Helluva,
Incidentally, I’m not pissed in any way over the debate. Hell, it’s your freedom to speak your mind. And it’s only natural that there will be debating.
We’re either talking about techniques, application of techniques, or statistics and how they apply, etc., ect., so it’s only natural that there will be differences of opinion on the site.
As I said, I had no problem with it and was not offended in any way, even if the point-counter-point seemed contentious to readers. I, personally, like to read threads where there is vigorous debating. Those hold the most interest for me, outside of technique threads.
You just have to catch them before they get text-book length, then just read the latest installment. I really like the ” The debate ends as to visual turn on” thread, right now. Good reading, and since it’s opinion-based (which will obviously vary from person to person) it’s going to give insight into different peoples points of view.
In closing, feel free to disagree with me any time. I’m not thin-skinned. And if I’m wrong, I’m willing to admit that.
BustedBus,
Where the hell were you when the debate was raging at it’s most serious? :) And always feel free to post when you’re going to agree with me (just b.s.’ing).
But, no, I didn’t notice that penis size was about 9% on average of a man’s height (in that study anyway). But, as i was saying (which you obviously noticed) there isn’t a gene that determines this, that’s just the percentage that it is (on AVERAGE, in THAT study).
And since there is no gene to determine this, the PERCENTAGE will be smaller in less well-endowed males, and a larger PERCENTAGE in more well-endowed males.
And before controversy is rekindled, there isn’t a gene that determines the percentage. The percentage of the whole is determined by ancestry. :)