Would a mod please make it so I can't post.

[B_ScaredLittleBoy]

Here is a guide:

Open notepad (or word)

Close your eyes

Type random characters into the document.

Still keep your eyes closed

Press Ctrl+A and then Ctrl+C

Then press Alt+F4. Then press the right arrow key

Hit Return

Navigate to LPSG and paste the password into both 'change passwrod' boxes and click save. You may have to press Ctrl+V to paste

 

[Mem]

By ban or removal of handle/password capability, I'm not sure how you go about this. Whatever method you typically use upon removal request. Thanks.

You can always form an LPSG Anonymous group :wink:

http://www.lpsg.org/24890-how-to-delete-your-account.html

 

[No_Strings]

Oh jeez, turn that frown upside down you bunch of morose-butts. :blackeye:

 

[snottybooger]

LOL

 

[B_superlarge]

With so many people just posting ad hominum statements with no backing, it's nice to see someone who CAN post some facts to back up what they say.

So someone gets under your skin, it happens. If you had this arguement at work, would you go and ask your boss to fire you?

Nice to you, and a few others perhaps, but this is predominately a liberal forum so analysis broken down to anything other than the human race is very much frowned upon and deemed inappropriate. It's a very good bet that if my chart had only appeared as 24 women and not been also split into 12 black and 12 white women the freaking out would not have occurred. Deemed the craziest post ever out of all the made up and ignorant posts that have filled this forum for years. How can that objectively be so.

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

You can't use copy and paste to change your own password to something random. I've tried. Sk_bum had to change my bedheadred password for me.

 

[mindseye]

Changing your password will help temporarily, but you can always have a new password e-mailed to you. A more permanent arrangement is to change your e-mail address to some jumble.

A new password will be sent to glopzqvx2w@tvuxazysdpl.com, which you won't get.

Still, there's surely another way around this.

 

[B_superlarge]

Well, I asked to be stopped. Clearly I haven't stopped and my posts since I started this thread in Help Desk yesterday are very negatively toned and therefore I am no longer bringing anything to this forum (I believe I was bringing info before) and am requesting to be banned as a result of my persistent negativity in the last 24 hours. That is my request.

 

[ZOS23xy]

Lol thanks. If I were you, I wouldn't leave - maybe take a break or something along those lines. :smile:

It works for some; I take breaks from this place from time to time.

 

[Principessa]

I don't mean to provoke you, but you take things too personally, superlarge.

I think you add by being here. You should stay.[/quote] Really? He adds something positive by being here? I must not have read enough of his posts to see what that is. Frankly, if he wants to go I think he should. The fact he started this thread is proof he will be here long enough to annoy the crap out of many of us for eons. :tongue:

For the record, I wasn't doubting your data, I just thought it was nuts that you gathered the data and I found it hysterical that you felt the need to gather it and I was trying to imagine someone actually getting that excited about mandingo's relationship to vaginal depth that they would invest time and energy into watching 24 of his videos and categorizing how deep he could get into women. Priceless.

QFT! The man clearly has too much time on his hands. Time which would clearly be better used doing drugs.

You won't leave.

My sources state that, statistically, members who post threads such as this are trapped on LPSG forever. 1/2 of all members with 'large' in their username cannot physically remove LPSG.org from their internet browser. 0.641 of all members whose accounts have under 1000 registered posts are legally required to remain an active participant in this site.
A whopping 98% of all members who have ever written the word "the" in any of their posts, are safe from being banned for legal reasons.

If "F" is the length of a members right femur in CM, "C" is the amount of vowels in the current calendar month and "L" is the current price of a single barrel of oil in USD on the 25th of the previous month, then each member is contractually obligated to create (F²\L)+(C-(F/17)), rounded to the nearest integer, new threads per month.

"All of these calculations and statistics are correct."

Conclusive evidence, I think you'll all agree.
I won't state all of my sources because I've already done that in many threads on here if you look back through my post history and I can't be bothered to write them out again.

I like you, you're funny and cute. :wink:

It works for some; I take breaks from this place from time to time.

I noticed, I hate it when you disappear. I like your posts.

 

[Gillette]

The fact he started this thread is proof he will be here long enough to annoy the crap out of many of us for eons. :tongue:

The fact that you'd say that after his request to be banned was granted and readable under his screen name is proof you've still not learned to read.:tongue: The smiley really softens the blow, doesn't it?

I think it's unfortunate that he was made to feel so unwelcome. From the posts I've read of his he was on a quest for data. He would do some observation of his own, search for studies then state what his observations in a thread asking for others to share their observations.

Rarely did anyone respond with an observation on the topic. Predominantly the responses were in judgement of him for having the temerity to suggest possible differences.

Fucking horseshit, people.

If you want to show someone their observations are inconclusive or incorrect the best way to do that is to bring forth your own data or observations. Ridiculing or attacking someone for asking a question is pretty pathetic. What's more it's lazy.

For all who acused him of racism simply because he dared suggest there could be some possible physiological differences borne out on average from one group to another, take a moment to peek in a mirror and consider your knee jerk reactions. What's up with that?

If for example it were true that one subgroup could take more length vaginally does that make them better? Worse? There was no qualitative value judgement being imposed with any of the questions posed so how were they racist?

Here's one for you. It has been my observation (sorry, no scientific data at this time) that people of native African heritage have darker skintones than those of European descent.

Go ahead and call me racist.

 

[HyperHulk]

Here's one for you. It has been my observation (sorry, no scientific data at this time) that people of native African heritage have darker skintones than those of European descent.

Go ahead and call me racist.

I wouldn't call you a racist. But if you told me you rented 24 movies and you created a chart of all the people of African heritage and all the people of European descent who appeared in the movies and then you created a system for determining the degree of pigmentation for the different individuals and then you put that into a chart to support your point that people of native African heritage have darker skintones, I would think the exercise and your "study" was just as crazy and absurdly funny as Superlarge's mandingo vaginal depth scientific chart.:biggrin1:

So racist no, obsessive-compulsive maybe.

 

[Gillette]

So racist no, obsessive-compulsive maybe.

I'll concede you that point.

Making a science of dickness and dickability was a single-minded goal for him. It's unusual to most of us but he wasn't harming anyone with his curiosity. I can understand the odd joke at his expense but there were many here who made a point of ridiculing his every post or thread.

Both behaviours were obsessive IMO, but at least his was in line with the primary subject of the site.

 

[Principessa]

The fact that you'd say that after his request to be banned was granted and readable under his screen name is proof you've still not learned to read.:tongue: of

You are so snarky! He was still a member when I posted and not yet banned. :12:

His last post was at 4:17 PM and mine was at 4:31 PM. Perhaps there is a lag time, as I did not see that he was banned. :tongue:

 

[Jovial]

I wouldn't call you a racist. But if you told me you rented 24 movies and you created a chart of all the people of African heritage and all the people of European descent who appeared in the movies and then you created a system for determining the degree of pigmentation for the different individuals and then you put that into a chart to support your point that people of native African heritage have darker skintones, I would think the exercise and your "study" was just as crazy and absurdly funny as Superlarge's mandingo vaginal depth scientific chart.:biggrin1:

So racist no, obsessive-compulsive maybe.

And if we looked at your daily life, we couldn't find things you do that would be considered odd by most people? Come on, he was a scientist type that enjoyed looking at things the way he did. Why call him obsessive-compulsive? I bet most people would call you obsessive-compulsive about working out.

I can't figure out why most people were so intolerant of superlarge. If they didn't like his threads/posts, then they should have just ignored them, and let other people discuss the topics.

I always thought that because he didn't have an avatar, people were more likely to start arguments with him. It's stupid, but most people figure someone without an avatar is less friendly, so they are more likely to start fights them. I may collect data comparing posts of avatar members with non-avatar members, and post my results to see if my hypothesis is correct. :biggrin1:

 

[mindseye]

[...]There was no qualitative value judgement being imposed with any of the questions posed so how were they racist?
[...]

Here's one for you. It has been my observation (sorry, no scientific data at this time) that people of native African heritage have darker skintones than those of European descent.

Go ahead and call me racist.

Okay, I'll call you racist.

First of all, you claim that there were no "value judgements" connected with his physiological claims, but he used the phrase "size queen" in titling the thread where he made these claims, and repeated that phrase within the thread. This isn't about physiology. Second of all, he chose porn actors for his non-random sample, where racial stereotypes are part of the script. There's a value judgement inherent in his methodology that you've completely missed.

And second of all, in defending him, you've chosen an example that's tautological in order to defend a claim that isn't tautological. The gender-based analogy would be if someone came onto this board and posted, "it's been my observation that women are physically less equipped to drive automobiles than men (this isn't a value judgement!)", which I then defended using a claim that "it's been my observation that women have more vaginas than men."

It is possible to have an unbiased discussion of physiological differences among different populations of women; such a discussion would attempt to distinguish dark-skinned African women from, say, dark-skinned Pacific Islanders; such a discussion would avoid perjorative characterizations of their subjects; and such a discussion would seek a more objective way of measuring physiology than watching their subjects get slammed by Mandingo.

This wasn't such a discussion. I don't know if superlarge was intending to offend, or if he was merely engaging in the same sort of post-hoc pseudoscience that "intellegent design" advocates use to support their pre-existing beliefs.

But to have missed the obvious staring-you-in-the-face value judgements inherent in his methodology, his choice of sample, his method of assessment, and his lack of seeking alternate explanations for the "data" he obtained -- demonstrates either a case of a mindboggling lack of reading comprehension, or an unhealthy willingness to look the other way.

 

[Gillette]

Okay, I'll call you racist.

Explain why.

First of all, you claim that there were no "value judgements" connected with his physiological claims, but he used the phrase "size queen" in titling the thread where he made these claims, and repeated that phrase within the thread. This isn't about physiology. Second of all, he chose porn actors for his non-random sample, where racial stereotypes are part of the script. There's a value judgement inherent in his methodology that you've completely missed.

Well, I think "sizequeen" was poor word choice as ability to take more depth doesn't always mean desire for bigger.

Either way, how does the ability to take a longer penis or the desire to take a longer penis translate to being a value judgement? Neither physiology nor preference determine a person's worth and I didn't read anything of his posts indicating that he thought it did.

And second of all, in defending him, you've chosen an example that's tautological in order to defend a claim that isn't tautological. The gender-based analogy would be if someone came onto this board and posted, "it's been my observation that women are physically less equipped to drive automobiles than men (this isn't a value judgement!)", which I then defended using a claim that "it's been my observation that women have more vaginas than men."

You're looking too deeply into that. My example was given only to show that both were purely observational.

It is possible to have an unbiased discussion of physiological differences among different populations of women; such a discussion would attempt to distinguish dark-skinned African women from, say, dark-skinned Pacific Islanders; such a discussion would avoid perjorative characterizations of their subjects; and such a discussion would seek a more objective way of measuring physiology than watching their subjects get slammed by Mandingo.

Ok, let's look at the question again. He wondered if there was, on average, a difference in the vaginal depth from race to race. Where, other than porn, might he have collected data? Scientific journals? He tried to do as structured an observation as he could. He took a "known" factor (Mandingo's length) and compared the difference in variables (length taken by various partners) Yes, porn is biased because the performers are selected for their various aptitudes (thread idea) but it is the only avenue that allows for observation. By his own admission Superlarge wasn't one of "the big boys" so first person experimentation is out. Peeping in on the neighbours isn't an option. Door to door survey, perhaps? Or he could do something safe (supposedly) from judgement like ask anonymously, online, a group of people with larger than average dicks for their experiences.

This wasn't such a discussion. I don't know if superlarge was intending to offend, or if he was merely engaging in the same sort of post-hoc pseudoscience that "intellegent design" advocates use to support their pre-existing beliefs.

I don't see this at all. I saw someone put forth a question, share his observations so far, and ask for the observations of others.

But to have missed the obvious staring-you-in-the-face value judgements inherent in his methodology, his choice of sample, his method of assessment, and his lack of seeking alternate explanations for the "data" he obtained -- demonstrates either a case of a mindboggling lack of reading comprehension, or an unhealthy willingness to look the other way.

Still not seeing it and neither of your purported reasons apply. Your concern for my reading comprehension is duly noted.

You insist that there is a value judgement associated with the depth of a woman's vagina. Go ahead and explain just what that is.

 

[Pecker]

I've moved the thread to Et Cetera, Et Cetera for further discussion.

 

[B_JasonDawgxxx]

Am I the only one that saw this as a fight over a penis? lol

 

[Mem]

Couldn't you have spared us? Shouldn't it had been locked when he was banned?