Still in nappies.

by **Greggy** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:06 pm

Ooooooooooooooohhhh!

Meeeeeeoooowwwww!

Sticks and stones mate!

Sticks and stones!

Hahahhaaaaaaa

by **The Colonel** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 3:42 pm

You've got to pity an adult man who likes to take a dump in a nappy. :lol:

by **Guest** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:55 am

The Colonel wrote:You've got to pity an adult man who likes to take a dump in a nappy.

Why? What's your rationale?

by **The Colonel** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:35 am

. wrote:
The Colonel wrote:You've got to pity an adult man who likes to take a dump in a nappy.

Why? What's your rationale?

It speaks for itself.

Perhaps he want's mummy to come and say "potty time". :lol:

by **Guest** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:39 pm

The Colonel wrote:
. wrote:
The Colonel wrote:You've got to pity an adult man who likes to take a dump in a nappy.

Why? What's your rationale?

It speaks for itself.

Perhaps he want's mummy to come and say "potty time".

I would propose that "it" does not speak for "itself". Your speculation may be correct, it may not be so, but it is what it is......speculation, confirmed by the inclusion of the word "perhaps".

You have not stated your rationale, to support your statement. Do you have one? If you don't, then your statement is invalid.

by **The Colonel** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:37 pm

. wrote:
The Colonel wrote:
. wrote:
The Colonel wrote:You've got to pity an adult man who likes to take a dump in a nappy.

Why? What's your rationale?

It speaks for itself.

Perhaps he want's mummy to come and say "potty time".

I would propose that "it" does not speak for "itself". Your speculation may be correct, it may not be so, but it is what it is......speculation, confirmed by the inclusion of the word "perhaps".

You have not stated your rationale, to support your statement. Do you have one? If you don't, then your statement is invalid.

Hi myron!

Didn't know you enjoyed pissing yourself. :wink:

by **Guest** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:06 pm

Still no rationale, huh?

by **Guest** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 9:25 pm

I'm waiting..............

by **Guest** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:06 pm

you totally dont read just for men :roll:

by **The Colonel** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:27 pm

. wrote:Still no rationale, huh?

Until you learn to read it - evidently not.

by **Guest** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:51 pm

The Colonel wrote:
. wrote:Still no rationale, huh?

Until you learn to read it - evidently not.

So you think that I have nothing better to do with my life than read through 147 pages, just to seek your rationale? Frankly, I'm not going to do that.

What disturbs me, is/are those, such as yourself, who would seek to subjugate and humiliate other's for an apparently harmless fetish.

If some people like wearing and wetting/pooing nappies, so what? I would suggest that life would be so boring if we were all the same....

IMHO, it's people like you who are the real problem, because you pontificate about matters of which you know little, and do not have the intelligence to accept other good people for what they are. Perhaps because you are restricted by your own psychological straight-jacket?....I appreciate that I speculate, but, then, why shouldn't I?

by **The Colonel** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:24 pm

. wrote:
The Colonel wrote:
. wrote:Still no rationale, huh?

Until you learn to read it - evidently not.

So you think that I have nothing better to do with my life than read through 147 pages, just to seek your rationale? Frankly, I'm not going to do that.

What disturbs me, is/are those, such as yourself, who would seek to subjugate and humiliate other's for an apparently harmless fetish.

If some people like wearing and wetting/pooing nappies, so what? I would suggest that life would be so boring if we were all the same....

IMHO, it's people like you who are the real problem, because you pontificate about matters of which you know little, and do not have the intelligence to accept other good people for what they are. Perhaps because you are restricted by your own psychological straight-jacket?....I appreciate that I speculate, but, then, why shouldn't I?

My rationale was stated in the last few posts or so I've made.

There is nothing harmless about a mother having a fetish for nappies and fabricating illness in her child (MSbP) because she wants them to wear nappies. Kids are taken away from such mothers.

by **Guest** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:31 am

Tut!

As always, it seems, you have missed the point, maybe because you are wrapped-up in your own cocoon of virtual and imaginary smugness?

There are many things which are very wrong in our society, but my question was about your rationale, which you have still not stated. Why is it so wrong, in your opinion, for people to derive pleasure from a harmless fetish?

by **kerryee** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:49 am

well said

by **The Colonel** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:47 pm

. wrote:Tut!

As always, it seems, you have missed the point, maybe because you are wrapped-up in your own cocoon of virtual and imaginary smugness?

There are many things which are very wrong in our society, but my question was about your rationale, which you have still not stated. Why is it so wrong, in your opinion, for people to derive pleasure from a harmless fetish?

But it's not. It is a psychological disorder on the DSM.

Still in nappies.

Who is online