Forum posts made by byronlord

What I love about the demotivational posters is that they have completely killed the originals. Only the most idiotic CEOs keep them on their walls these days, might as well have a Newton's cradle executive toy like from the 80s before they made the dirt cheap knock offs.

In a few years time people will be looking at them and thinking 'hey you could make motivational posters instead'.

There is a difference between typescript and printing.

In monospaced typewriter fonts it is usual to use a double space. But we stopped using fixed width fonts for almost all purposes decades ago.

Double spaces are never used in proper typography. In fact HTML will compress all multiple spaces to one unless you use the   entity.

The UN? I seriously doubt that. Besides with everyone that would be in the loop I don't think they could pull it off successfully.

But really the UN? Its the sort of conspiracy nonsense that almost always comes with 'donate here so that we can warn everyone' at the end of the message.

One of the things Ralph Reed and Jerry Falwell brought with them when they founded the Moral Majority was they moved the techniques conscience free pastors like Falwell used to prey on their viewer's wallets to the GOP.

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=17844

Please, no these UN conspiracy stories are really very silly. The UN is nothing more than a venue where governments meet and discuss their differences. There is no UN police force or military. All UN forces are in fact national forces carrying out tasks under a UN mandate.

Any UN mandate has to be agreed by the security council where the US, China and Russia all have vetoes. In the case of Syria, Russia has blocked all attempts to impose sanctions or authorize military force against the Assad regime. The issue is not simply propping up one of the few countries Russia can claim as being in its sphere of influence, if Syria falls it is likely that other dominoes in the Caspian sea region will follow. About half the remaining really shitty governments left are in that region.

If Russia was prepared to let Assad fall the whole crisis would have been over months ago.

Fictional: Lara Croft
Real Life: Angelina Jolie

Some form of socialism (the word is not an obscenity) has to be used as a fairer distribution 1 billion people in the world do not get enough to eat - never mind the means to have 2 cars in the famjly. So much for your individual freedom if you're born into a situation like that.

One important point is that the economic system suitable for one country may not be the best for another.

Western democracies have free market systems because we can afford them. Many countries can't. Trying to move to a free market system requires the country to be at a certain state of economic development first. Note the total failure of Bush administration attempts to intervene in the Iraqi economy. Iraq is simply not in a place where it can afford a free market.

The countries that navigated the transition from a communist system to a free market system in Eastern Europe were the ones that took the process slowly. Russia tried to move faster and the result is that there is no free market there because the whole political system was corrupted by the oligarchs.

A command economy is often necessary in war time. The UK would be part of Germany today if it had not brought the whole manufacturing sector under state direction. But the short term benefit comes at a long term cost.

Scialism has everything to do with Communism . Communisim is really a more radical form of socialisim. Modern socialist parties tend to believe in a strong, centralised, welfare state. Where socialism generally aims to have as many people as possible influence how the economy works, communism seeks to concentrate that number into a smaller amount.

Lumping them together makes as much sense as lumping the Republicans and the Democrats together. There is remarkably little difference between their platforms for all the screaming that the GOP does.

The real difference is ideology which is the belief in an absolute truth that explains everything. Communism and Libertarianism are both ideological, they claim to solve everything. So is Fascism. As Karl Popper pointed out, its the fact that the facts don't matter that is the cause of the problem, it is the absolutism with which the views are held, not the particular views.

Most of the time the 'socialist' parties and the conservative parties are both essentially pragmatic in outlook. But every so often one or the other goes off on an ideological binge like the UK labour party did in the 1970s-80s and the US Republican party is right now.

But right now there really aren't any socialist parties to speak of. Collective ownership of the means of production distribution and exchange simply isn't part of any mainstream party program in the developed world. Meanwhile every conservative party has to at least pay lip service to the idea of a welfare state. Note that at the last election the GOP attacked Obama for 'cutting Medicare' while demanding cuts in 'entitlements' (i.e. Medicare).

So there isn't really any call for a socialist party because it is a 200 year set of ideas and all the useful ones are accepted across the board and all the not-useful ones have been rejected. Collective ownership was meant as a means, not an end.

Of course look another 100 years into the future and maybe capitalism falls off the rails completely as capital is no longer a constrained resource and the cost of manufacturing comes down to essentially zero as does the need for labour input.

Computers and robots could easily destroy capitalism by eliminating scarcity. Once that goes there is no need to ration and economics itself loses its rationale. We are already starting to see that with the Web and with Open Source Software.

Certainly not because I needed the money so it wouldn't count. I turn down offers of legal work at a rather higher rate than top hookers get so I can't see the question occurring.

Saying, what if you needed the money results in a nonsense question, what if you needed the money so badly, etc. It depends on how you interpret the question.

And fallen men aren't quite in the same class as fallen women, are they?

exactly my point, so ill ask another question, in which country has socialism works? i guess in France works pretty good, but is it really socialism in there?

America, the UK. In fact much of what you now call capitalism is actually socialism. The socialist movement actually has rather little to do with Communism.

No seriously, socialism began in the industrial revolution with a guy called Robert Owen. He was the Bill Gates of his day. He is also known as the father of the factory system. Early on in the industrial revolution factory owners just put machines in a shed and tried to get agricultural laborers to work them 14 hours a day. Owen realized that people were actually more productive in a 10 hour day.

Until the second world war socialism was very skeptical of state control. The ideal was held to be a cooperative in which the workers owned the company. Then in the wake of the second world war the British government had to nationalize most of the remaining industry because it was on the verge of collapse due to the equipment having been worn out during war production. So the model changed rather.

But if you look at where we are now, capital is much less important in starting or running a company than it was in the 1800s when socialism began. So ownership is much less of an issue. Most of US industry is actually owned by most of the US people. There is a hug amount of inequality but the logic of worker share incentives is pretty much the same as the logic of cooperativism.

So for an idea that began over 200 years ago, it is not in bad shape. It is just that the actual goals of the original socialists are now met in very different ways. We have universal education and slavery is gone and the worst aspects of the factory system are long gone. We even have universal healthcare which the original socialists would not even have demanded as the doctors of the day tended to kill more patients than they cured.

But anyone who thinks that 'socialism' holds all the answers is as much a fool as anyone who thinks that Karl Marx or Ayn Rand or Rush Limbaugh has all the answers.

Not a problem at all.

And even if it was an issue, only an oaf would mention that it was.

After all, it will only ever be an issue once!

That's really sick.

No, suggesting that you wanted to see all the green parts disappear was the sick part.

I am merely forcing you to acknowledge what 'transfer' entails.

I'm looking forward to the green being eliminated completely from that map.

How?

You going to kill them all? Gas ovens?

How about 'Transfer', or ethnic cleansing as the war criminals on trial at the Hague called it.

Or are you proposing that Israel become a state in which everyone is equal in fact and not in the imagination? Abandon the apartheid declaration of a 'Jewish state' and make everyone equal citizens?

If you are proposing the first or the second then you are much worse than any suicide bomber terrorist. You are promoting a war crime. If you are proposing the last then you are on my side.

Removing the special privileges for Jews does not make the state weaker. Palestinians living in East Jerusalem can get building permits without the security of the state being affected. The state subsidies for building settlements on Palestinian land can be removed without the security of the state being affected.

All that is going to come to pass because it is inevitable. People who told me that apartheid would never end in South Africa were wrong and the people who think it can never end in Israel are wrong. End the apartheid and you end the main cause that is driving the conflict.

so... first thing i thought of when i read this, when i saw the maps, was... hey, reminds me of what we did, here in the US, to the Native-Americans. So, is everyone who doesn't have American Indian blood prepared to pack up and go back to Europe, or Asia, or Africa, Or South America, or where ever they originally came from? and really, most of THOSE countries have been over-run with immigrating invaders from other lands. Doesn't make it right, but it does kind of make for a whole lot of hypocrites if you're saying that the Israeli's should get the hell out of Israel and/or Palestine because the Palestinians were there first. Hell, if you want to go back to biblical times, the Israeli's could argue that the the jews got kicked out and THEIR land taken over ages ago.

The difference here is that the people who were dispossessed are still alive and the dispossessions are continuing.

This isn't some ancient history, this is a continuing process that the Israeli government announced it would continue only yesterday with the grab of E1 and building another 3000 houses on Palestinian land.

All you second amendment nuts who claim that you are the ultimate defense of liberty, well that is exactly what the Palestinians are up to. Call it terrorism if you like, but don't say that it is OK for white people and not if they are brownish.

There are groups that do try the non-violent protest route. The Israelis murder their leaders as well. So don't complain about there being no peaceful protest, Netanyahu and Lieberman are making sure that can't happen either.

The end game here will be that the likes of Netanyahu/Lieberman will eventually take a step too far, Europe will impose a blockade and the US won't be minded to help Israel break it. Support for Israel in Congress is a mile wide and an inch deep. It will exist only as long as it is see as being cost-free.

I do agree with you ByronLord that bigotry begets bigotry. But I also believe that it is people with philosophies like yours that get conquered and devoured.


My opponents certainly don't think so.

People like you thought that the only way to deal with the Soviet block was to cower in a bunker with a huge bomb and threaten to blow everyone up, us and then. There was no more cowardly action that Bush's decision to order the invasion of Iraq. Telling other people to risk their lives to make yours a fraction safer is cowardice.

People like you just can't imagine that it is even possible that the people living in an oppressive state will get rid of their governments. You are too scared of force and so you imagine everyone else must be like you.

Right now Israel is a side show, the important changes taking place are what is happening in Syria. The government there might be within a few weeks of losing Damascus. They have already lost Allepo.

tazznjazz said...

PS. Fox News isn't anymore slanted than MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC or NBC, just in another direction. If you can't see that then you are too prejudiced to think clearly.
Now start your whining...

Fox News presents intentional lies as fact. It is nothing like MSNBC or CNN or any other mainstream news source. Try Press TV or Pravda, that is the model.

The reason Romney thought he was going to win when all the polls said he was going to lose was that he relied on Fox and Fox lies. He also walked right into the trap set by Obama over reporting of the Benghazi incident. Fox had been attacking Obama for not condemning the attack as terrorist until two weeks afterwards. Romney made the mistake of believing the attacks made by O'Riely and co were true, they were not and Romney got his head blasted off by Obama "Go check the transcript" and then Crowley came in and stomped his balls while he was down.

Fox is not merely biased it is calculated untruth. The model they have is that their viewers are stupid people who will believe any lie they tell them. Whenever they are caught in a lie, Fox just attacks the truth as being 'communist' or whatever.

They think their viewer are fucking stupid idiots. And you know what, they are completely right.

No offense to all, but suddenly somehow "Arab" is a race? There are "Arabs" of all colors living in "Arab" nations, so how can "Arab" be a race? Calling it such, and calling sweeping generalizations about Arabic peoples "racism" does nothing but water down the meaning of the word, and obscure those acts and people that truly are racist.

My $0.02.

Racism is discrimination against people on the theory that they are a member of a particular race.

Whether or not Arabs are a race is irrelevant to whether discrimination against them is based on a racial theory.

Hitler's anti-semitism was racist. In fact he distinguished his 'scientific' anti-semitism from 'emotional' anti-semitism. That is why we now use 'anti-semitism' as the term rather than religious bigotry.

There is of course no scientific basis for the concept of 'race' at all. Homo Sapiens only evolved recently and there has not been time for much variation. The only basis for a difference turns out to be that it seems that Europeans interbred with Neanderthals. But the genetic difference seems to be fairly small.

Skin pigmentation does not constitute a 'race'.

So when people are pointing out that Netanyahu and Lieberman are racists they are pointing to the fact that their bigoted social view is that Jews are inherently superior and non-Jews should be second class citizens in Israel. That is the same bigotry that a Jessie Helms or a Strom Thurmond or a David Duke in the US held.

Bigotry begets bigotry.

Yesterday the Israeli governement announced that it would be appropriating yet more Palestinian owned land (without compensation) and use it to build houses that only Jews will be allowed to live in.

Now it will of course be wrong for people to go murder Israeli civilians over that in retaliation. And then the Israeli government that ignored the US government when it made the provocation will be all 'we are under attack, protect us'.

Israel is a bully that goes hits the Palestinians and then when it gets hit back cries to mommy for an Iron Dome to protect it.

The way that we ended the troubles in Northern Ireland was that from the start of the crisis we looked at the legitimate grievances of the Catholic population and tried to right them. We did not say 'stop the violence before we allow Catholics to work in the shipyards'. We started by making discrimination on religious grounds illegal.

Likud approach is becoming pathological. As the rest of the world was becoming united in their condemnation, Likud is insisted its remaining allies demonstrate its absolute loyalty. Turkey was an Israeli ally until just three years ago when Avigor Lieberman decided to humiliate the Turkish Ambassador just to show that he could.

At some point the Likud block will make a demand that is too great for the US and support will turn on a dime. There is precedent for that. Before the US entered WWI, German culture was a huge part of US culture. In fact the allies hoped that the US would stay out because they thought it would likely go in on the German side. That changed overnight with the Zimmerman telegram and within a few days hot dogs and beefburgers had replaced wieners and hamburgers and the beer halls became bars.

Excellent point.

Mine was attacked by the founders:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

And Israel killed 34 US servicemen in an unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

Both sides are using terrorism and if who started it matters, well the Irgun used terrorism to force the Palestinians out of Jaffa and the surrounding districts in the first place. Today we call that ethnic cleansing. The people who fled and their descendants are the refugees in Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere who demand the right of return.

Putting on a uniform of an army does not make a tactic any less terrorist. The US attack on Baghdad described by Rumsfeld as 'shock and awe' was terrorism.

People who think that war is an honorable profession are deluded fools. It is a necessary profession but what a soldier has agreed to do is to surrender their moral decisions to their superiors and kill other human beings for no other reason than that they were ordered to. All the flags and the bullshit are to hide the fact that the main purpose of the military is to go murder people when it is necessary.

Netanyahu is a terrorist, Abas is a terrorist, Hamas are terrorists, Lieberman is a terrorist. Calling people terrorists does nothing to solve the problem.

I regard anyone who talks about 'second amendment' solutions to political issues in the US to be a terrorist. What else are they talking about if not that they plan to use those guns to murder their opponents?

The Zionist side hates 'equivalence' just as it hates the use of the term 'apartheid'. They hate them because they are true.

For thirty years I lived with terrorism, my cousin was a target in at least one IRA attack. The IRA was largely funded by a US organization called NORAID. Rudy Giuliani was an avid supporter in New York and would never miss a fund rasier (usually as the named guest of honor) or the chance to praise Gerry Adams the head of the IRA. Nobody mentions that history when he appears on the telly as a 'terrorism' expert. He was a fund raiser for terrorists, but his own definition he was a terrorist.

Imagine for a moment that the US imposed a blockade on Cuba and refused to allow food, medicine, building materials, any manufactured goods in or out. Would the Cubans sending rockets still be an unjustified use of force?

The law of war counts a blockade as a use of force and thus a casus belli.

Picking sides in that dispute is a mugs game. The reason Hamas was sending the rockets was that Israel had mounted a drone attack which was in turn a response to the Israeli elections and other rockets which were in turn...

What nobody seems to appreciate is that for there to be peace the two groups of people have to get along. So the idea that Israel can be a 'Jews only' state is only going to mean more war. Jews are now a minority in the borders Israel asserts control over. Short of 'transfer' (Likud speak for genocide/ethnic cleansing) that minority position is only going to become more lop sided.

Without solid US support, Israel is completely finished. Israel had 9 votes against the motion, apart from the US, Israel and five US quasi-colonies, the only supporters of Israel were Canada and the Czech Republic. Take away US support and Israel stands alone.

Israel's position with US Jews is very age dependent. The over 60s tend to be obnoxious crazy Zionists. the under 40s are much more skeptical. They blame the Israeli settlers for the current situation at least as much as the Palestinians. US support for Israel is headed for an inevitable decline as the Holocaust guilt generation dies out. Take a look at support for AIPAC sponsored motions in Congress and note that they get a pretty much unanimous support from the gentiles but less than 50% from the Jewish members.

Zionism is increasingly an evangelical cause rather than a Jewish one. Furthermore the eschatology that supports evangelical Zionism kind of involves the destruction of Israel and not just the creation so support from that quarter is probably something Jews should be less keen on.

The declaration of a Palestinian state is in itself utterly irrelevant as neither side now wants one. Netanyahu and Lieberman want a Jewish only state and have no intention of ceding a square inch of 'Greater Israel'. As Netanyahu admitted in private, they only intend to keep kicking the can down the road. They have no interest in a peace treaty. Nor should they because Hamas has made clear that it will start an intifada to derail any process that is attempted.

Take a look at the record of Hamas and Likud and you will see that each has deliberately incited violence to derail each peace process. Sharon derailed the last serious attempt under Clinton by invading the Al Aksar Mosque with a bunch of fellow thugs. Hamas starts the suicide bombings and rockets when there is a risk of Hamas giving up the rights of the Palestinian people as a whole in return for the right to rule the Bantustan archipelago on offer as an 'independent state'.

It just can't go on like this. The whole idea of a Jewish state is inherently racist. It has led to an Apartheid system that is only partly democratic and becoming less so over time. It can stumble along for five years, maybe ten. But US support is only going to last as long as there is a plausible pretense being made and the Israeli right is increasingly uninterested in pretending.

The idea that my children should automatically have the right to Israeli citizenship is utterly preposterous. They have never lived there, nor has any of their parents or grandparents even visited. A state that insists that they have the right to citizenship but a person born in Jaffa who fled the terrorism of Shamir's Irgun does not is inherently racist and illegitimate.

Increasingly the demand is not for a separate Palestinian state but for equal rights for everyone within the borders. That is the end game. It may take ten years but it won't take more than thirty. If Egypt and Syria go the way of Turkey we could be looking at a situation in ten years time where Israel is no longer the only 'democratic' country in a sea of dictatorships and is instead seen as the only illegitimate, undemocratic state in the Eastern med. region.

(Sidenote: number of times "genes" are mentioned in On the Origin of Species = 0)

I haven't seen anything EP can answer that basic psychology can't, but I have seen it misused.

If you want to present something as scientific then do it in a scientific way. If you want to have a debate be prepared for people to disagree.

Well there really shouldn't be any incompatibility between EP and P as the idea of EP is that it describes how we arrived at P.

EP is not a pseudo-science. It is however a science that is based on a theory that is often used in highly unscientific ways. The same is true of economics, there is no doubt that economics is a science, or at least has been since Keynes started using computers (analog) to test hypotheses. But there is really no scientific basis for the claim that cutting taxes on billionaires who pay a 15% rate will increase revenues. Thats just an assertion by a bunch of cranks and charlatans that a lot of billionaires are willing to pay good money to promote.

If alpha males really did get all the women then we would only have alpha males. Experimental studies of chimps show that the alpha males are only slightly more successful.

The same is not true of (say) lions where the alpha male is top cat and gets all the females to the exclusion of all the other males until another male beats him in a fight.

I have been on the net long enough to remember when Timothy McVeigh used to make similar second amendment arguments. All about how guns protected people from tyranny etc.

Then he went and planted the Oklahoma City bomb and killed close to 200 people.

The problem is the Timothy McVeighs, they may be 1% of second amendment fans but thats enough.

Gun violence in the US is over 100 times that in the UK.

Oh my! Can't you boys just 'waffle on.' Go make dinner for your women and put the god-darn wheelie bins out.

Right after you fetch me a sandwich.

I did read the whole thread - I was referred to in a number of the posts. The rest read like any number of similar "why do nice guys finish last" threads on this forum.


Since CrazyD. picked up on it, I will reply to this bait.

Actually the issue isn't so much not being able to pull women but the fact that so many women seem to be emotional wrecks that careen from one asshole to the next.

Pulling such women is pretty easy if you are prepared to either put in the time and effort on them as an emotional 'fixer-upper' or to become another entry in their string of ex-es.

And it really isn't just men who notice this. Those of us who actually listen to women (even fewer than the opposite sex imagine) know that they spend an incredible amount of their time invested in their friends' emotional rollercoaster lives. They can see this happening in so many of their friend's lives that they completely fail to spot that it is happening in their own.

I don't believe this is entirely true. I don't believe for example that Brad Pitt is considered more attractive than Jay Leno simply because culture imposes it. I believe that we unconciously respond to symetry and certain shapes in facial features - we unconciously see as beauty. Of course there are so many personal preferences and variables. But i believe our genes have a definition of beauty that is not defined by culture. (that superior gene theory again comes into play - and the peacock plumege). I can't say I'm 100% sure though.

I think you have it backwards there. Jay Leno would beat out Brad Pitt by a mile with most women. I can't think of any reason I would have to talk to Pitt, I can't even remember which films he was in and I am pretty sure most women don't either. In fact I don't think I could even pick him out from a room full of people.

Jay Leno on the other hand, of course everyone wants to be in his group because he is funny. And he is expected to be funny 24 hours a day. So when it comes to a party its going to be Jay who has the line of women wanting to talk to him. And like fools throughout history he has license to break social conventions such as not talking about sex.

So no, Jay would be in bed with as many girls as he had the stamina for while Brad was still munching on his canape's trying to get to first base. There are some aspects of physical beauty that are probably innate. Symmetry is a good indicator of health, so is the ratio of a woman's waist to her hips. But preference for thin or fat is very culturally based - remember baby got back?

The basic tenet of evolution is survival of the fittest or, those that compete best, win. Those that compete do better than those that don't - it's not a tricky concept


Actually it is random variation plus natural selection. Something a lot of biologists rather miss.

Also what propagate are genes rather than species. And each gene has multiple effects.

What a lot of these mechanistic approaches overlook is that most people are not alpha males or females. Yet they seem to do more than ok at procreation.

Studies of chimps show that the dominant male does not actually get more than his fair share of the sex. The non-alpha males just wait till the alpha is out of sight to make their move.

Also, note how many women round here complain that their husband is crap in bed. There is maybe an assumption that men who try very hard to get sex will have practiced a lot and be good at it.

i usually carry a measuring cup with me - any less then a full cup of sperm and there's no second date. :)

Umm, must be tricky for the girls...

Actually the volume of sperm changes according to the number of prospective mates in the environment. If there is only one desirable female she gets the full load. But if there are two the male will reserve about a third on the offchance of nailing the other one. (scientifically tested that!)

Now if the folk who make viagra (which I have no need for yet) would only make something that would increase the number of squirts (potentially a boon to every male over 25).

Should have mentioned that one effect of the 'men do all the work' convention is that often times it is only the aggressive guys who win them through sheer persistence.

For example the girl who tells every guy she meets that she just wants to be friends, nothing more when what she is really after is a mate.

There are women who make themselves very high maintenance and the nice guys run away fast.

Umm, I am pretty sure that you can't generalize to that extent about 'women'.

The works of evolutionary psychologists have to be read with some skepticism as many of them really don't understand evolution very well. The whole point of evolution is that the process is driven by random changes. When someone is writing that characteristic X is *designed* to do Y then they are missing the point. I find a lot of their stuff rather too mechanistic and finding explanations for rather too many details.

The reason we have an appendix is that a distant ancestor had a need for one and it seems that the coding to create it does not turn off very easy. So even though there is a clear advantage to not having a useless appendage that can kill you, we still have them.

Guys chase 'hot' girls, girls chase 'hot' guys. What is hot is of course a matter of personal preference but there are cultural norms that make certain people more in demand than others. And people who are in demand often turn out to be assholes about it.

One of our cultural norms is that the men do the chasing and the women select. And some of them get rather better at put downs than anything else. So they narrow the pool of prospective mates to the 'hot' guys and end up with the type of guy who is very skilled at finding mates and continues to practice that skill...

But there is also a difference between partner selection and selecting for a hookup. The reason 'pickup artists' are successful is rather simple and obvious. Given 100 women in a night club, at least 10 are looking for casual sex without strings attached. Men who go dressed up like peacocks identify themselves as someone interested in the same. Selecting someone who is obviously a jerk has an advantage if you are planning to dump them from the start.

Guns dont kill people.! Just sayin.
Bullets kill people, your point?

Obamacare is not a single system. It is a response to the fact that the employment based health insurance system has collapsed.

The major factor in the bankruptcy of GM was the obligations to the healthcare fund for retirees.

If you have employment based healthcare then nothing changes for you except that you don't have to worry about losing your healthcare if you lose your job. We lost health coverage 3 days after my wife was laid off. That required my employer to change my contract so that I could be insured under their policy.

Anyone who thinks that the US health care system was working before must have had a lobotomy too many.

I like the poem. Nevertheless, I think each woman can speak to what they prefer in the dick department, no? As stated earlier, preferences are honest and real, and if we can drop the bullshit that it doesn't matter, or that it's only polite for men to state preference in women, then we'll have come a long way. :)

Oh you can state a preference .

Just don't say that my prick is anything less than awesome.

Now the only girl that I know ever expressed a preference to me was actually worried about too big rather than too small but given what I was about to do to her I could see her point.

Fortunately she did not complain (too much) when she saw mine.