Crazy For Feet Forum

Constant dipping / heel off within the first minutes!

hat was almst the greatest video ever. If she couldve been a speaker for about :30....would have been epic!

redl20 wrote:Constant dipping / heel off within the first minutes!

looks like there's new shoeplayers at BSU..

2:29, one girl has shoes off; she put them back on down the vid just to take em off again..
24:10 - black girl cross legged shoeplay (keep an eye on her, the previous meeting she shoeplayed also..) she plays off and on until the end
1:34:49 - girl in pink heels heelpops, other girl has her one foot out the flats for a few seconds..

so far that's all I've seen.

SGA shoeplay..

38:54 black girl on the left starts her shoeplay with dangling; when they scroll back to her she's doing cross legged play; natasha would be proud...

MDEEM wrote:

looks like there's new shoeplayers at BSU..

2:29, one girl has shoes off; she put them back on down the vid just to take em off again..
24:10 - black girl cross legged shoeplay (keep an eye on her, the previous meeting she shoeplayed also..) she plays off and on until the end
1:34:49 - girl in pink heels heelpops, other girl has her one foot out the flats for a few seconds..

so far that's all I've seen.

1:48:23 same black girl heel popping

MDEEM wrote:

SGA shoeplay..

38:54 black girl on the left starts her shoeplay with dangling; when they scroll back to her she's doing cross legged play; natasha would be proud...

some more scenes of this girl in this video:
51:12 (dangling with loosing flat)
57:45
1:04:24

In the same video:
1:03:00 (left girl with glasses little heelpopping)
1:07:55 (blond girl little shoeplay)

By the way I follow this "BSU SGA" videos on youtube the last 2 years. There was many shoeplay. If you want I can post the time stamps.

51:56 black girl dangling
59:03 dangling (see left corner below)
59:24 heelpopping

13:13 blond girl shoes off

15:34 girl on the left with glasses little dangling
17:33 / 23:30 same girl dipping
19:58 / 21:16 girl on the rigth with glasses little heelpopping

Alright, there is this nitwit on youtube who recycles other people's content and discoveries on his own channel, including many videos in this thread, WITH NAMES OF THE WOMEN AND EVEN LINKS TO THE ORIGINAL VIDEOS! There is a high probability that this guy is chiefly responsible for Ana Kasparian's abrupt cessation of what had hitherto been consistent shoeplay, and now that for the the fifth time a find of mine from this thread has showed up on his channel -once again with links- my patience is at an end.

And just to be clear, DanglingFan if you are reading this none of my ire is directed at you, for three all important reasons:

1) You have been quite reasonable when spoken to, and adequately *discreet* in contrast to this twit

2) Unlike him much of your content is your own discovery, or taken from movies and TV shows

3)You don't link the original Youtube videos where doing so would be unwise, and most importantly don't jeopardize future potential with reckless behavior

But this other guy has now made at least one enemy, and hopefully many more.

notalwaysright10000 wrote:Alright, there is this nitwit on youtube who recycles other people's content and discoveries on his own channel, including many videos in this thread, WITH NAMES OF THE WOMEN AND EVEN LINKS TO THE ORIGINAL VIDEOS! There is a high probability that this guy is chiefly responsible for Ana Kasparian's abrupt cessation of what had hitherto been consistent shoeplay, and now that for the the fifth time a find of mine from this thread has showed up on his channel -once again with links- my patience is at an end.

And just to be clear, DanglingFan if you are reading this none of my ire is directed at you, for three all important reasons:

1) You have been quite reasonable when spoken to, and adequately *discreet* in contrast to this twit

2) Unlike him much of your content is your own discovery, or taken from movies and TV shows

3)You don't link the original Youtube videos where doing so would be unwise, and most importantly don't jeopardize future potential with reckless behavior

But this other guy has now made at least one enemy, and hopefully many more.

Why don't you just state the persons name who is responsible?

Happily. I meant to provide a link. It's this idiot:

***

notalwaysright10000 wrote:Happily. I meant to provide a link. It's this idiot:

What's the problem with this? He's posting your finds? You have no more claim to these videos than he does.

I think it's less about reposting the finds as it is sharing the links, commenting on people featured within them, and so on.

That's why I'm often hesitant to formally follow/subscribe to the channels I watch. It's one thing if it's a notable celebrity; they're at least somewhat likely to fall on someone's radar eventually. But for videos like this - where we're largely dependent on the natural happenstance that results in shoeplay, it's better that we stay off the grid in that sense, better that less attention is drawn to it.

"What's the problem with this? He's posting your finds? You have no more claim to these videos than he does."

Unequivocally clear and straightforward English prose is never good enough for people like you; you'll just invent a pretext to misread it.
I couldn't care less about being credited. My actual reasons have already been stated. Moreover, this has nothing to do with "rights". (And I wouldn't name yourself after Socrates if I were you; your questioning method is far from Socratic.)

"it's better that we stay off the grid in that sense, better that less attention is drawn to it."

Precisely!
This is attracting wholly unnecessary attention, for no real benefit. His posts are redundant at best. Anyone who doesn't already know about this site and this thread isn't looking hard enough, doesn't want to find very badly, and thus frankly doesn't deserve to know about it.

Oh, and as for this chuckleheaded implication that I'm all butthurt over credit for "my" finds being stolen, no no. The only reason I post here at all is out of a sense of obligation.
This thread is so great because it allows us to combine our searching resources and aggregate more finds than any one of us could possibly find on his own.

But alas there's a "freeloader" problem, similar to that you get in (say) an apartment building with "free" electricity. It's in the interest of the tenants *as a group* not to flagrantly waste electricity, or eventually the additional costs will get so out of hand they'll be factored into the rent and everybody will have to pay more. *However* it's in the interest of any one individual tenant to carelessly waste as much electricity as he pleases because his one unit is unlikely to significantly effect the overall bill. (Google "tragedy of commons", and "common knowledge in game theory".)

I post here because I don't want to be that jerk who leaves his lights and TV on for two weeks straight when he goes out of town because he thinks "Meh, screw it, I'm not paying for it".
That, and there's just the good old fashioned altruistic pleasure of sharing something other people might enjoy.

Speaking of which, I wonder, what are the odds this guy's channel is *monetized*? I didn't see any adds because my adblock is functioning but I've got a hunch...

notalwaysright10000 wrote:"What's the problem with this? He's posting your finds? You have no more claim to these videos than he does."

Unequivocally clear and straightforward English prose. .

I misread nothing and misunderstood nothing. The original premise was so just moronic, that I chose to disregard it. Now that I realize that you're so passionate about it, we'll have to have a different kind of correspondence.

There is no significant different between re-posting YT videos on one's YT channel than there is posting links to them on a foot fetish message board. This is not a secret society.

As for Feetlover2013 being a "Freeloader"? Again, no difference. No one this forum has any claim to any of this material. No one here "discovered" these vids.

"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.

You have got to be kidding me.

Despite your (likely hard-won) mastery of douche-babble, it's clear to me that your self-overestimation is pathological. I can also recognize the difference between someone with a command of the language and someone employing his best pretension in the guise of intellectual discourse. You, dude, are a example of the latter.

You're obviously so obsessed with prevailing on the Internet that you're overlooking the simple circumstances I attempted to address. What little inclination I had to further this discussion is exhausted so I'll leave you to your mission.

Yes, the last refuge of the internet dipshit:

"I didn't say anything, but I win because I say so. I'm FED UP with your inability to recognize the validity of all the brilliant arguments I didn't make. I have nothing to say and I've said it repeatedly. If you can't concede what wasn't said in plain English then clearly this is futile and anyway you talk too much fancy book learnin'. Goodbye."

Feel free to specify these "simple circumstances" that you allegedly addressed and I did not. I won't hold my breath.


By the way to anyone who thinks perhaps I come off as an ivory tower snob, I'm well aware that it's not all about IQ and ten-dollar words. For instance Muhammad Ali was clearly a very clever guy despite having an IQ 78.

But this asshat damn sure ain't no Muhammad Ali.

Oh and please tell me, "Gadfly" (*smirk*) how many other languages do you not speak, and are you fluent in all of them?
Can you say nothing in ancient Greek?