Apology from Richard Dawkins (Yes Really).

[maiforpeace]

But how to measure and from where?

I can fudge the length of my cock by nearly .75 inches depending on how I measure.

A grain of sand, a grain of wheat, a lentil, a petit pois, a mushy pea...

[Pappa]

But how to measure and from where?

I can fudge the length of my cock by nearly .75 inches depending on how I measure.

Always from the top.... or it's cheating.

[charlou]

^

Some chicks have really small clits. Nothing 'wrong' with it - not like having a really small cock (I mean like 2 inches long erect ), but it does make eating them out a big more of a challenge. Especially when they're the type who get off on direct stimulation, not just rubbing & licking the hood and general area. You might try sucking pussy while licking, that works magic for some.

Coupling it with fingering the anus works like a demon for some

[Blondie]

^

Some chicks have really small clits. Nothing 'wrong' with it - not like having a really small cock (I mean like 2 inches long erect ), but it does make eating them out a big more of a challenge. Especially when they're the type who get off on direct stimulation, not just rubbing & licking the hood and general area. You might try sucking pussy while licking, that works magic for some.

Coupling it with fingering the anus works like a demon for some

Mmm.. talk dirty to me.

[Mysturji]

What was this thread about again?

Clit size. Haven't you been paying attention?

That reminds me... Where's that clitoris creationist that someone said they were going to invite?

[anthonzi]

Last I heard he is getting raped by Thunderf00t et al.

[Cunt]

What was this thread about again?

Clit size. Haven't you been paying attention?

That reminds me... Where's that clitoris creationist that someone said they were going to invite?

On my mobile, it didn't show 'strikethrough', so the meaning was a bit different.

[lordpasternack]

I just thought I'd note that it's quite fascinating reading this with the wonderful gift of the knowledge of what has since transpired.

Not just the lawsuit, mind you - but the fact that the traffic trend on RD.net still hasn't recovered, and is still slipping more than inclining overall. And the fact that Richard never has and likely never will address the question of parts of the forum being deemed potentially dangerous to the foundation - and why he never bothered to get on the backs of the forum staff about any of such "serious" qualms prior to the decision to dissolve the forum. And he probably never will address it because it's total fluff, plucked conveniently from a crevice of either his own body or someone giving him PR advice (Joshy woshy?), as a suitable rationalisation to beat all rationalisations. Or at least it would have been if we had just an ever-so-slightly lower collective IQ than we do...

Ah well...

[anthonzi]

Let me remind you LP that Dawk hired that new Corporate CEO dude not long before forumgate. Wouldn't necessarily pin that decision and rationale on Josh w/o more evidence.

[lordpasternack]

Anthonzi - I didn't pin any part of the decision to dissolve the forum on Josh, at any point.

I simply speculated that he might have been one to suggest putting the PR spin on it, of there being objectionable things on the forum that clearly needed dealt with particularly by way of the very exciting new site - rather than actually telling any of the forum staff that there was felt to be an issue in the first place, or changing the way the forum itself worked or something. (Indeed some of the ex-forum staff were a bit taken aback by this vague accusation of them not doing their jobs properly, and never having been consulted…) And if there was an issue, Richard didn't in the end seem too fussed about having someone scrape through some of the circa two million posts that have been left up in the archive, for that nasty, nasty stuff.

And frankly, Richard, and probably all on the rest of those in on the decision to dissolve the forum knew virtually shit all about the wider forum in the first place. They might have had a valid, reasoned rationale for why they went ahead with their actions - but that particular rationale simply couldn't have been it.

[charlou]

I've split off the mobile phone discussion: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 75&t=19503

[lordpasternack]

I've split off the mobile phone discussion: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 75&t=19503

Good thinking, Charlou.