Jump to content

BBsq69

Premium Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    25,283

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

  • Points

    0 [ Donate ]

 Content Type 

Posts posted by BBsq69

    Eva & Sam - Pictures (2019)

    in Eva & Sam (08/23/17 - 06/19/19)

    Posted

    On 1/8/2019 at 9:47 PM, miscvoyeur said:

    Anybody have a timestamp for this?

    Approx 22:25-22.38 Very annoyingly the freezing was terrible so I hardly saw a thing. After trying from behind, at the last minute she turned around and was on her knees in front of him. Unfortunately I didn't even see if there was a result. At that proximity that would have been a site to see.

    Jane & Dick General Chat Topic 2019 #1

    in Jane & Dick (03/29/18 - 06/19/19)

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Thestarider said:

    Once again, She is just biggest teaser that has ever been on RLC in any apartment she has no intention of pleasing Jane or Dick. All she is there for is click baiting. The other little cute girl, now that is a completely different story, that girl is hot a hell and not afraid to play with Dick and Jane. Some call her Yellow Pants. I would love to see this young girl move in with Jane and Dick, and get rid of this teaser never a going to be a pleaser.  She is about as fake as they come .

    You realise she is a guest? She shaved in the bath yesterday hiding nothing which is already way more than most guests. She seems up for some fun and she's just taking her time. It's a big leap to have any kind of sex in front of the camera. Now on freecam the pixie is wearing less and less clothes.

    The girl is hot as a fuck so be patient. If the reward doesn't come she's still a guest. Personally I'd settle for some nudity on freecam but there's rubbing with Dick and kissing with Jane. I have high hopes and could watch her all day. How can a guest be false? I wouldn't even say that about the annoyingly hidey Tabu.

    • Like 2

    Leora & Paul General Chat Topic 2019 #1

    in Leora & Paul (06/28/13 - 06/19/19)

    Posted

    17 hours ago, Howard said:

    But if you look back the past 18-24 months, not only is she bating more frequently, but she's brought in three toys AND has introduced lingerie to her 'wardrobe'.

    When I started watching 3.5 years ago, I am pretty sure they were having sex at least as infrequently. In fact after they had a row they didn't have sex for about a month and she hardly bated either. However just before that period she bated 4 times in just over 48 hours.

    But I think there are 3 stories here. I won't go int one of them - it has to do with competitiveness - but the first is that her bating has evolved. It's not that there 's a change in her relationship with Paul, it's that she has simply got very good at pleasuring herself. Notice how incredibly wet she gets nowadays. There seems to be more and more cleaning each time. I would prefer to see her just using fingers but clearly she has become an expert with toys. Basically she has learnt. 

    Also don't underestimate the effect of what she has read on here. Many people pleading with her to use toys and just possibly that influenced her even if it has been subconscious rather than direct. We all know she likes to be watched. She does not do it for us, she does it for herself, but with her the fact that people are watching and enjoying her has always been part of it.

    • Like 4

    Leora & Paul General Chat Topic 2019 #1

    in Leora & Paul (06/28/13 - 06/19/19)

    Posted

    15 minutes ago, Howard said:

    Serious question... How often during the past couple weeks have Leora & Paul been intimate?  We know he has a low libido (can't fault him for it - its genetic). But her toys usually provide only a limited amount of satisfaction. Without intimacy, the relationship (as strong as it seems to be) will eventually deteriorate.

    And on a related note, while I don't consider Paul a freeloader (unlike BT, who is 99% a freeloader off of Maya), does the dude have any skills?  It's her bating that is keeping a roof over his head.

    A couple of times in the last 10 days or so which is about average. Howard you are beginning to sound like those people who I encountered a few years ago in this group. Currently Paul has a cough but he's just a different kind of guy. he does not appear to read people too well but he does love her and she loves him.

    He's a smart guy but where he lives I am guessing job opportunities aren't that easy. I lived in Thatcher's Britain and quite frankly jobs were difficult to get however qualified you were. My first regular job involved me getting up at 5 a.m. on a Monday travelling 200 miles, staying in a ultra cheap B&B and then returning on a Friday night barely covering my costs and I was as qualified as fuck. I only got my next job by offering to do it for a ridiculously low wage.  

     

    • Like 1

    Leora & Paul General Chat Topic 2019 #1

    in Leora & Paul (06/28/13 - 06/19/19)

    Posted

    Just now, jimbo4 said:

    A bitter sweet two months is about to start for me,  As from 22 January I will be in the West Indies soaking up the winter sun until March 18, and the Wifi in the resort is so abysmal it is impossible to watch RLC, but depending on circumstances it is sometimes possible to look in on CC and know what I am missing....I will certainly suffer from withdrawal symptoms, " Cold Turkey from The Little One " Shiiiiiiiit!!! 😎😸☀️🏝🏖😾😾😿

    You've tried it before. I have managed several months in the past. I just need to keep the dosage down.

    • Like 3
    • Upvote 1

    Is science often hijacked by the politics of fear?

    in Worldwide Political Discussions

    Posted

    9 hours ago, SPYING 1 said:

    I'm more worried about an asteroid or meteor destroying earth, than the earth going thur cycles of wet, dry, cold, & warm. Earth has recovered from asteroids, volcanoes, & hurricanes. So you're telling me that cars & pig farts are going to destroy earth ??

    Not destroy, change living and whether conditions to make existence, more challenging (possibly impossible) and expensive.

    Honestly the root cause of man's effect is not the consumption of meat and fossil fuels but the ridiculous increase in the population of Earth but nobody will deal with that for religious reasons. China and India have tried, the former fairly successfully, the latter somewhat less so and Africa and the rest of the subcontinent is out of control. In Nigeria Christian tribes and Muslim tribes are trying to outbreed each other. Yes their carbon footprint is still relatively small compared with industrialised nations but it increasing fast. China are going around the world building coal fired power stations which really have a great effect on the environment.

    Without human involvement the atmosphere could go wrong - Venus, again - but we are the first generations to understand the contribution we are making and while there may be underlying cycles what we don't need to do is help them on the way which is precisely what we are doing at the moment and we know we are doing it. If worst case scenarios happen within the current models and we did nothing to prevent it, it is our fault.

    Yes it is sad that politicians from both sides use this politically. There is a political element which is to what extent are richer countries going to compensate poorer countries for arresting their development but it does not necessarily mean the world economy has to suffer as a whole which in turn is better for rich countries like ours. The right do use climate change denial to further the interests of the fossil fuel industry but vegetarians have equally used climate change acceptance (not claiming equivalence here because of the science) to try to get people to stop eating meat. I imagine for the first group it is to do with their bank balance and political exploitation of the masses instead of finding alternation jobs and for the latter it is due to their almost religious belief. 

    On the left it has been seized on by some who want to change the world. There are anti-Americans out there. i am not denying it and people are right to show them up for what they are just like people are right to show climate deniers up for what they are. The article in question was a typical smoke and mirrors, which actually is very typical of how Putin dealt with Salisbury against, actual science and evidence. There is no real scientific argument against climate change just a political one just like with evolution there is only a religious one. When people pretend otherwise it is out of a motive to deceive.  People saying if we do not take measures we would personally be better off is honest, saying there is alternative science is not.  

    Is science often hijacked by the politics of fear?

    in Worldwide Political Discussions

    Posted

    Edenhofer it would seem seeks political change - so I guess that is part of your point - and is clearly a politician rather than a scientist so you could say he has hijacked the science for his won purposes but that doesn't stop the BS of the rest of the article. A high percentage of the people who rule and have ruled the UK in the last century have studied PPE (usually at Oxford). Now Edenhofer has studied Philosophy and Economics and very few do that without a political agenda. Even at school our economics teacher was a Marxist!

    Is science often hijacked by the politics of fear?

    in Worldwide Political Discussions

    Posted

    Just now, SPYING 1 said:

    The earth used to be a lot warmer, Florida was underwater, there wasn't no icebergs in the ocean, no humans on earth, but an asteroid changed earth, killed the dinosaurs & the earth turned into the Ice Age, the earth is slowly warming up again. And it's going to do it with or without man's help 

    So ... although really the effects of anything colliding with the Earth or long since over unless you count the Moon's existance.

    And BTW it is doing it with man's help and that is the point.

    Is science often hijacked by the politics of fear?

    in Worldwide Political Discussions

    Posted

    On 11/28/2018 at 7:26 PM, Foamy T. Squirrel said:

    I'll just leave this here:

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/27/nolte-only-anti-science-suckers-believe-climate-change-hysteria/

    Th author judging from his 13 "scientific truths" is more akin to the guy who claimed Venus hasn't been affected by having a Carbon Dioxide atmosphere. Of course I suspect he's not that stupid just political.

    Venus is the REASON we started looking at the greenhouse effect. How did an atmosphere get so fucked. And it almost certainly had nothing to with Venusians but we wanted to know how it had got that hot so we started theorising and examining our own atmosphere. See marry that to chaos theory, or how small changes can lead to chaotic results, we worked out what was happening with the heat being generated on Earth. Basically what he calls scientific consensus are things people said were a possibility eventually (i.e. not on any short timescale like he expects from his claims that they are wrong - the sun will turn into a red giant but not by next week) and that is the same for climate change only the difference is the probability is much higher and the consequences are devastating plus we are already witnessing the effects. It was something I began to become aware of at university and if you think professors are left wing you never met my Astronomy professor who used to teach at Harvard.

    BTW "Those 13 items listed above are not a joke, are not sarcasm, are not an exaggeration on my part."

    Yes they are a fucking exaggeration. But you know how you argue scientifically? Well it's certainly no by "Scientists were wrong about A, therefore different scientists (you can argue not different if you are using consensus but it depends on the exact subject) are wrong about B" That really is nonsense. You do it by coming up with an alternative theories about the absorption and reflection of heat by molecules in the atmosphere and then proof them to the global scientific community.

    Global catastrophe is not guaranteed. It would however be completely stupid not to reduce its chances. If you drive everywhere at twice the speed limit you may never kill anybody but you are many many more times likely to do so, which is why we have speed limits.

    BTW the change of font size was caused by copying from the article not any shouting, although this Nolte is the kind of person who deserves to be shouted at.

    Does this site of anything to do with that serial dangerous liar Bannon by any chance? When I read about him a couple of years ago I realised he was a far bigger danger than Trump, one degree of separation the odious megalomaniac Rupert Murdoch except at least the Antipodean's motives are purely about making himself as rich and powerful as possible and absolutely nothing to do with politics. 

×
×
  • Create New...