Motivations?

I will try to find the info for you, but the internet is a big place and sometimes it is hard to find the page you read six months ago. Also, please be aware that FR, although not new, is not exactly highly researched or documented yet-- and most of the info on it resides on "anti-circ" websites, which you discredit out of hand. Kind of an impossible task for me to prove anything under those conditions. Like Penis Enlargement itself, most of the info on it is anecdotal evidence and kind of grass roots. If anyone has any suggestions on how I should proceed with this business of trying to prove everything I say, please let me know. I am kind of at a loss. Some people don't even think we've been to the moon. It's kind of frustrating having to debate from this position. Lack of evidence, however, doesn't disprove anything. I've not personally seen the planet Pluto, but I do believe it is there.

Hey, take your time. I google searched my ass off and didn't find anything. I even used other search engines, pretty much anything I could think of. There doesn't appear to be any info about the circumstances you described.

My main problem this and the thing that red flagged your claim, is that I have seen a whole lot of penises that have the same amount or less of that tissue than me. You specifically referred to my pictures and said I didn't have enough to restore. I found this hard to believe and looked into and found no information confirming this statement.

The thing is, if you're saying I probably physically couldn't do it, then you're saying a there are tons of men who couldn't do it.

This is another case where you could be seriously misleading people because you posted a personal idea without clarifying that it is just something you made up.

If you are seriously interested in doing it so that you can speak from personal experience and not just opining, I am willing to help. From the photo you posted, it appeared that you had about half an inch of musoca. Not alot to work with. If, however, as you stated, you have more...that's another story. The best case would be if you had enough to cover the glans when taped. Let me know if you're interested.

I did not mean to indicate that I am interested in restoring.

As you will recall you brought up the topic when announcing your theory that I criticised your statements because I supposedly am a "frustrated former restorer."

You went on to claim that a person such as myself would probably never be able to restore because of the amount of that tissue you saw in my pics.

My question was, why you had never made this knowledge available before in what is supposed to be an instructional forum on FR?

Also, I have seen many many pictures of penises that have the same amount of that material as I do. Some of them were on men's FR photo journals and they seemed to be having no difficulty and certainly did not mention it.

There is the third biological issue I have raised as well. How do we know all men's "mucoscal tissues" produce lubrication at the same rate? All people's sweat glands and mucos membranes produce at different levels. Do you know what average male production is, and how this relates to the amount of tissue? I believe that you do not. If you do, feel free to say so and provide some figures or info.

From these circumcstances I have inducted that it is likely that you just made up this "lack of mucoscal tissue" problem in the heat of the moment.

Said all that before, swank.

If you have no interest in restoring at all, why even post here? Hmm... I figured you were just unsure.

I have explained why I post and why I have interest in numerous threads, including one I specifically started regarding the topic.

I also explained it to you very clearly in a response to the PM you sent me.

People shake the mouse-pointers, and bury the beef...
And Kong you seem to be right, what positive has he done to this part of the forum, more then argue?

So lets all be friends, it's okay to comment - if you don't agree on what was written. It's not okay, to in every thread make you the number-one-know-it-all-looking-for-trouble...
None Is perfect, just let them be like they want.
If Kong like what he does, you don't have to diss him.

I know forum is about argueing and comment written things - not to make others look bad.

If people don't agree on anything with foreskin, then flip that shoes over and go to another hole.

Thanks for chipping in Ghost Dogg, but please read everything before passing judgement.

I am fine with FR and have nothing against it. I've said this many times.

In this case I jsut wanted it to be explicitly clear that Kong made that idea up and there is no factual validity to it.

I think it is important that people be held to certain standards when placing themselves in a position to offer advise and information. It reflects poorly on MOS in general if things are being fabricated and then being passed as fact without and indication of their true nature.

In this case, many men perhaps interested in FR might have become discouraged because Kong potentially identified a large percentage of men who could not possibly successfuly restore with his claim.

I think I have shown there is probably no basis to the claim and so men need not worry about it. In that fashion this debate has certainly contributed to the forum.

Swank said:

Thanks for chipping in Ghost Dogg, but please read everything before passing judgement.

I am fine with FR and have nothing against it. I've said this many times.

In this case I jsut wanted it to be explicitly clear that Kong made that idea up and there is no factual validity to it.

I think it is important that people be held to certain standards when placing themselves in a position to offer advise and information. It reflects poorly on MOS in general if things are being fabricated and then being passed as fact without and indication of their true nature.

In this case, many men perhaps interested in FR might have become discouraged because Kong potentially identified a large percentage of men who could not possibly successfuly restore with his claim.

I think I have shown there is probably no basis to the claim and so men need not worry about it. In that fashion this debate has certainly contributed to the forum.

Click to expand...

He really applied that? Everybody can restore their foreskin, just faster and quicker.
And yes he hasn't right on every aspect. It's hard to know all these things without ever having foreskin yourself.

He absolutly did Ghost Dogg. He cited my pictures as being demonstrative of a specific type of penis that was not responsive to FR because of this certain lack of "mucoscal tissue."

I have over an inch of the stuff and have seen many, many penises that look just like mine in that respect. I searched far and wide for info on this lack of "mucoscal tissue" and found none. I think the reason for this is because there is no issue with it.

Kong made a claim about restoration that could possibly have applied to quite a few men, and the claim had no factual basis whatsoever. He didn't clarify it.

My calling attention to this is not a personal thing with Kong, it's on general principle. People need to be careful with what they say.

Somebody could very easily have read Kong's post, which I think was made in anger, assume they could not possibly FR if they had a penis that resembled mine.

This would be an entirely false assumption that was created by Kong's claim, and I'm trying to correct the problem.

I think what stands out most about swank's contributions here is that he feels the need to "prove me wrong". I'm not sure what started all this, but it is certainly easy to see. That's okay, though. It's your life, S. However, this need to prove me wrong does put out alot of conflicting information that wouldn't be helpful to restorers, which is what this forum is set up for. You dismiss my info as false, when in fact it is true. I stated that having less mucosa makes it more difficult to restore, and can also lead to some other problems as far as dekeratinization of the glans. If anyone would like some advice on how to overcome this problem, please let it be known and I will do my best to help. There are other restorers here with as much, if not more, experience, and I am sure they can help, too. For serious restorers, it would probably be best to dismiss what Swank says in regards to me or in regards to statements I might make. Aside from this need to "prove me wrong", he is an intelligent man, however, and I wish he could contribute more to the FR forum aside from his obvious biases toward me and the anti-circ movement. I wish I could promise a quick and easy course with regards to restoration, but not every cut is the same, and while some men may make the transition to restored relatively quick and easy, others may have more difficulty and less success. I never promised it would be easy.

This does little to counteract the points that I have a very average amount of that tissue, and you identified me as a person who would find it "difficult or impossible to restore."

Likewise I have found no information regarding these difficulties on the many FR site I have checked out looking for something. Once again, perhaps you have a source I don't and feel free to link it.

It's not about proving you wrong specifically Kong, it just so happens that you make the claims that I consistently see as inaccurate, unsupportable, or misleading. I'm not the only that feels this way, I've just been persistent in making it clear and holding you accountable.

The glans, by the way, can be DK'd just by coverage or protection throughout the day, as I understand it. In theory this could be done with just fabric covering it to prevent any rubbing or contact. How would "lack of mucoscal tissue" make DKing impossible if it is just this facotr of protection and time that facilitates the process?

Again, perhaps I have it wrong, please feel free to offer any realavent information.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I said having less musocal tissue would make FR more difficult, not impossible. This is you again shading what I actually said and intended to the way you want it to sound to readers. I also said that less mucosal tissue would be more problematic when it comes to DK of the glans, not like you put it. If you want to keep yourself looking all sweet and innocent here on the FR forum, you really should stop stretching the truth! Thanks! K

Here is your original post on the matter. You refused to clarify any of the statements for quite a while after making it.

"I thought swank's post was completely off in left field and actually pretty pathetic. I think swank has gotten very personally involved with this. I think swank has a narcissistic complex and a really, really big ego. I also think he is a frustrated EX-restorer who has issues because he does not have enough inner mucosal tissue to stretch. He knows an AWFUL lot about restoring, doesn't he? I also think he's a complete ass whose stuck on himself because he thinks his giant cock makes him a sexual expert, and he can't handle FR because he basically can't do it with such a lack of inner mucosal tissue and it makes him jealous."

To me the post makes it clear that you feel it can't be done with my amount of tissue.

As always, I try to figure out why you post here when you are not a restorer. When I saw your photos, I noted that you had about half an inch of mucosal tissue. Since you always give me such a hard time, I thought, "Aha! That's what he has against it! He had a hard time restoring and gave up and now he has a chip on his shoulder!" You do push my buttons, swank, and you know it.

Just wanted to show I did not try to put words in your mouth and to clear things up about what you originally claimed.

You're a lawyer, aren't you? :D