tired of nonbelievers

[steve319]

Originally posted by madame_zora@May 14 2005, 08:06 PM
... not a harassment throng.

[post=311114]Quoted post[/post]​

:lol: Although I'd imagine a lot of folks here would enjoy that too!

The term "harrassment throng" just tickles me! (Am I alone in that?) Thanks for that one.

 

[willie]

Originally posted by madame_zora@May 15 2005, 02:06 AM
The exasperation in my posts may give you some indication of how many times we've been through this, always in the name of "the truth coming out". Sorry, it just gets old. This is a SUPPORT GROUP for men with LARGE penises, not a harassment throng.

From the topic "When did you realise", I quote Madame Zora:

SexyJean, how many lovers have you had? If you think 8'' is not that huge, I'd like to know where you find 'em!!!
For reference, my forearm is 11.5'' from elbow to wrist, and my wrist is 6.5'' in diameter, is your husband's penis really bigger than a wrist and forearm?

That sounds like a challenge to 'put up, or shut up'. And the topic went on, in a similar way. The fakes exasperate everybody and what else can you do, but shout 'prove it'.

I'm just saying that while there are genuine people on this board. The liars (who seem to be in the majority) are doing real damage.
A support group would be helping those with genuine concerns and I'd have said that seriously large, is about 8"x6".

However as soon as a member says that, somebody pops up to say that their husband is 8" girth, which she has no problem with (it's the 9" ones that cause problems).

 

[madame_zora]

Yes, that one was absurd to me because she was saying he was enormous and it was no problem at all! We discovered that she was measuring from under the balls instead of along the top, which added about 2" to his size, so there actually WAS a discrepancy, but I know you already knew that. Guess you just wanted to show off that you had "busted" me. Snore.

What YOU were saying is that you doubted the existance of dicks over 10'', basically calling every (overly) well endowed member of this board, many of whom I consider friends, liars. How would you like to have someone say they doubt YOUR existance based on your eye color or some other physical trait you were just born with?

It's not your or anyone else's place to determine what size someone has to be to want to be here, if THEY feel they are large, that's good enough. If someone has the problems of large endowment, it will be apparent soon enough. If someone comes around saying "My dick drags to the floor and every woman I get near worships me" we all know they are full of shit, self-selecting works wonders.

If it upsets you to acknowledge the fact that large penises are real- go somewhere else!

I regret the time I took in sending the pm I sent, wish I had seen this bullshit first.

 

[Lex]

HEY--If ANYONE "busts" Zora, I would hope that it would be me on her in an intimate place with lots of heat and wine!!

Willie--I think your "Glass half empty" mentality hurts your board experience. You can choose to focus in the fakes of the real members. Your choice. I choose to the see the glass as half-full. Fake people are everywhere. I refuse to let the casual negative comments of insignificant people upset me.

The problem, as Neo said, is CHOICE.

 

[willie]

Originally posted by madame_zora@May 15 2005, 12:19 PM
What YOU were saying is that you doubted the existance of dicks over 10'', basically calling every (overly) well endowed member of this board, many of whom I consider friends, liars.

NO. What I was saying (and that's prefectly clear), is that I doubted some of the claims. As do you.

If it upsets you to acknowledge the fact that large penises are real- go somewhere else!

I regret the time I took in sending the pm I sent, wish I had seen this bullshit first.

Never said that either.

I am desperately trying to keep this polite, but is it your official job, to shout down, rubbish and misquote, the opinions of any new members, who join this board?

You give the impression that you would be much happier, if membership was closed.

 

[Pappy]

Willie, I just visited YOUR "Homepage" and I have to say that you are grossly mis-informed. You can't measure 401 college aged men and come up with any sort of valid statistical information. When compared to the world's population of college aged men, a sampling of 401 is not large enough to be significant, let alone set any kind of standard.

 

[willie]

Originally posted by Pappy@May 15 2005, 07:20 PM
Willie, I just visited YOUR "Homepage" and I have to say that you are grossly mis-informed. You can't measure 401 college aged men and come up with any sort of valid statistical information. When compared to the world's population of college aged men, a sampling of 401 is not large enough to be significant, let alone set any kind of standard.

[post=311316]Quoted post[/post]​

Actually, I think that a sample of 400 is very significant and probably represents a degree of statistical certainty that nails it to within a few %.

But this is very off topic. Did I mention that web site? No.

The biggest problem seems to be, that I have alienated a number of people by being presumptuous enough to try and enter discussions. The response has been dismissive, at best.

 

[Lex]

an "N" of 400 is good statisitically speaking.

 

[13788]

ravenously: W/ over 6 BILLION people on the planet I find it very hard to say that anyone has ever come close to a truely statisticaly sound sample, even if one was to incorperate every volenteer in every servey. I truely find the reported averages to be quite small, I don't want to hurt anyones feelings but I couldn't imagine having a penis that's what is reported as average and BE aververge.
Maybe, I'm biased.

 

[Knight]

Yeah the averages do seem small...

Also to WishItWereShorter - how bored, insecure or stupid do you have to be to come here posting someone else's pic? Can't be any fun to be like that, you might wanna get it sorted out.

I think 8x6 is big too...I'm not biased

 

[Lex]

Just because a sample is large enough statistically, there can still be limits to how far and wide the results of the study generalize to the greater population. In this case, unless the sample include proportional representation from every ethnicity on the planet, the results can only generalize to a certain extent. True studies note these limits as a part of the discussion of their results.

 

[hung9mike]

Originally posted by Lex@May 15 2005, 02:09 PM
an "N" of 400 is good statisitically speaking.

[post=311345]Quoted post[/post]​

As Lex notes, 400 is a sufficiently large number of subjects upon which to draw statistical conclusions assuming no sampling error. Sampling error occurs when the sample you've drawn is not representative of the population you're trying to generalize your conclusions to. If I'm reading that webpage right, of the 401 volunteers, only 300 were up to the task (so to speak) of being measured. I don't think 300 drunk frat boys on Spring Break in Cancun is necessarily representative of all of the men in the world.

 

[13788]

clownboots19: "I don't think 300 drunk frat boys on Spring Break in Cancun is necessarily representative of all of the men in the world."


-Well, Coming from a well hung, frat boy who got drunk at spring break in Cancun (ME), I'll take that as an insult.....????

 

[hung9mike]

Originally posted by clownboots19@May 15 2005, 07:54 PM
Well, Coming from a well hung, frat boy who got drunk at spring break in Cancun (ME), I'll take that as an insult.....????

[post=311459]Quoted post[/post]​

No insult intended, dude. The fact that we're on LPSG also doesn't make us representative of all the men in the world either. My point is that you're looking at a fairly narrow group of guys whether you're looking Spring Breakers in Cancun (college-age, mostly white, mostly American, and willing to take a dare) or LPSG members (unusually well hung and proud of what they've got). Both are very small subsets of the population that you're trying to draw some conclusion on (all men in the world) and as such, don't make very good samples.

 

[willie]

As the sample size increases, the accuracy of statistics improves rapidly. However it does need to be a random sample.
I would have thought that American students are a fairly random sample.

In the case of penis length, the distribution of values is small and fits a normal distribution very well. A quick calculation puts the 95% confidence level at only +-0.2" from the mean.

If anything this survey can out on the large side, when compared with other clinically measured studies.

 

[Freddie53]

Once again assumptions throw what the actual average is. I have visited the forum in MSN "Getting through Live with a Small Penis"

http://groups.msn.com/Gettingthroughlifewi...ssageboard.msnw

I have seen on this web site dicks of three inches. Some smaller than some other gusy when they were born. Micro penises. To get an average, all have to be put in the statistics. That 15 inch dick that is rare that everyone questions, it is there too. I think the smallest I have heard of on that web site is 2 12 inches long erect.

So if every dick gets measured that is what maes the average seem low.

On this web site the view point seems to be that five is the shortest and we go longer from there. We will never know. But if somehow, Mr. Mark could get everyone of us males on this forum to be measured by the same team with same standard, I susptec that the average still would not be above 7 inches. If I had to pick a number I would guess 6.75 to be the average here and this is a large penis forum. On the other forum, they kicked out everyone over 5 inches. I am barely over 5 inches. I came over here and told what happened and I was warmly accepted and no one has ever made any comment negativly about my size. In fact I was told several times I was just fine as I am. Over there even the moderator has really been ugly to some teen agers wanting to inow if they were small because they were 5.5 or so and they were rudely treated by the moderator.

As I have said several times after looking over all the surveys, if you are between 5 and 7 inches in length erect, then you are within the normal range.

Let's think about it, a man and woman are passionately in love. They have been making out or a while now. She finally takes of his underwear and she is naked. She is ready. Then she said, Hold up! I almpst forget and she whips out a measuring tape and measures three different times to make sure of the length is "accurate." Cant you just see that in a movie? Comedy or Farce it would be!

 

[madame_zora]

Yes, I think "micro penises" are about as rare as huge penises, but it is that very oddity that is the foundation of this site. No wonder we'd hear about more of them here than in the general population! Duh! Also, Freddie, I wonder if our average size here wouldn't more closely approximate the norm because so few post and not doubt the vast majority of the 13,000+ lurkers represent the normal range. I'd be surprised if our "average" even here was much over 6'', even with all the very large ones (that are real, that is). I would not be surprised to find that a lot of men come here from the small penis groups for reasons just like you said, no support there. While we can't accomodate all their needs, we DO offer friendship to anyone who acts like a friend. That's what I like about this place. I never think of a guy's dick as being more important than his words here, hell- I don't even have a dick and I got treated well when I came.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by madame_zora@May 16 2005, 10:27 PM
hell- I don't even have a dick and I got treated well when I came.

[post=311896]Quoted post[/post]​

Mme., I will treat you well whether you came or not.

Seriously, though, I find it odd that in all these "surveys," the only statistic presented is the mean (average) of the sample. Two other, very important, statistics, are the median (the number exactly in the middle between the highest and the lowest) and the mode (the number that occurs most often.) Those two numbers also give much-needed validity to the sample. In those 401 men measured, were the sizes evenly distributed? For simplicity, I'll use an example with a sample size of 10. First group - eight men measure 6", one measures 8", and one measures 4". The mean is 6", the median is 6", and the mode is 6". Second group - four measure 8", one measures 6", and five measure 4". Then the average is still close, at 5.8". However, the median is still 6", but the mode is 4". One can manipulate statistics in many ways. The greatest number of men in any large sample will more closely represent the mode, not necessarily the mean or the median.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by madame_zora@May 17 2005, 02:27 AM
I got treated well when I came.

[post=311896]Quoted post[/post]​

Shouldn't that be, "I got treated very well, so I came!"?

 

[13788]

Herble:

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+May 17 2005, 05:18 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper &#064; May 17 2005, 05:18 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora@May 17 2005, 02:27 AM
I got treated well when I came.

[post=311896]Quoted post[/post]​

Shouldn&#39;t that be, "I got treated very well, so I came&#33;"?

[post=312185]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
You DID? You got a photo of that?
:evilgrin: