you can't just associate any word with a word you injected into the argument.
Your argument is invalid Mr. Stawman.
The words in question are:
masticate, heel, soup, kidney, vodka
Now as argued already masticate is the action of chewing. You are a heel if you chew your soup. Sure there might be chewy bits in your soup but you definitely do NOT masticate vodka.
You could however make soup with kidney and vodka in it.
You can also have spherical vodka soup if you happen to let it float around your space station.
Dear Mr. Lion,
If you can, please muster the intellectual fortitude to look directly at the accusation and attendant claims, and perhaps respond to them instead of fabrications and misdirection from the voices in your deluded mind. To assist you in breaching your befuddlement, consider the compilation of said arguments below.
You claim that I can not 'inject' a word into the argument. Explain, then, your own J'Accuse! wherein you have added 'book' to create a relationship that is not extant. Unlike your crass tactic, the words in my J'Accuse! do in fact intersect at the concept of food. Food is what you chew, eat, and drink. The words relate to food directly.
If you are then not so craven to consider the rules of the game include the finding of patterns and relationships, you may find the courage to revise your ill considered opinion. You will do this because you know in your skeptical heart that you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. You may claim that the pattern discovered is not clear, or that the relationships are not strong enough to warrant your voting 'sequitur'. You may not claim that the pattern does not exist, or that it is against the new rule that you made up out of your head right at that moment.
P.S. That was fun to write. I hope you enjoy bombast.