Motivations?

I have spent all day rereading through my FR threads and have come to the conclusion that swank and skepdick are both full of shit. They are attributing alot of things to me which I never said, and have persisted in this so long that I was even starting to think I said it until I went back and read through alot of things.

Yes, I have brought up some oddball theories, and admitted I was wrong on those occasions, but the sheer amount of BS swank is shovelling about what I have promised and how crazy and overzealous I am is just INSANE!

I invite you all to take a few moments to read through some of these old threads. I think you will find that nothing unrealistic was promised and that most of the threads which are absent of swank's influence are very civil and understated.

Once again, I must question swank's motivations, and wonder why he is trying so hard to disrupt our FR community here and drive us into two opposing parties, when we were all happy and content before to just shoot the shit about FR and Penis Enlargement and didn't get too worked up about it.

I wonder, swank. Are you jealous of me?

That's funny that you bumped the 'foreskin smell' thread, because I took a look at it myself last night and thought about what a great overview of both sides of the issue it really is. At least we're on the same page there.

Men can read for themselves and have a look, I found it especially hilarious how almost nothing has really changed, same old cycle of argument.

The FR community, and your claims about FR Kong, are different. We went over this in the other thread. And if there is an FR community here, it does not soley equal your opinions in FR and circumcision, which are generally what I take issue with. But I've explained this in GREAT DETAIL and MULTIPLE TIMES in the "confused " thread, more or less all the other threads, and a response to your PM.

Same old Kong, ignore what has been mae crystal clear already and try to make critics of your ideas sound as if they're against anybody interested in FR. Anybody who reads the threads can see that's not the case, you're a hell of a persistent spin doctor though. You oughta look into some PR positions if you get fed up with the small business lifestyle.

As far being jealous, or insecure, that's about the 200th time you've accused me of that, and I have to ask, of what? I'm an adult Kong, even if I did get jealous of strangers on the internet, I'm not sure what you've got that I'd be jealous of, in less you'd like to enlighten me.

This isn't a personal thing, so get real and stop trying to make it that way to stir up controversy and sympathy for yourself. All I want to discuss is the validity of a lot of what you claim about FR and the anti-circ movement in general. You seem to want to discuss anything but that.

Nothing wrong with having a civil discussion. What rankles is seeing "Same old Kong", "Kong is overzealous", "Kong this" and "Kong that." I would really be happier if you left me out of it. Most of your arguments have nothing to do with FR concepts or validity. You main points always seem to be in the vein of discrediting whoever doesn't agree with you. It's like the survey I posted, in which you could find no fault, so you discredit the researchers. You ask for proof, and when I try to present some, you do not fault the information, but the sources. It's a wonderful tactic and completely impossible to defend against, but basically all you can come up with is that nobody is trustworthy to believe except yourself and your swank-approved sources. It is all easy to see now that I took some time to actually read through everything.

I do not have a problem debating you. I'm getting quite experienced at it. But a debate against you always seems to come down to you discrediting the FR community or specific people, by calling them rabid activists, which is laughable, considering we are only talking about stopping a mutilating practice that has no medical benefits and regrowing some skin so that we can feel physically and psychologically more whole.

If you do not believe in it, you really should find a new hobby, cause you got nothing to go on, baby.

Everything I said is right here to read, and all you can do is question the credibility of myself and the anti-circ community-- which is a personal issue that you can back with nothing but your own opinion.

Am I without fault? No. Sometimes I joke around. I have lost my temper and said a few farfetched things. Is everyone here at MOS too stupid to know the difference besides you? I don't really think so. We really can think for ourselves.

I'm anxious to hear your rebuttal, because I'm sure its somewhere along the lines of me feeling sorry for myself and confusing myself with FR in general...another tactic to discredit me with no basis in reality.

Go bark up another tree.

What happened to live and let live, there's room for all to share their views?

Kong, people can read the threads, I don't care what you have to say about me or my motives, if anything that just gets people interested in reading the threads. It seems you're not such a fan of that, but hey, they're up there.

Instead of bickering with you endlessly and keeping the focus Kong-centric I'll be starting my own threads when I have a littl ebit of free time this weekend. Speaking of though, you've been asked some specific questions in the 'confused' thread regarding FR and circumcision, take a look at them since you're online and all.

Also, anybody can read the thread on your 'study' and see that's not the case. Read the threads for yourselves people, I promise it's at least funny if not informative.

Same old Kong... you're a hell of a persistent spin doctor though... You oughta look into some PR positions if you get fed up with the small business lifestyle...

This isn't a personal thing

Like I said...:D

You have every right to start your own threads. Posting is encouraged on a forum and helps it become more visible to search engines. Just be aware that I am adapting to your style of debate, and rather than address the facts you bring up, I am only going to cast doubt on your credibility and the credibility of your sources. Its a wonderful tactic. I thank you for teaching it to me!

Huh? I just said I'd rather you weren't the focus of things either. What's your point?

I could care less Kong, do whatever you feel you have to do on your "crusade."

I'm more than pleased to contend the validity of any point with you.

Stop being so obsessed with me, swank. Every post you write has something about me in it! What is it with you and this obsession with every word that I write? I don't understand it at all. You really need to get a life.

Once again, uh, did not like your last 10 posts not have something to do with me? Pot and kettle there guy . . .

Like I said, you're the one championing this Kong vs. Swank farce for whatever reason.

I'll be starting my own threads again shortly, if you don't want to be involved in them that's totally your prerogative, but you and anybody else also welcome to make any comments you like.

Like I said, you're the one championing this Kong vs. Swank farce for whatever reason.

Sorry, not true. You are the one who always comes into my threads and tries to discredit me or my sources of information. That tactic couldn't work forever, so you should give it a rest. You want everyone to believe that you are "fair" and "open-minded" but the truth is, you just want to muddy the information and cast doubt on the whole thing. Why? That's what I can't understand. Restoration could possibly help some men feel more whole physically or psychologically, and you want to drown it out under a bunch of thinly-veiled pro-circumcision propaganda. According to you, swank, you've never tried restoration and have only info that you've read on the net-- how do you know anything about it?

Hey Kong, Penis EnlargementOPLE CAN READ THE THREADS! We've gone over all this before, not sure why you're trying to set off another big argument here.

Anybody that wants to know the answers to Kong's questions or is intrigued by them, read some of the threads. I especially suggest the "foreskin smell" one and all the newer ones.

Funny, you say you don't want to argue about this with me, yet you qued up five old threads and attached messages specifically addressed to me, and now you're really wanting to have a discussion about my personal agenda rather than FR and circumcision.

I like debating FR and circumcision, not you and me. You can PM if you want to do that, but frankly I don't think people check out this forum to hear this stuff. And how do I know anything about? Well sheesh, just the other day you said "you sure know an awful lot about it." So do I know about it or don't I? Wait, don't answer that, I don't even care.

The threads are there, it's all been discussed, people can read them. I'm looking forward to starting some more of my own.

not sure why you're trying to set off another big argument here.

Didn't think I was. It's really just righteous indignation of the way you've portrayed me. You're really very good, you know? Even I was begining to think I was crazy. That's done with, tho. I intend to continue as I always have.

I like debating FR and circumcision, not you and me.

It always seems to come down to you calling me crazy or kooky or strange and you being "open-minded" and "fair", though, doesn't it. I will debate with you all you want, but the credibility attacks end tonight.

You have no personal experience with FR.

You know only what you read on the pro-circumcision websites.

Circumcision has no medical benefits.

Some men may benefit from restoration.

Your sources of information and opinions are no more valid than mine, and your tactic of casting doubt on my character and the anti-circ movement and spreading misinformation is pretty telling about your motives all by themselves.

kong1971 said:

You have every right to start your own threads. Posting is encouraged on a forum and helps it become more visible to search engines. Just be aware that I am adapting to your style of debate, and rather than address the facts you bring up, I am only going to cast doubt on your credibility and the credibility of your sources. Its a wonderful tactic. I thank you for teaching it to me!

Click to expand...

thats absolute bullshit kong, your replies have always been full of crap trying to discredit Swank, constantly calling him jealous, obsessed, no life.

you never answer any questions, all you do is change the topic by insulting someone.

you never answer any questions, all you do is change the topic by insulting someone.

Saying it doesn't make it real. I have ALWAYS tried to answer his questions. His only responses were to cast doubt on my credibility and the credibility of my information. If you continue to believe everything he says and believe in his whole "kong is a loon" thing then you're just as dumb as he thinks you are.

Anybody who actually took the time to read that embarassing little exchange, I encourage you to read the some threads that contain topical discussion of matters concerning circumcision and FR. For instance, I have asked Kong some very specific questions about FR and circumcision in the "confused" thread started by skepdick. Kong says he has always made every effort to asnwer my questions, so lets check it out.

Also, if this actually interests you, please read the other threads and see what you think.

Once again you illustrate my point, sir. You try to suggest in the post above that my contributions to this forum are "embarassing" and "little" and of little interest to anyone else. You also seem to be trying to cast yourself in the role of my "editor" and seem to be trying to force me to write some type of "inner mucosal tissue" article for you to apply your typical swank discrediting tactics upon. I really feel like I do not have to write something I am not interested in right now just because swank wants it. If you are interested in the subject, research and write your own article on it. Once again, I find I must ask you to keep your personal opinion of me to yourself and stop trying to place the image of "crazy, pathetic" kong in the minds of the other members here. It is a dishonest and low debate tactic, and very tiresome for me to have to deal with. I enjoyed the posts you wrote earlier today and found them enlightening, but here we are again, back to this. For shame! K

It's not so for shame to request that you back up definitavely stated comments with a little information.

You made quite a big production of saying that I must be a "frustrated former restorer" because I don't have enough of this tissue to make a foreskin functional. I brought up some very pointed and topical questions about this which you have failed to address.

I take that to mean you don't have an answer for them. Just a few posts up you make a point of saying how you always fully address questions asked of you, so don't contradict yourself.

I have researched the issue on the internet as much as I can, and can find no information whatsoever on the topic of mucuscal tissue being a problem for restoring. Maybe I am searching wrong or don't have your sources. If you have something on it, post a link, or at least address my questions and explain it.

If you want to educate men about the process of FR, then do so and explain your claims. You've stated explicitly that some men find it difficult or impossible to restore because of this 'mucuscal tissue issue,' now lets have some info.

Okay, I will explain it...one time. The light colored skin between the c-scar and the glans is mucosal tissue. This tissue is the remains of the inner fold of the foreskin. As nature intended it, it should actually be on the inside, in direct contact with the glans. It is not supposed to be surface skin, and is not skin at all but mucous membrane with a dense amount of sexual nerves. It is like the inside of the eyelid and produces a kind of emollient that is supposed to keep the glans slick and moist. To do foreskin restoration, you are supposed to tense the area directly below the c-scar line. This will put most of the tension on the mucosal tissue. If you do not have alot of mucosa, it is going to be difficult because you have less skin to work with, logically, PLUS you are not going to have the same amount of benefits with regards to keeping the glans covered with the mucosal tissue and dekertinization of the glans. It won't stay wet if you do not have mucosal tissue covering it. You will have to use an artificial lubricant. I hope this answered your questions. Please do not ask me to prove that mucosal tissue exists or anything sili like that. At some point, you just have to say, Okay, I believe, or I don't believe...just like everyone else.

Fine, good of you to post on it.

I don't believe. I searched far and wide on the internet and found absoultely no evidence on any websites regarding "lack of mucoscal tissue making it difficult ro impossible to restore for some men." I found it difficult to even find the skin discussed, not did I see any conditions mentioned in any FAQs which may make it particularly difficult except for a pre-existing tighter circumcision.

I do not beleive that you know what the average amoun of this tissue is on a man, how much is required for successful FR if you claim there is a minimum amount, whether or not all of the tissue produces lubrication at the same rate (i.e. some people have sweatier skin or produce more saliva than others).

I believe that you made this phoenomena up as I have found absolutly no evidence of it online after several searches.

Perhaps I do not have your sources, this is always a possibility, feel free to link any info you have on the matter.

If you did in fact diagnose this problem yourself because it "seemed logical to you," then I have a problem with this conduct.

Mkaing things up and presenting them as an established or recognized problem without saying that they are actually your own invention is unethical, especially when you have placed yourself ina position to advise men.

Why have you never mentioned this problematic lack of tissue before? I have over an inch of that tissue when erect, and I have seen photographs of numerous penises that have either the same amount or less than I do.

From this it would follow that a large number men, according to your statements, would find it difficult or impossible to restore properly.

Are you willing to verify this statement?