Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'New Member Introductions' started by Imported, Jul 13, 2003.
jacko: Out of interest, what exactly is the average erect dick size meant to be?
Geez, how many times has this one been answered her? : Okay; depending on the study you consult, the average size is usually stated somewhere in the 5.2" - 5.9". In almost all clinical studies, the average size is under 6".
Right on the mark, DMW, unless jacko was referring to the average size on this board.
In that case, it's probably somewhere between 8" - 9".
[quote author=Pecker link=board=meetgreet;num=1058127846;start=0#2 date=07/13/03 at 14:05:20]Right on the mark, DMW, unless jacko was referring to the average size on this board.
In that case, it's probably somewhere between 8" - 9".
Know what? I'm not accustomed to being average. It's not bad!
The average penis is between 5" & 6". I'm glad I'm above average as do most on this site. Do they have a support group for average size penises? How about those with micro-penises? Those men really need a support group.
H8Monga: Average guys sometimes get lumped in with small so any small support group may be that for average guys. I don't know if there is a support group specifically for micro-penises, but I don't think it's that funny.
hawl: [quote author=geo8x6 link=board=meetgreet;num=1058127846;start=0#4 date=07/13/03 at 16:32:59]The average penis is between 5" & 6". I'm glad I'm above average as do most on this site. Do they have a support group for average size penises? How about those with micro-penises? Those men really need a support group. [/quote]I've only checked out the Measurection site a little (so to speak). It's for the small and average-endowed of all orientations, and the vibe is pretty relaxing compared to the penile nuclear arms race being waged on some sites. As you might expect, a lot of the topics are just the inversion of this site's, i.e. "When did you realize you were small?", how to maximize rather than tame one's bulge, being humiliated in situations for one's size (one poster told of young classmates pulling off someone's pants and loudly announcing like some penis S.S. : "We've got a one-incher over here!"), etc.. They muse interestingly on what "the long-dicked" (like we're Tolkien characters living in another valley or hollow) must do differently in a given situation, like peeing. Some of them say they've posted their pictures on Rate-a-Rod (and have been rewarded with the "Hall of Shame"), and have even been kicked off the site for giving high marks to small ones and vice-versa.
I'll betcha that if the news media got wind of a couple of conventions taking place, i.e. the Large Penis Support Group in Milwaukee and the Small Penis Hall of Shame Winners in Hoboken, that the LPSG men would be poked fun of, while the SPHSW members would be revered.
Damned liberal press!
Dag: [quote author=DoubleMeatWhopper link=board=meetgreet;num=1058127846;start=0#1 date=07/13/03 at 13:38:30]Geez, how many times has this one been answered her? : Okay; depending on the study you consult, the average size is usually stated somewhere in the 5.2" - 5.9". In almost all clinical studies, the average size is under 6".[/quote]
Hey DMW, be gentle with us new guys. I'm sure almost every question has been asked a billion-zillion times over. But, that's why we come here... to ask, to read, to get informed, and for a few guys... to get laid.
Pecker (by the way, i love your name & that John Waters movie!)
Your right! it seems like that average size here is 8" - 9"s.
...and with my barely over 8" penis, I feel somewhat a small guy here.
All these damn 10+'ers and 13" man-poles! Yikes!
rrrrrr, I too found the Measurection site interesting and I did join mostly do to the foreskin restoration info they offered.
Cheers - Dag
[quote author=Dag link=board=meetgreet;num=1058127846;start=0#8 date=07/14/03 at 16:27:16]
Hey DMW, be gentle with us new guys. I'm sure almost every question has been asked a billion-zillion times over. [/quote]
My response was intended as a flame, Dag. Trust me, you'll know a flame from me when you see one! I was just pointing out that it has been covered, and if I remember correctly, in quite a bit of detail and in several different threads. With a little effort, a Search can yield quite a bit of insight from those who don't want to repeat themselves every time the question reappears. That's all.
Oouch! that's f'in HOT!
If i come across a thread i've read before,
or am tired of, i SKIP it.
It is like avoiding a television show i dont care for.
I certainly wouldnt waste my time watching
something that makes me roll my eyes.
[quote author=DoubleMeatWhopper link=board=meetgreet;num=1058127846;start=0#9 date=07/14/03 at 17:54:03]I was just pointing out that it has been covered, and if I remember correctly, in quite a bit of detail and in several different threads...[/quote]
Okay, here's how I see it.
As far as I can recall, the people that are content to answer repeating questions over and over tend to do so on their accord, and hardly do they make a big deal out of it. It might make some guys like TX want to roll their eyes and move on; nothing wrong with that. I skim more than I read around here anyway.
But, I... I just don't think it's enough to legitimize flaming, especially to newcomers like Dag who may take reactions like DMW's a little too seriously. (Don't get me wrong. I think the boy stepped a line, myself.) It's just an issue of common courtesy. I would rather take the proactive approach and point someone to the particular thread (or just restate the damn answer if it's more brief that way) instead of going tooth-and-nail. Think about it. If you're relatively new to the forum neighborhood and someone blasts you from the start for asking something that's already been covered, do you think that makes someone feel welcomed or would encourage them to revisit?
There's an incredibly subtle difference between "pointing someone in the right direction" and making someone feel stupid, humiliated, or even worse... a burden to our group... just because they want a quick answer that a Search function might not allow.
I'm sorry if anyone took offense at my response. A flame was not intended, and re-reading it, I don't see how a flame was inferred. The way I see it, a search could supply a wealth of answers a lot faster than a new thread would. Notice, however, that I did not just say "look it up yourself." In addition to suggesting the Search, I also gave an actual answer to the poster's question based on what I have read.
This response didn't really help set the positive tone you were, perhaps, searching for the first time around.
[quote author=DoubleMeatWhopper link=board=meetgreet;num=1058127846;start=0#1 date=07/13/03 at 13:38:30]Geez, how many times has this one been answered here? :[/quote]
And re-check your prose before you write it...
[quote author=DoubleMeatWhopper link=board=meetgreet;num=1058127846;start=0#9 date=07/14/03 at 17:54:03]My response was intended as a flame, Dag. Trust me, you'll know a flame from me when you see one![/quote]
But, come on, let's not be dense about how people react to remarks. You say yourself that you don't see how someone else could read your remarks as incendiary, but by the appearances of things, your remarks are hardly inviting, encouraging, or supportive.
If I say, "You know, you could've just quoted the average as 5.2 to 5.9 and left it at that," you'll respond asking why on earth he didn't use Search to figure out the answer for himself. We could go back and forth on that point for a while.
But in any case, your response comes off as brash, almost abrupt, kind of rude. The rolling-eyes were unnecessary; you're right about people using Search, but it would have been easier to lay that out the first time instead of letting someone else react, and then adding in your intentions. Can't you just sum all that up from the get-go?
You may question why people have that response, but then again, you said it in the first place so of course it's difficult for people to gauge your own personal intentions. All we have are the words before us, not a glimpse at what you're thinking while you write them.
That's why sensitivity is so damn important. I don't expect you to check every single word with dread -- hell, I couldn't hold up to the standard myself. But you know, it's not all that hard to think of better ways to phrase things so that your point comes across without rousing up negative emotions.
throb919: Honestly! First it was Javier and Raal--now I'm going to have to separate you guys!
Dee--the rolling eyes emoticon does have a smile and DMW did answer the question.
DMW--and you thought the only flames you'd have to worry about today were on your birthday cake...
throb919: Okay--I've just read the Dee and DMW "thing" at the Meet and Greet--Who's Not American? thread (not that it was really on-topic there, either ;-) ) after my post here. So: never mind. And I've been typing in French all day, too. (J'espère que ce n'est pas une grande problème, mes ami(e)s...!)
Well, it was a confusing post by DMW.
This is why email and message boards can be
confusing sometimes...things are open to
interpretation...and sometimes sarcasm, superiority and attitude can
be detected when it wasnt intended.
I've edited this post since lastnight.
I am going to take my own advice
and become silent rather than continue to post.
I can't even have a little fun. Man, one "small" joke and I'm the bad guy.
i revised my post...it was not directed
at geo 8x6