Go Back   Literotica Discussion Board > Main Literotica Forums > General Board

Reply
 
Thread Tools

Old 07-17-2017, 08:18 AM   #51
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatúr
 
Que's Avatar
 
Que is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 25,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnySavage View Post
And if we were to prioritize things the government needs to ban - cocksuckers with leaf blowers outside my office at 8 in the morning.
..and assholes who crank the base on stereos worth more then their P.O.S. cars till it rattles tge plastic in my P.O.S. car.

As to Darwinism- we have decided that drug abuse is a disability and a significant number of those 30 + million Social Security disability claims are for exactly that. A few less of them being supported for the rest of their lives is all the more money to support actual old people with Social Security.
__________________
"A man can convince anyone heís somebody else, but never himself."
-Kevin Spacey as Verbal Kint in "The Usual Suspects."
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 08:19 AM   #52
JohnnySavage
scapolo
 
JohnnySavage's Avatar
 
JohnnySavage is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Appalachian American
Posts: 40,098
In JohnnyWorld, anybody outside my office, disturbing my morning nirvana with a leafblower is a cocksucker.
__________________
Il bacio sta all'amore come il lampo al tuono.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 08:23 AM   #53
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
 
4est_4est_Gump is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: GB Hall of Fame
Posts: 85,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Que View Post
..and assholes who crank the base on stereos worth more then their P.O.S. cars till it rattles tge plastic in my P.O.S. car.

As to Darwinism- we have decided that drug abuse is a disability and a significant number of those 30 + million Social Security disability claims are for exactly that. A few less of them being supported for the rest of their lives is all the more money to support actual old people with Social Security.
Indeed. I also wonder how many of them are confused as to their gender when they give it up for cash...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnySavage View Post
In JohnnyWorld, anybody outside my office, disturbing my morning nirvana with a leafblower is a cocksucker.
~*~ reported ~*~

Lesbian discrimination.
__________________
Jenny Jenny who can I run to? (8675309)
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 08:29 AM   #54
adrina
Heretic
 
adrina's Avatar
 
adrina is online now
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: In my mind and a few others, apparently.
Posts: 3,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4est_4est_Gump View Post
I don't drink pop.


When I did, it was because of its sweet goodness and caffeine were pleasurable.



Pleasure is a benefit. All things should be done in moderation, but legislating moderation is nothing more than the the religious tyranny of the majority.
Pleasure is subjective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4est_4est_Gump View Post
Please elaborate on what problem(s) they are causing.



I don't think you can because in order to do so, you have to ignore all other factors, like the Glow Ball Alarmists and CO2...

They have been well documented. But sure deflect to your usual crutch.

Clicky for easiness
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 08:34 AM   #55
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
 
4est_4est_Gump is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: GB Hall of Fame
Posts: 85,724
Numerous studies have been done on many substances, salt, butter, coffee, coconut oil, fats, etc...,


And the original studies ware all trumpeted in the news as calls to action.


Subsequent studies of those studies proved they were not true.


What can I say? It is all on the individual consumer....


I might add, the recent analysis of Gow Ball temps.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 08:40 AM   #56
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
 
trysail's Avatar
 
trysail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 'twixt here and there
Posts: 23,294


We fully realize that you utterly hate freedom.


It is understood that you believe that all people are morons who are so stupid they need Big Brother** to protect themselves from themselves.





____________________
** provided, of course, that you are the self-appointed, goose-stepping Big Brother who gets to order everybody else around.


  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 08:43 AM   #57
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatúr
 
Que's Avatar
 
Que is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 25,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrina View Post
Pleasure is subjective.




They have been well documented. But sure deflect to your usual crutch.

Clicky for easiness
Soda is a sugar delivery system. Nothing more than that. If you want to eliminate subsidies for the sugar industry I would support that. If you want to outlaw any high sugar purchases with a SNAP card on the basis that such also "qualify" for medicaid, I would support that.

Blaming the delivery system is the same as blaming guns for crimes that involve guns.
__________________
"A man can convince anyone heís somebody else, but never himself."
-Kevin Spacey as Verbal Kint in "The Usual Suspects."
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 08:47 AM   #58
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
 
4est_4est_Gump is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: GB Hall of Fame
Posts: 85,724
They don't put sugar in any of it anymore.



Doubt me? Every once in a while, the women bring home Coke from Mexico. You would not believe the difference in taste. We're so busy offering up sugar substitutes (based upon false science and fake studies) that we're introducing sugar substitutes without knowing their long-term effects, because, you know, sugar, not lifestyle, creates "obesity..."
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 09:26 AM   #59
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatúr
 
Que's Avatar
 
Que is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 25,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4est_4est_Gump View Post
They don't put sugar in any of it anymore.



Doubt me? Every once in a while, the women bring home Coke from Mexico. You would not believe the difference in taste. We're so busy offering up sugar substitutes (based upon false science and fake studies) that we're introducing sugar substitutes without knowing their long-term effects, because, you know, sugar, not lifestyle, creates "obesity..."
True. I live in tbe barrio. Soda in glass bottles with cane sugar.

Corn syrup is probably arguably worse than for you than sugar however a calorie is a calorie, and your body is more concerned with converting that excess calorie to Fat than any other concern.
__________________
"A man can convince anyone heís somebody else, but never himself."
-Kevin Spacey as Verbal Kint in "The Usual Suspects."
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 09:28 AM   #60
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
 
4est_4est_Gump is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: GB Hall of Fame
Posts: 85,724
My body, the hoarder...


  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 09:47 AM   #61
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
 
4est_4est_Gump is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: GB Hall of Fame
Posts: 85,724
Quote:
Critics of the libertarian philosophy think they can score points by calling libertarians "market fundamentalists." It's supposed to conjure images of dogmatic religious fundamentalists, just like the term global warming denier is supposed to conjure images of Holocaust deniers. It's a smear, of course, and if you think the tactic discredits those who employ it, I agree. The fact is that libertarians cannot be market fundamentalists. Why not? Because in the libertarian worldview, the market is not fundamental. What's fundamental is every person's right to be free from aggressive force. So fine, I'm a freedom fundamentalist. Guilty.

Strictly speaking, it's not markets that can and should be freeóit's people. The term free market merely describes one political-legal context in which people conduct themselves. It's shorthand for a subset of human actionóthe exchange of goods and services, usually for money. (The logic of human action, the study of which Ludwig von Mises called praxeology, applies to all purposeful conduct, not just market exchange.)

It follows, then, that when politicians and activists call on the government to regulate the economy, they mean to regulate us. There's no economy to regulate. It's not a machine or a vehicle. It's an unending series of purposeful activities the logic of which gives rise to a process characterized by regularities. Hence, for example, the law of supply and demand. We can talk about this orderly processóthe marketóas though it were a thing, but we have to keep its metaphorical nature in mind. It's still only people cooperating with each other.

When market critics demand government regulation, they imply that markets are by nature unregulated. But we've just seen that this is nonsense. An unregulated market is a logical contradiction. That we call it a market indicates the regularities, or laws, just mentioned. No regularityóno market. There could no more be an unregulated market than there could be a grammarless language or a perpetually disorderly society. We would not call a population a society if it did not display a general order expressed by rules (written and unwritten), customs, and mores. Without such things, a population would be not a society but a Hobbesian state of nature.

So the question is not whether the market should be regulated, but who should regulate it. And the only two choices are: 1) market participants through the exercise of their free and peaceful choices or 2) politicians and bureaucrats relying on the threat of violence to impose their will.
Sheldon Richman

http://reason.com/archives/2017/07/1...nt-to-regulate



Adrina is clearly a student of the latter school of thought.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 10:19 AM   #62
EternalFantasies
EqualOportunity"Offender"
 
EternalFantasies's Avatar
 
EternalFantasies is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,464
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FToHabxSVYg


... and you can't deny it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 10:23 AM   #63
BoyNextDoor
I'm so yuge!
 
BoyNextDoor's Avatar
 
BoyNextDoor is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 8,594
I am not a big supporter of "nanny state" activities (ir. ban the Big Gulp, over tax it, etc). So in this case, as with other consumption commodities, label it and since there is a public health concern there needs to be readily available information about the health effects made readily available (ie. the reasonable way to use some reasonable amount of tax on it).

After that I sort of shrug and let Darwin sort it out.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 11:44 AM   #64
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
 
BotanyBoy's Avatar
 
BotanyBoy is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 30,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Normal View Post
Thanks, I wanted to be clear.
Always a good thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Normal View Post
I truly hope you or no one close to you even needs assistance. Though, it would possibly be the only to convince you that caring for those who may have trouble caring for themselves is a just action of a civil society, I still hope you and yours never have to incur such hardships.
Saul goodman, I take care of my responsibilities and pay my insurance bills so I'm not worried.

I do think that is that caring for those who have trouble caring for themselves is a just action of a civil society. I also think it should be voluntary and consensual, not because the government sent their goons to take my money so they could keep buying their 500 dollar aspirins and 10,000 inhalers from their buddies with taxpayer dollars.

That's just my personal shit though, I'm more than happy to support a government public option, as long as it's the government doing government, meaning they stay the fuck out of the private sector.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Normal View Post
civil is always my default, and I'm happy to continue that with you and others.
Word.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrina View Post

How exactly are they being responsible for the problems they are creating?
Warning/recycling labels.

They aren't responsible for their consumers shit choices anymore than Toyota is responsible for the person who got hammered and killed themselves or someone else behind the wheel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrina View Post
How are soda pop manufacturers being responsible for the problems their product is creating?
Their product isn't creating problems....the inability of some consumers to control themselves is and that goes WAY beyond soda pop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrina View Post
Why is the concept of responsibility only applied to the individual person?
Because that's generally the only place it resides or matters.

Last edited by BotanyBoy : 07-17-2017 at 11:47 AM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 12:02 PM   #65
Hard_Rom
Northumbrian Skald
 
Hard_Rom's Avatar
 
Hard_Rom is online now
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ontario
Posts: 13,545
Many pops up here use sugar not high fructose corn syrup. Hardly healthier by any great stretch.

NAFTA removed the 5% tariff on HFCS but not other 'sugars'. Maybe NAFTA is contributing to 38% of Canadians being obese.
__________________
Get enough snowflakes together and you can shut down an entire country.
Resistance is not futile.
Only a weak country needs a strongman as leader.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 04:59 PM   #66
adrina
Heretic
 
adrina's Avatar
 
adrina is online now
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: In my mind and a few others, apparently.
Posts: 3,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4est_4est_Gump View Post
Numerous studies have been done on many substances, salt, butter, coffee, coconut oil, fats, etc...,


And the original studies ware all trumpeted in the news as calls to action.


Subsequent studies of those studies proved they were not true.


What can I say? It is all on the individual consumer....
Again, all on the consumer. Why? Why shouldn't the companies bear any responsibility for the product they bring to market? Or the harm their production process or product causes?

Ya'll say it's always on the consumer. So responsibility only applies to individual people? No one else? Why not? Considering our courts make determinations of corporate and business responsibility every day, it's not like it doesn't happen where companies are made to be responsible for the damage they have caused.


Quote:
Originally Posted by trysail View Post


We fully realize that you utterly hate freedom.


It is understood that you believe that all people are morons who are so stupid they need Big Brother** to protect themselves from themselves.





____________________
** provided, of course, that you are the self-appointed, goose-stepping Big Brother who gets to order everybody else around.



Seriously? Do you really want to conflate requiring responsibility for those doing harm as me hating freedom? Do you really want to go down that route? Because frankly not only is it patently stupid, it makes you sound like a complete mental invalid. Indents, colors and fonts notwithstanding.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Que View Post
Soda is a sugar delivery system. Nothing more than that. If you want to eliminate subsidies for the sugar industry I would support that. If you want to outlaw any high sugar purchases with a SNAP card on the basis that such also "qualify" for medicaid, I would support that.

Blaming the delivery system is the same as blaming guns for crimes that involve guns.
So sugar can dissolve battery corrosion and rust?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4est_4est_Gump View Post
Sheldon Richman

http://reason.com/archives/2017/07/1...nt-to-regulate



Adrina is clearly a student of the latter school of thought.
Blah blah. Besides, once again, you desperately clinging to a black and white world, can you please point out how me saying:

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrina View Post
I think soda pop is garbage. I think it's doing horrendous damage to our health and our economy. I think the plastic packaging is an environmental travesty. I would love to see it vilified and thoroughly shunned by everyone. It's a truly wretched thing. And the chemical sugar free stuff? Worse. I'd really like to see some accountability for the absolute poison that their product is.
equates to "politicians and bureaucrats relying on the threat of violence to impose their will. "



Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyNextDoor View Post
I am not a big supporter of "nanny state" activities (ir. ban the Big Gulp, over tax it, etc). So in this case, as with other consumption commodities, label it and since there is a public health concern there needs to be readily available information about the health effects made readily available (ie. the reasonable way to use some reasonable amount of tax on it).

After that I sort of shrug and let Darwin sort it out.
But it isn't really. Do you see a single warning next to the soda pop - you know that loooooong stretch of aisle that usually has one entire side devoted to soda. Do you see anything warning you on the product itself? Just the "nutrition" label.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BotanyBoy View Post
Warning/recycling labels.
And since most plastic that gets recycled only gets a single re-use? Do they use all or most post consumer content?

What warning labels are there on soda pop or on the soda pop displays?

Quote:
They aren't responsible for their consumers shit choices anymore than Toyota is responsible for the person who got hammered and killed themselves or someone else behind the wheel.
So companies are not responsible for the product they put out? Really? The drunk driver is not using the product as intended. The soda pop drinker is. They are simply consuming a product brought to market in the way the manufacturer has recommended per their product label.

I'm entirely fascinated by this one sided image of responsibility. Only the consumer but not the producer in society should have responsibility?


Quote:
Their product isn't creating problems....the inability of some consumers to control themselves is and that goes WAY beyond soda pop.
We should only have a few ounces of soda at any one given time, but the manufacturer puts it in 12 ounce containers. So then we just lid up the rest and save it for later? Throw it out? Do you see any kind of problem with this?

To be a responsible consumer of their product, you either throw out 3/4 of the serving or... don't buy their product at all.

Quote:
Because that's generally the only place it resides or matters.
No. It's the only place people keep saying it matters. Especially a very specific set of people.

In this very strange reality, the consumer is responsible for all of the damage the producer does just by simply consuming their product. So then we shouldn't look to the producer but then instead everyone - and I mean everyone - that consumes the product. Regardless that the product is, in essence, poison.

Fascinating.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 05:19 PM   #67
juttjaw
Myxomatosis
 
juttjaw's Avatar
 
juttjaw is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by thÝr View Post
Coke and Canadian are in my glass right now. Otherwise, no pop, soda, or whatever.
I prefer 7up and Canadian. The coke give you poop breath.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 05:30 PM   #68
jaF0
Worthless Toad
 
jaF0's Avatar
 
jaF0 is online now
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Unpleasantville
Posts: 2,474
Sweetened carbonated beverages, aka Colas, orange, grape, lemon-lime in various brands:

I don't drink them and haven't for a great many years. I do drink the unsweetened flavored carbonated waters and sometimes the Gatorade/Powerade type drinks.

I would be OK with sodas being removed from SNAP/EBT eligibility as long as they left the others. In limbo are the ginger ale and seltzer type sodas; flavored, but not overly sweetened.

Not noted in the thread that I've seen so far is that soda sales are down quite a bit from previous years while flavored water and juice sales are up.
__________________
Why is a carrot oranger than an orange?

< ~~~: Silently Enraged :~~~ >
No, I'm not OK.


  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 05:36 PM   #69
BoyNextDoor
I'm so yuge!
 
BoyNextDoor's Avatar
 
BoyNextDoor is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 8,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrina View Post

But it isn't really. Do you see a single warning next to the soda pop - you know that loooooong stretch of aisle that usually has one entire side devoted to soda. Do you see anything warning you on the product itself? Just the "nutrition" label.
Well maybe the pastors in the suit should preach on it from the pulpit. Food labeling and nutrition education seem a better path. So there will be punitive damages if they win the suit and then what?
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 05:45 PM   #70
adrina
Heretic
 
adrina's Avatar
 
adrina is online now
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: In my mind and a few others, apparently.
Posts: 3,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaF0 View Post
Sweetened carbonated beverages, aka Colas, orange, grape, lemon-lime in various brands:

I don't drink them and haven't for a great many years. I do drink the unsweetened flavored carbonated waters and sometimes the Gatorade/Powerade type drinks.

I would be OK with sodas being removed from SNAP/EBT eligibility as long as they left the others. In limbo are the ginger ale and seltzer type sodas; flavored, but not overly sweetened.

Not noted in the thread that I've seen so far is that soda sales are down quite a bit from previous years while flavored water and juice sales are up.
Soda pop should not be on SNAP/EBT eligibility at all. Bottled water, sure. Sugary shit with sweet fuckall bumpkis for nutrition? No. Hell, Totinos Pizza is health food next to soda pop. Which is... very frightening.

Didn't know that about the ginger ale. It's at 26 grams of sugar per 12 ounce, compared to the 40 grams in standard soda.

I'm glad sales are down. But I'm still seeing an entire aisle dedicated to the crap - water and juice are on other aisles - so it's still being consumed at insane levels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyNextDoor View Post
Well maybe the pastors in the suit should preach on it from the pulpit. Food labeling and nutrition education seem a better path. So there will be punitive damages if they win the suit and then what?
I don't disagree. It would be a hell of a lot more useful and informative than anything from the dogma portion of their duties. But is that enough? At least cigarettes come with warning labels that they can kill you - whether smokers read them or not. No one can't say they weren't told that way. Just in case they missed the service at the two pastor's churches.

If there are punitive damages, just like everything else it will get resolved in the process.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 08:26 PM   #71
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
 
BotanyBoy's Avatar
 
BotanyBoy is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 30,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrina View Post

And since most plastic that gets recycled only gets a single re-use?
What about it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrina View Post
What warning labels are there on soda pop or on the soda pop displays?
Everything in that bottle is on the label.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrina View Post
The drunk driver is not using the product as intended. The soda pop drinker is.
Not if it's causing them health problems. That's abuse and the consumers problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrina View Post
So companies are not responsible for the product they put out? Really? Only the consumer but not the producer in society should have responsibility?
No, companies are not responsible for the consumers abusing their product.

And yes the consumer, not the producer should have responsibility for not abusing things to a destructive extent, and suffer the consequences of doing so on their own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrina View Post
In this very strange reality, the consumer is responsible for all of the damage the producer does just by simply consuming their product.
You really have poor reading ability.

I never said anything of the sort, you're just making shit up.

Last edited by BotanyBoy : 07-17-2017 at 08:30 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 08:33 PM   #72
adrina
Heretic
 
adrina's Avatar
 
adrina is online now
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: In my mind and a few others, apparently.
Posts: 3,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by BotanyBoy View Post
What about it?
You made claims of recycling as if it mitigated the environmental damage. It does not.

Quote:
Everything in that bottle is on the label.
That's not a warning. There's nothing on that bottle or display that is a direct warning.

You specifically said "warning". I hate to be a pedant, but that is the word you specifically used.

Quote:
No, companies are not responsible for the consumers abusing their product.

And yes the consumer, not the producer should have responsibility for not abusing things to a destructive extent, and suffer the consequences of doing so on their own.
Using their product as it is recommended is abusing that product.

Having a single soda at one sitting is abusing that product. Consuming almost your entire sugar recommendation in one sitting is abusive.


Quote:
You really have poor reading ability.

I never said anything of the sort, you're just making shit up.
So you don't believe then that it is always up to the end consumer? You believe that corporations do have some accountability for their behavior?

You don't get to do the both ways dance here.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 08:46 PM   #73
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
 
BotanyBoy's Avatar
 
BotanyBoy is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 30,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrina View Post
You made claims of recycling as if it mitigated the environmental damage.
Your assumptions not my words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrina View Post
That's not a warning. There's nothing on that bottle or display that is a direct warning.
It's sugar water, how much of a warning do you want?

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrina View Post
Using their product as it is recommended is abusing that product.
No, it's not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrina View Post
So you don't believe then that it is always up to the end consumer?
I think the consumer is always responsible for the consumers behavior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrina View Post
You believe that corporations do have some accountability for their behavior?
Corporations have accountability for the corporations behavior, not the behavior of their consumers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrina View Post
You don't get to do the both ways dance here.
I'm not trying to, you just have poor reading skills.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 08:47 PM   #74
adrina
Heretic
 
adrina's Avatar
 
adrina is online now
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: In my mind and a few others, apparently.
Posts: 3,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by BotanyBoy View Post
I think the consumer is always responsible for the consumers behavior.



Corporations have accountability for the corporations behavior, not the behavior of their consumers.



I'm not trying to, you just have poor reading skills.
Again, using the product as recommended is abusing the product. Simply saying "it's not" is not only inaccurate but provably ignorant.

But if you want to go with the insults, I can wander off and leave you to talk to yourself. No skin off my nose to not deal with or talk to you. Your choice.

Last edited by adrina : 07-17-2017 at 08:49 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017, 08:49 PM   #75
EternalFantasies
EqualOportunity"Offender"
 
EternalFantasies's Avatar
 
EternalFantasies is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by BotanyBoy View Post
You really have poor reading ability.

I never said anything of the sort, you're just making shit up.
Tip of the iceberg.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:44 PM.

Copyright 1998-2013 Literotica Online. Literotica is a registered trademark.