About post number 309 you announced you had lost interest in your own thread because there had been only two or three “men of science and penis elargement” amoung the 144,000 members of Thunder’s forum that had bothered to answer your theses about PE. The rest were bumpkins of one kind or another…not willing to supply you proof of why you should continue in PE. What arrogance.
Since then, there is no doubt about the popularity or consternation about the thread. Yours has produced nearly 6000 views and nearly 400 replies to date and, in some ways, you have turned Thunders on its ear —with bravado and a young person’s elan thought by some respondents, guardedly, as admirable. Others have felt that you have simply made it impossible to withdraw the sword from the stone, so to speak.
Not I. About 309, I lost interest in your thread and you, despite knowing you have good command of language, have respect for facts and obvious abilities in research. Not in the forum apparently, however. Probably because of your low regard for anecdotal information from community and individual demonstration. If you are ever to be a doctor how can that be? (Maybe you could and should write a better PDR rather than ever having to refer to it when hearing patients, anecdotal complaints.) But as to research on the webb, I and many in Thunders have looked at and read some of the studies uncovered in your thread, before you came along, and have rejected them out of hand because of their fragile connection to PE, (ligament stretching in cadavers), lack of complete protocal information given,(in pumping studies, was the hg just enough to produce an erection and then sustained at that level for the period or at a specified, higher vacuum for the period? My guess would be that the good doctors would not raise hg very high or could be sued. But how high?) Some of it so arcane as to be unintelligible. etc.,etc. My furtive attempt to find good research on PE has been frustrating because not much really exists out there yet that applies to PE very well. Must be the frustration lawyers experience searching through CCH for case law and finding none applies to their case. It’s like chasing rabbits.
So, J D, why cannot we be more internal, more self reliant, more investigative from within. It would be more useful and a definite improvement to PE knowledge…BUT…But you would have to rely somewhat on the anecdotal and what has been demonstrated here by common knowledge. Penis science is not rocket science (though with Fruedian allusion lol) so can be simplistic enough for most to understand and benefit.
If you have time and I have not pissed you off too badly, I ask that you read Post#11 of xtendedick’s thread, “Cylinder Size-Pumping for Length” where I would like to complete the math and show why” Pumping” is not and has never been the best choice for increasing length and probably was not a good choice subject to start your thread!
It is late. I will continue tomorrow.