For the guys

[ahinton]

i have ordered the product solilquy has mentioned

More fool you. Does this mean that you hope soon to be able to change you forum ID to "imlonger"? (like any of us cares...)

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

i think you should make some coffee, alistair.  you were on at 2:45 am when i left pf and here before i arrived.  but, tea tastes better - so go for it.  ok.  what questions in particular are you referring to?

[ahinton]

i think you should make some coffee, alistair.  you were on at 2:45 am when i left pf and here before i arrived.

I suspect (although I cannot be sure) that it's because I may have a permanent connection.

but, tea tastes better

Not really - it tastes different.

- so go for it.

I did, thanks.

ok.  what questions in particular are you referring to?

The five in message #38 in this thread (q.v.).

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

i already explained that alistair, mon cher - because men fudge numbers.  there's some kind of innate desire to appear larger than life.  although, i agree, it's not really my place to take your shoe or guess on size.  perhaps you have never measured.  perhaps you do not want to scare women away.  (even if you do measure in centimeters).  perhaps you measure in meters.  how should i know?  the picture thread only reveals the top half of you.  you probably don't wear tight jeans either. 

all i'm saying is that men seem rather casual about figures.  'hey, lets round it off by 5 inches.'  as though that makes a woman really desire them.  frankly, if i was single and found out a man had a 12" you know what - i'd excuse myself and cough 10 times.  i mean - it's probably like a frail fragile man meeting a woman with giant breasts.  you're afraid of the potential fraught dangers.

[ahinton]

i already explained that alistair, mon cher - because men fudge numbers.  there's some kind of innate desire to appear larger than life.  although, i agree, it's not really my place to take your shoe or guess on size.  perhaps you have never measured.  perhaps you do not want to scare women away.  (even if you do measure in centimeters).  perhaps you measure in yards.  how should i know.  the picture thread only reveals the top half of you.  you probably don't wear tight jeans either. 

all i'm saying is that men seem rather casual about figures.  'hey, lets round it off by 5 inches.'  as though that makes a woman really desire them.  frankly, if i was single and found out a man had a 12" you know what - i'd excuse myself and cough 10 times.  i mean - it's probably like a frail fragile man meeting a woman with giant breasts.  you're afraid of the potential fraught dangers.

These ones:

 Re: For the guys
« Reply #38 on: Today at 01:27:43 PM »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: pianistimo on Today at 12:58:30 PM
if i recall alistair, you have been more forward in revealing what you think about size and how that can be remedied and spoken in much more detail.

IF you recall, yes - but what do you recall? Where have I written anything about any of that? It's news to me!


Quote from: pianistimo on Today at 12:58:30 PM
i am merely stating what is obvious.  my husband has about a size 13 foot - so you can guess if you divide by two.

I can guess what in particular?


Quote from: pianistimo on Today at 12:58:30 PM
icannot reveal anymore.  it is too personal.  anyways - he could be a model or something - but i won't let him.  people pay for bodies like his - all i had to do was marry him. 

Does he want to be one, though? I ask that only because you say that you"won't let him"...


Quote from: pianistimo on Today at 12:58:30 PM
so alistair - painful or not - you need to get measured.

For what purpose?


Ah, well - never mind...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

ok.  question number one.  recall.  i do not recall anymroes.  it is my disctinct priviledge to be part of that group that can get away with the 'no recall.'

[ahinton]

ok.  question number one.  recall.  i do not recall anymroes.  it is my disctinct priviledge to be part of that group that can get away with the 'no recall.'

In other words, "if you don't expect to get the answer, it'll be a waste of time asking the question"...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

well, i gave it earlier - but apparrently you were busy drinking the second cup of tea.  then, i thought - 'wait a minute - you're tricking me.' you are making me divulge more personal information just so you can say that it is my habit to give out personal information.  so, i duly took back the words and remain respectably mute.   

my daughter always tells me to get off pianoforum and do something else.  apparrently she is the same mindset as most sane people and figures the more one talks, the more chances of some kind of fallability in what one says.  yes.  she is the smart one in the family.

[soliloquy]

I doubt it Susan.  I don't think anyone wants to know what size penis your husband has.  Also, that whole "divide your shoe-size in half" thing doesn't work


And neither does the hand length thing.  If that were true then Hamelin must have the biggest dong in the world, but look at the woman he married.  He could have anyone with that thing :O

[pianistimo]

are you saying he has no proportion?  a rare breed.  very long fingers and possibly whatever else?  and small feet?  i'm confused.  let me measure my husband tonight and fill you in (on proportion not size).  i mean there must be some kind of formula to figuring this out.  there are 7 head lengths in one body right?  isn't there some kind of proportion that da vinci worked out.  must return to the plans.  perhaps he is a freak.  although he looks like a nice one.

when did he get married?  i never knew he was married.  she looks nice, too.  a singer, no doubt?  smart move on his part.  beatiful lady AND dress.  sort of cleopatraish.

[jlh]

Multiply, multiply my dear fellow.  Mine is something more like Shoe/.5="it"   And I wear 14s...   

RnB

14/.5=28.  What units of measurement are you using?

No, dividing is correct here... I wear 13's, so Shoe/1.5="it" (in inches).

[pianistimo]

another freak.  *sorry.  i guess maybe there's no rhythme or reason to a person's proportion.  and here, i thought there was.

[rach n bach]

14/.5=28.  What units of measurement are you using?

No, dividing is correct here... I wear 13's, so Shoe/1.5="it" (in inches).

Come on people... the whole thread is a joke... and all guys lie about thier length... so I figure, if you're going to streach it, why not really over do it.  (And yes, I did know that would be the answer, that's why I posted it.  It's just taken a little while for people to figure it out...)   

RnB

[jlh]

Come on people... the whole thread is a joke... and all guys lie about thier length... so I figure, if you're going to streach it, why not really over do it.  (And yes, I did know that would be the answer, that's why I posted it.  It's just taken a little while for people to figure it out...)   

RnB

HAHA I was just trying to find out if you were talking about millimeters or what... obviously this is all just for fun... you think I'd disclose my ACTUAL size?  What would the point of that be?

[rach n bach]

Phew... that was getting scarry for a second there.

[ahinton]

well, i gave it earlier - but apparrently you were busy drinking the second cup of tea.

You didn't, actually...

then, i thought - 'wait a minute - you're tricking me.' you are making me divulge more personal information just so you can say that it is my habit to give out personal information.

You really must be joking. I don't really care how much personal information you divulge if you choose to do so, even if I would not recommend that much revelation(sorry!) myself, but please do understand that I have never encouraged you to divulge any personal information at all, either by trickery or by any other means.

so, i duly took back the words and remain respectably mute.   

Oh. You did?...

my daughter always tells me to get off pianoforum and do something else.  apparrently she is the same mindset as most sane people and figures the more one talks, the more chances of some kind of fallability in what one says.  yes.  she is the smart one in the family.

At least you can't blame me for the obvious intelligence of your daughter...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Whilst what I am about to write may not necessarily be deemed to be entirely relevant to the subject at hand (if people will pardon the expression), the only time I worry about my length is when I confront a piece that I have written and concern myself about relative proportions of individual sections within an overall framework wherein I feel obliged to consider the durations of its various sections along with the duration of the whole; whole pieces and sections therein mustn't be too long or too short.

That said, I am mindful that this thread is entitled "For the guys" and I do of course realise that the consideration that I've just mentioned is at least as relevant to female composers as it is to male ones...

Best,

Alistair

[soliloquy]

I'm only five



































Thousand

[mikey6]

Why is it that 90% of threads in the section turn into a posting war between Alistair and Susan?
There must be some sort of restraining  order that can prevent this happening!

[living_stradivarius]

Enough with the numbers, prove it with a picture!

[ahinton]

I'm only five



































Thousand

We're not talking about ages here.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Why is it that 90% of threads in the section turn into a posting war between Alistair and Susan?
There must be some sort of restraining  order that can prevent this happening!

But they don't. Methinks that you may be arithmetically challeneged (polite euphemism for "you can't count"). Of the 49 thread topics displayed on page 1 of this section, for example, I have contributed to only 29 and some of those only very infrequently; of those to which I have contributed, there are several to which I believe Susan has not contributed. Furthermore, not all of those threads to which both Susan and I have each contributed include material where one of us is responding to the other in any case.

I rather think that this reduces your "90%" very substantially.

Best,

Alistair

[counterpoint]

Enough with the numbers, prove it with a picture!

What a big cock 

[mikey6]

But they don't. Methinks that you may be arithmetically challeneged (polite euphemism for "you can't count"). Of the 49 thread topics displayed on page 1 of this section, for example, I have contributed to only 29 and some of those only very infrequently; of those to which I have contributed, there are several to which I believe Susan has not contributed. Furthermore, not all of those threads to which both Susan and I have each contributed include material where one of us is responding to the other in any case.

I rather think that this reduces your "90%" very substantially.

Best,

Alistair

I did say threads not posts, so when you've added that up let me know and I'll agree that perhaps 90% was a bit top sided. I did not intend for that to be taken literally, merely to show that it does happen quite frequently, especially when that none-too-debatable topic r*ligion shows up.

[ahinton]

I did say threads not posts, so when you've added that up let me know and I'll agree that perhaps 90% was a bit top sided. I did not intend for that to be taken literally, merely to show that it does happen quite frequently, especially when that none-too-debatable topic r*ligion shows up.

I know you did. That's why I made the remarks that I did about the number of threads in this section to which I have contributed nothing and the number to which I have contributed to which Susan has contributed nothing. I do not therefore have anything more to add - iether literally or in the sense of adding up anything to produce another statistic.

I am not concerned about Susan's religion beyond accepting that it is what she wants to follow and at the same time something with which I cannot bring myself to identify. I hope, nevertheless, that I have taken her to task over it only when she has either (a) made purportedly factual statements that are either plain wrong or unproveable or (b) introduced specific religion-oriented material - sometimes to a wholly disproportionate extent - into threads that are not on religious topics - and I do not believe that I've been the only forum member to do that.

Best,

Alistair

[rach n bach]

OK, so let's forget about the posting war...

WHY DO GOOD THREADS ALWAYS GO OFF TRACK???

Just wondering.

RnB

[rc]

I don't know how I measure up, can't say I've seen many wangs...  But I do know you get a different number depending on where you start the tape measure.  In one sense size does matter, girls always have a predisposition for the taller guys...  In another sense, by the time she's in a position to find out (), what does it matter?

I used to work with one guy who was always going off about the size of his penis...  It always seemed to me like he was trying to convince himself he didn't have baby-dink.

Anyways, mine's impossibly enormous.

WHY DO GOOD THREADS ALWAYS GO OFF TRACK???

Just wondering.

RnB

That's how conversation differs from writing an essay.

[pianistimo]

dear alistair,  sorry to start the war again - but when was i ever plain wrong? 

ok. size is the least of the problems.  as i see it - make it work right.  this takes skill. 

[ahinton]

dear alistair,  sorry to start the war again - but when was i ever plain wrong?

No, please don't let's start any wars: I am no warrior by nature and the subject matter here is not one upon which any warlike response is warranted in any case. For an example, I believe that you were "plain wrong" when you were writing about the world being of a mere 6,000 or so years' vintage and that, at this point, it was covered in water up to a height at least 5½ miles about current sea level (in the sense that the earth was, as you put it, "entirely covered by water", therefore its highest land point as we now understand it - i.e. the summit of Everest - was so covered). Since you ask...

ok. size is the least of the problems.  as i see it - make it work right.  this takes skill. 

Here you make much more sense; it seems obvious also to me that developed functionality, activity and sensitivity are more relevant and significant issues than those of mere length and/or or girth...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

dear alistair, 

i did not just pull figures from a hat.  ok.  take the current population and divide it down by thousands of years and you come exactly to about the aforementioned by population studies alone.  then, consider dna stuff - where they trace everyone back to one mother (and father btw - because how could one mother alone start the whole thing?)

not to mention - how did SALT water lakes with FISH get stuck way up high on mountains in china and alaska and other places?  and, don't say 'birds brought them there.'  then there is the issue of actual mollusks, etc. being fossilized and found at very high altitudes.

i would not be so bold as to make the claim 'this is wrong.'  for one thing - nobody is old enough to know.  if you were 6,000 years old - i would believe you.  just because some thing LOOKS older than it is doesn't mean it is.  take adam for instance.  he was made an adult.  why didn't God make him a baby.  well - it's obvioius.  no mother around to change his nappies and God is smart enough not to make Himself do that.  although, he puts up with other messes.

now, where were we?  blush.  the bible doesn't say a terrible lot about things of this nature.  i vaguely remember something in the proverbs telling a young man to stay on one side or other of the street and not look at the hookers.  something like 'young man - this will get you nowhere.'  or, 'in the end, there is poison in her lips.'  don't quote me.

[ahinton]

dear alistair, 

i did not just pull figures from a hat.

I never said that you did - nor would I have done, since I am not aware that you possess a hat with 6,000 figures in it...

ok.  take the current population and divide it down by thousands of years and you come exactly to about the aforementioned by population studies alone.

We've gotten into that language problem again, it seems. "Take the current population" - by which, if you mean the world's current population of humans, is indicative that you suggest "taking" just over 6 billion - "and divide it down by thousands of years" - what does this mean? - apart from "dividing down" meaning nothing (either one divides something by something else or one doesn't - "up" or "down" adds no meaning to this action), you do not say by what number you suggest dividing that population figure or why you advocate doing this

not to mention - how did SALT water lakes with FISH get stuck way up high on mountains in china and alaska and other places?  and, don't say 'birds brought them there.'  then there is the issue of actual mollusks, etc. being fossilized and found at very high altitudes.

I cannot say for certain, but then you cannot say for certain that there remains evidence of past marine like on the summit of Everest, either.

i would not be so bold as to make the claim 'this is wrong.'

Yet you make the claim that the opposite "is right"; why and on what grounds? The argument here seems to be one of "Susan says that the earth weas created some 6,000 years ago and, at that time, its entire surface was covered in water" and this is "right" despsite heaps of scientific evidence being to the contrary and despite the existence of not one shred of evidence to support such an idea.

for one thing - nobody is old enough to know.  if you were 6,000 years old - i would believe you.

I'm not - but even if I were, why would you believe me just because I said so? Wouldn't you want also to seek corroborative scientific evidence?

just because some thing LOOKS older than it is doesn't mean it is.

No, Susan, that is as correct as I find it to be each time I accidentally look in the mirror...

take adam for instance.  he was made an adult.  why didn't God make him a baby.  well - it's obvioius.  no mother around to change his nappies and God is smart enough not to make Himself do that.  although, he puts up with other messes.

Sorry, but what nonsense is this?

now, where were we?  blush.  the bible doesn't say a terrible lot about things of this nature.  i vaguely remember something in the proverbs telling a young man to stay on one side or other of the street and not look at the hookers.  something like 'young man - this will get you nowhere.'  or, 'in the end, there is poison in her lips.'  don't quote me.

No, I wouldn't dream of quoting you when I don't even have the first idea what you're talking about, since I cannot perceive the connection between Biblical warnings about hookers, the developmental state in which Adam was supposedly born, the omnisicent and all-powerful God's prowess or otherwise at nappy-changing or any of the rest of it.

You know, Susan, there are times when I am tempted to begin to wonder whether you have pioneered a conceptual practice of expression that might best be termed "stream-of-unconsciousness"...

Best,

Alistair

[ada]

Bloody hell, do you realise you guys have spent the last FOUR DAYS  discussing penis size?

Pianistimo: You are suffering a fixation. You need to get out more. And no, we don't want to hear about the size of your husband's shlong. And I hope he appreciates it being broadcast around the world wide web.

Alistair: stop  responding. You are only encouraging her.

I was about to post my own thoughts on penis size based on my ahem extensive experience but on second thoughts I will not dignify this thread by continuing it.

 

[thalbergmad]

dear alistair,  sorry to start the war again - but when was i ever plain wrong? 

Do you want an actual figure or a guess.

Please do not start your Biblical ramblings dross again.

Thal

[rc]

hahah, if you had you way everyone would have a post count of 3, ada.

 

[pianistimo]

ada, when did i broadcast my husband's size.  i merely gave his shoe size.  according to many - it does not work to divide it in half.

[ahinton]

Bloody hell, do you realise you guys have spent the last FOUR DAYS  discussing penis size?

This guy hasn't...

Alistair: stop  responding. You are only encouraging her.

Do you mean that if I never responded, Susan would curtail her offerings?

I was about to post my own thoughts on penis size based on my ahem extensive experience but on second thoughts I will not dignify this thread by continuing it.

Speaking as one who has not given any such thoughts to this thread or elsewhere, I would say that it's up to you, of course, but if you were to divulge your ideas on the subject, it would at least be a change from "guys" doing it, would it not? That said, I do agree that such disucssion is pretty pointless (if you'll pardon the expression)...

Best,

Alistair

[alwaystheangel]

my mom always shows me her pinky and tells me that women are bad at measurements because men keep on telling women that that (the pinky*) is five inches.

lol I love my mother....

[ahinton]

my mom always shows me her pinky and tells me that women are bad at measurements because men keep on telling women that that (the pinky) is five inches.

lol I love my mother....

It is evidently not only Susan who sometimes "speaks in tongues", then...

Best,

Alistair

[alwaystheangel]

I think it makes perfect sense.  women are bad at measurements because men always exaggerate their penis size.

[ahinton]

I think it makes perfect sense.  women are bad at measurements because men always exaggerate their penis size.

Put this way, it certainly does make more sense in that one an understand what it is that you are suggesting; that said, how can it be that women's ability to measure anything can be influenced by something that you claim men "always" do (and which they don't "always" do in the first place)?

What a tiresome topic this is!

Best,

Alistair

[increpatio]

I suspect (although I cannot be sure) that it's because I may have a permanent connection.

Okay, when I read this scrolling down, the last word was on a separate line.  heh.

For the record, a sibling of mine works in cosmetics, and, they just look all fatty, like *huge* chubby fingers, when they insert fat.  Otherwise, they tend to cut some ligament, which only increases the size when it's flaccid and this, from what I imagine, means it no longer can point upright unassisted.  But I'm not sure about that.

[opus10no2]

Increpatio, is your name taken from the Alkan piece?

[increpatio]

Increpatio, is your name taken from the Alkan piece?

maaaaaaaaybe 

[opus10no2]

Or maybe you will use your powers as a rebuker to rebuke with lavish abandon.