but of also being bigtext.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: So the one on the toilet has less of a chance of shitting in my mouth? You really are brain damaged.
Good, good! You're finding it harder to deny that you have people shit in your mouth.
Your interpretation of my statement proves that you're the one that is brain-damaged. The fact that I swapped the women out, in our respective posts, went completely over your head. Doesn't surprise me, given that you come across as retarded. I wouldn't be surprised if you wore shoes that were Velcro rather than utilized shoestrings. They would have to send you to school to learn how to tie your shoes before letting you have shoes that requires shoestrings.
The woman, in the photo that I presented, is hot. So, I swapped her out, in my insulting you, with a woman from your photo, the obese woman. So now, after the obese woman, sitting on the toilet bowl, with your head inside that same toilet bowl. Do you get the picture? If not, find somebody that could translate conversational English into retard terms so that you can hopefully understand what I am getting across.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: Coming from the man that found the pic in the first place.
I could tell that you lack experience when it comes to trading insults. This is a good indication that you did not have many friends while growing up. This is also a good indication that you do not have that many friends now.
Why do I say this?
Well, had you grown up with a lot of friends, had you hung out with a lot of friends, you would know how to roll with the punches when it comes to trading humorous insults. You don't appear to be able to do that. So, my doing that, by taking the picture that I posted, and twisting and turning it to meet my intended humor insults at you, went completely over your head.
Your reaction is typical of what I would find with someone who has no experience doing this, typical of somebody that was a loner pretty much most of his life. Given your attitude, expressed on this thread and elsewhere, I could see why you would have grown up as a loner, and why, like when you were a kid, like when you were growing up, you do not have that many friends now.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: Since my head is covered you identified me by my "meat" as you like to call it.
Wrong. Anybody with common sense look at the picture, that I posted, and see what is happening. The intent of my message? In response to the photo that you posted, I posted a photo of a toilet slave. Naturally, in the photo, the viewer will not see the head of the toilet slave. Common sense would fill in the blank.
Silly me for assuming that you had any common sense or sense of logic.
Also, let's look at what I actually said:
"Leave it to a MEAT gazer, a member of the ECCIE Dutch Rudder Gang who indulges in lots of tube steak sandwiches with healthy doses of man mayo while at the HEB parking lot, to make note of where "the little man" is pointing, and whether the device she's holding is touching "the little man" or not.
"Unlike you, I don't take a closer look at people's dicks, so it'd be natural for you to pick things up regarding what a dick is doing, and what's happening to it." -- herfacechair
I destroyed you, so hard, in this debate, as well as in the flame war, that your arrogance is working overtime to protect your snowflake self from seeing reality, the reality that you got thoroughly destroyed.
Yes, your head is indeed covered, in the poo that flowed down to surround your head on the account that your face and mouth overflowed with poo.
Lucky you, when you drove away, with all that poo dripping from your face, you honest to God were legally driving shitfaced.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: I had to study up in case you invite me over. I need to know when to finish her off after you fluffing her.
Holy crap, you're into trannies too! No wonder why you got mad at the photos I used, you have trannies do that to you instead!
What you said before:
"while she was sitting on a Cucks face" -- MT Pockets
"Cuck" or "Cock", as you use it here, is short for "cockhold". The statement that you used, following that up, described a "cockhold" scene. Why would you have to "study up on it" when you provided a description of it in a previous reply? In fact, you gave a graphic description, based on a video that you claimed to have watched, of what that entails.
More proof that you are full of shit; understandable given the fact that you are a cockhold toilet slave. You were watching those videos, of someone being a cockhold, because you are into being a cockhold, and you consistently have cockhold fantasies.
And no, I would not need to invite you over for two main reasons.
First, I provide these women with multiple orgasms via cunnilingus and FS. By the time we are done, they have problems having orgasms for a long time. This is especially the case when I make them shake violently as if they were having "woman quakes".
Inviting you over would not only destroy the "feel good" atmosphere, and their being on Cloud 9, but their feeling your pee pee afterwards would be a colossal step down. Having FS with your pee pee, after them feeling my guy during FS, would be like eating a greasy, poor quality hamburger, after eating at a five-star restaurant.
Cockhold Toilet Slave: Another detailed explanation that you seemed to be an expert on. Sure you haven't given it a try?
I based my explanation on what you claimed you saw. You provided a graphic explanation of a cockhold experience. You talked about an alleged facesitting event where a "bull" came from behind and slid in. My response addressed your graphic explanation.
Using your own argument, since I based my explanation on your graphic explanation, that is a good indication that you are the one that gave it a try.
I know for a fact that I have never given that experience a try. Again, that is one area that you experienced, as a cockhold, that allowed you to provide a graphic explanation, that amounts to an experience I never had and never will.
For someone who has failed to score points against me, in other areas of the debate, you need to acknowledge when I point out the fact that you have certain experiences that I don't have. meaning, you have experiences related to you being a Cockhold toilet slave not only for mistresses, but also for trannies. Those experiences are born from your actually doing it, as driven by your cockhold toilet slave fantasies.