"I misread nothing and misunderstood nothing.The original premise was so just moronic..."
There is nothing more invidious that condescension from below.
Let us parse this logically. A according to you, my "premise" (there were several) as yet unspecified by you, was so moronic that you chose not to seize upon it and give it a cogent rebuttal, but, curiously, instead preferred -again, by your own admission- to prescind from this rebuttal and rather replace it with a pointedly implied "premise" (actually a consequent) of your own whole cloth invention.
So then, presumably you found my idiocy insufficient for your purposes and so elected to supply your own.
Did I get that right?
In point of fact I don't have to ask; it's right there in the bare bones of your semantics.
"There is no significant different between re-posting YT videos on one's YT channel"
Since you clearly need your hand held, I'll walk you through it.
YouTube has algorithms that incorporate cross traffic between and among videos that influence what appears in the sidebar; aside from increasing traffic in absolute terms, this also will obviously increase incidental traffic not determined by the sampling bias of shoeplay enthusiasts -including quite possibly the original posters of the videos.
Posting *links*, in addition to the videos, clearly lowers the psychological threshold of anyone inclined of half inclined to go to the videos and comment. And no, to obviate your predictably obtuse riposte, this is not mere thin speculation. Any time you make anything easier to do, more people will do it even if it was easy to do to begin with. This is an extremely thoroughly verified empirical phenomenon in behavioral psychology and economics, as well as just basic common sense. (And it's why impulse buys like candy, gum and cheap trinkets are placed right there in the check out lane.)
And now I come to a logical consequence of your assertion ("There is no significant different...") that you were no doubt too thick to anticipate.
If there is no significant difference, then, obviously posting the youtube videos is otiose -at best.
But there is the screamingly obvious difference that in this forum, the attention attracted by non shoeplay enthusiasts is essentially zero, and on Youtube it is unknown bu very obviously nonzero.
Tell me, do you think it's just a coincidence that Anas Kasparian's previously almost constant shoeplay just abruptly stopped for no apparent reason?
Assuming pro tempore that it stopped because she became aware that her shoeplay was being ogled over, do you then think it more plausible that she discovered this from this thread or Youtube videos?
Do these questions even need answers?
I'd enjoin you to use your brain, but it's clear at this point that would be like trying to teach karate to a flatworm.
If you further attempt to bandy logic with me, little man, it will be like Mike Tyson versus terry Shaivo, and guess who's in the coma.
Idiots are quite like coma patients, in that no matter how thoroughly you pummel them, they have NO awareness of what just happened.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is the least surprising result in the history of the cognitive sciences.
Uh, OK, what should I write here...
Sweet and to the point:
My strong preference is for seated, both-feet shoeplay. Dangling, and shoeplay with open-toed shoes or mules, I'm afraid don't do as much for me.
