Comments by David9999 (page 3)

Jablake - FOUNDER has the necessary information to do the cross-check, and it will match 100%. So I am awaiting his decision. Everyone has their breaking point on how many times one they can falsely be called a liar, and my breaking point in this regards was reached within the past week.

The old posts are very difficult to access, but its very clear what I said - and I never said I was anything close to James Bond or anything similar to that, however it was spun that way by others as part of their vicious attacks to discredit everything single thing I've said. I posted my weight and height and physical condition and said I was met the "presentability" threshold (or words to that effect) that many women would use. Yes, I'm in very good financial shape but never claimed a "vast fortune" as some poster claimed As for " First, the "player" babies get spread better. Second, maybe the "player" babies male or female are more likely to either emulate "player" behaviour if the baby is male or be receptive to "player" behaviour if the baby is female." If you go back to last fall, I wrote a number of posts on that precise issue, the concept of females playing a sort of genetic lottery and (subconsiously via genetic "choices") desiring to mate with males who in turn would produce more (cheaters in modern parlance)) seed spreaders - who in turn produce more cheating-oriented heirs down the line. The bottom line being that monogamous "nice guy" lineage while highly suitable for the modern world, via genetic "reasoning" (the kind that matters) - these faithful nice guys were considered a poor long term risk, thus the explanation why so many women today find such guys "boring" as they don't offer that illusive promise of genetic immortality.

That the best you got today?

"What a sick puppy. Prime candidate for Suicide." sorry I'm quite stable actually

Jablake, there have been a few posters that kept intepreting everything I said into some kind of James Bond super-stud claim. That's not what I've ever said. I've simply said (on an all things equal basis despite the counter-intuitive nature of it all) - the openly admitted and conceded tinge of nonmonogamy when presented to certain highly attractive women - seems to push up the chemistry - to a higher level than it otherwise apparently would be. Bobbyl made some good points a number of weeks back in regards to whether much of this is simply a self-fullfilling prophecy of sorts, and I've tried to honestly access whether part of this is taking a position, intrepreting all such events in that light, and then using this as further proof of the same intial premise. I'll admit there can be a tendency to do that, but I've honestly tried to factor that out.

i've now (also) sent the rquest to the address mentioned above

The reqest has been sent to: http://www.tuscl.com/contact.php

you have an email? or only that forwarding service?

Parodyman and ShawdowCat- do me a favor, REQUEST THAT FOUNDER just do the cross-check and post the results because I damn sick of being called a liar

"This thread isn't a note to the founder." you got the email address? Please post it

Personally I get very little out of any experience (at any level) with any stripper, unless there is some element of mutuality to the interaction. Unless a particular woman is an extraordinarily good actress, a reasonably perceptive man can read it all in a women's eyes - that's why I always try to position them in such a way (at least at some angle) where I can read those eyes. As I said before there's a 10% group of strippers (in terms of the way I judge women) - that are basically normal women in a very odd profession, and when you get positive interaction with them, its very hard to put a precise value on this. If this 10% group wasn't there, I would probably not bother with strip clubs at all. By the way when dealing with (particularly) very young, and also very attractive dancers, I don't pay particular attention to what they verbally say, especially when its fueled (on their part) by champagne in at VIP room situation. Its reading between the lines where the real satisfaction, if at all, actually happens.

Jablake - as you well understand the reason I don't post reviews relates to the identity issue, however I guess that's too difficult for many to fathom.

"I'm not founder". Ok then please STFU

i'm no longer getting the "older 25 posts" option- that's the problem

CasualGuy - not sure what happened in your case, however in general a (stripper) "player" as part of HER playbook will sometimes pretend to believe her customer is a player. Two factors: 1. rarely does she actually believe her customer is a player 2. how can any customer (who is paying to play in some form)oney) be a "player" under the normal definition of that term? Strippers know the answer to that. One has to usually categorize this as part of an advanced CON

"I doubt founder will do it and worse someone of high intelligence might count on that" Apparently then I cannot win no matter what 1. I'm requesting first that FOUNDER (as a matter of courtesy) to make the cross check -which literally would take a few minutes 2. Alternatively, if poster Chi-town lawyer is reading this, please put a post on this thread, and (as a backup) I will figure out a way to relay the necessary info to you - to provide the same cross check.

Fondl since you (now very conveniently) don't "care" then either STFU or please stop calling everyone liars.

Anyone see an email contact number for Tuscl.com that I can reference?. To speed things up, as soon as I see it posted I will source an email to Tuscl.com from the email address precisely matching the email listed listed on my information on the DC Bar site.

AbbieNormal I present it as FACT?. OF COURSE ITS A THEORY This time I will cap the words and phrases you've obviously skipped: "It is MY LONG HELD BELIEF, when women today speak of "chemistry" being a requisite to sustain a relationship with a man, they are actually talking about "falling in love" and that all-critical component I BELIEVE is in the nature of a a bio-chemically induced non-volitional involuntary feeling - and all of that relates to earlier times"

on the cheek (nothing) on the lips (dry) - afraid of germs (typical AMP girl style) on the lips (wet) - if anything probably sometimes more romantic than DFK DFK - usually pure sexual, however doesn't mean OTC necessarily

Some of us who go to clubs (believe it or not) are actually tall, athletic, in-shape, presentable looking, have a high net worth, high net income, and are actually lawyers (is this all really so rare these days) - and its certainly not a big deal, hardly something that has to be invented by a (mythical) 15 year old a few posters apparently are still harping about. Ok if you want to say its all about money or some of the other factors, Ok fine one can argue that, but I'm honestly stating that IMHO this "tinge of nonomonogamy" issue seems to a very critical factor. By the way, somewhere in the range of 120 times in total visting (a number of different clubs) over the past year is also an accurate estimate. As for the James Bond bullshit, well no one claimed that

IMHO being able to sustain in a convincing way the "gentlemen horndog vibe" will end up kicking up the all important "chemistry" which (all things otherwise equal) in practical terms will tend to improve both the level of physical attraction that the female has toward the man and (to the exent it might exist at all) the degree of any "in love" feelings the the women may or may not be carrying.

fell off the wagon today -dropped about 800

"abusive, aggressive, angry, addicted, amoral . . ." interesting choice of words.

huge turnoff for me and particularly tramp stamps, and overall I believe TATS in general correlate to low class bahavior and often nicotine addiction and of course then bad breath - however there are exceptions to that rule, but overall I try to stay away from dancers with TATS - except maybe the mini ones you can barely see