How tall are you?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-06-18 01:27am

5'10"

Fear my average wrath!

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-18 01:34am

Zaia wrote: Yeah, I wish I was quite a bit shorter. Being tall isn't usually the most womanly trait in the eyes of a lot of men...

On the other hand we have one of my best friends who is 17, male and just 5'3". Most people think he's twelve or so.

Post by **Zaia** » 2003-06-18 01:37am

Howedar wrote:There's nothing wrong with tall chicks, so long as they aren't taller than the guy. That would really feel wrong to me.

Color me sexist.

Yeah, well, the guy I'm currently in love with is two inches shorter than I am, and a lot of people see that as being "wrong" just like you. I can't help that the man I wish I could spend the rest of my life with is 5'7" and I'm 5'9". Does it really matter?

On a related note, sure, RedImperator, you can have two of my inches. Then I'd be the same height as Brian and then people like Howedar wouldn't look at me like I was a freak.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-18 01:42am

Its not wrong. I'm just saying that it would bother me as that 5'7" guy. It would feel wrong to me. Thats what I said.
And I don't look at you as a freak. Did you even read what I posted?

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-06-18 01:46am

6'2", maybe 6'3".

~ver

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2003-06-18 01:47am

5'1"

Ph34r

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-06-18 01:49am

Jesus mythical christ...he is a Gnome...

Post by **Zaia** » 2003-06-18 01:50am

Howedar wrote:Its not wrong. I'm just saying that it would bother me as that 5'7" guy. It would feel wrong to me. Thats what I said.
And I don't look at you as a freak. Did you even read what I posted?

Did I read what you posted? Of course I did, but did you? I reread what you wrote and I stand by what I said. The words, "There's nothing wrong with tall chicks, so long as they aren't taller than the guy. That would really feel wrong to me," do not refer to YOU specifically; they refer to men in general.

"Tall chicks" ---> generalization
"The guy"---> also a generalization

Nowhere did you say that YOU would feel uncomfortable in that position. You made it sound like it would feel wrong to look upon that. Hence I took offence.

If you meant only you and not men of the world, you should have been more selective with your wording, because what I stated before is most certainly how your statement came (and still comes) across to me.

Bug-Eyed Earl · Post by **Bug-Eyed Earl** » 2003-06-18 01:51am

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:5'1"

Ph34r

LET'S GO DWARF TOSSING!!

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-06-18 01:52am

Raxmei · Post by **Raxmei** » 2003-06-18 01:52am

Sea Skimmer wrote:Forward my Liberian legions! SEIZE THE METRIC SYSTEM USING SCUM!

Hah! I laugh at your system of weight and measures.

*watches Liberians run out of gas 2/3 the way here because they confused US and Imperial gallons*

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-18 01:54am

6'3" in the evening, 6'4" in the morning.

Damaramu · Post by **Damaramu** » 2003-06-18 01:54am

6'0"....or roundabouts.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-18 01:57am

Zaia wrote:Did I read what you posted? Of course I did, but did you? I reread what you wrote and I stand by what I said. The words, "There's nothing wrong with tall chicks, so long as they aren't taller than the guy. That would really feel wrong to me," do not refer to YOU specifically; they refer to men in general.

I thought "to me" was fairly unambiguous. If I was trying to say that tall women were freaks, I'd just say "tall women are freaks". I wouldn't prance about with all of these semantic complications.

"Tall chicks" ---> generalization
"The guy"---> also a generalization

"to me"---> not a generalization.

Nowhere did you say that YOU would feel uncomfortable in that position. You made it sound like it would feel wrong to look upon that. Hence I took offence.

You must take offense alot, given that you become upset at someone without any clarification, let alone discussion.

If you meant only you and not men of the world, you should have been more selective with your wording, because what I stated before is most certainly how your statement came (and still comes) across to me.

Thats too bad. Perhaps if you're not sure next time, you should ask.

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-06-18 01:59am

Howedar, you said, "As long as the girl isn't taller than the guy." Though the sentence FOLLOWING is not a generalization, this sentence IS. THAT is what Zaia is trying to get at.

~ver

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-06-18 02:01am

I'm exactly 6 foot.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-18 02:04am

verilon wrote:Howedar, you said, "As long as the girl isn't taller than the guy." Though the sentence FOLLOWING is not a generalization, this sentence IS. THAT is what Zaia is trying to get at.

~ver

If we want to mince words and split my sentances apart, I also said "There's nothing wrong with tall chicks". That is the only part that refers specifically to the woman in question, while the other fragment refers to a relationship. At that point, the reader would presumably be clued in that I was saying that I personally would feel wierd in that circumstance. I admit that my wording could have been better.

Post by **Zaia** » 2003-06-18 02:22am

Howedar wrote:I thought "to me" was fairly unambiguous. If I was trying to say that tall women were freaks, I'd just say "tall women are freaks". I wouldn't prance about with all of these semantic complications.

Perhaps to you it was unambiguous, but the fact that it was following a statement which read, to me, like you looked upon shorter men paired with taller women as wrong made it sound like the "to me" part was about your reaction to said couples, not how you would feel in that position.

"to me"---> not a generalization.

I already addressed this, but I interpreted this in an entirely different manner than the way you intended it.

You must take offense alot, given that you become upset at someone without any clarification, let alone discussion.

I'm hardly upset, and you seemed to have stated your opinion on that matter quite clearly, to the point where there didn't appear to be any need to have it cleared up. I merely wanted to know why you thought what you did. Only in my questioning did we discover that you didn't mean what it sounded like you meant.

Thats too bad. Perhaps if you're not sure next time, you should ask.

I was sure, otherwise I would have asked. Like I already said, your wording didn't seem to leave any room for doubt in my mind. It seemed pretty clear to me that you thought of that as 'wrong,' so there was nothing for me to question, other than the motive behind your opinion.

I'm glad you don't look at couples like that as freaks, because it really only should concern the two people involved. If you are weirded out and uncomfortable being with a woman who's taller than you, that's entirely up to you. I can't help but react when I feel like I've been snubbed for two things I have absolutely no control over whatsoever: my height and the height of the guy I'm in love with. *shrugs*

Cal Wright · Post by **Cal Wright** » 2003-06-18 02:32am

11 inches. Around. Think about that one.

oh. you mean...uhm

6'2"

Jaded Masses · Post by **Jaded Masses** » 2003-06-18 02:43am

Cal Wright: LMAO!

Iam 5'9'' and still growing.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2003-06-18 03:07am

What the fuck is this x'y''

172cm above sea level

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-18 03:21am

Faram wrote:What the fuck is this x'y''

172cm above sea level

x = feet, y = inches

Amstrad · Post by **Amstrad** » 2003-06-18 03:28am

165cm and/or 5'5"

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-06-18 03:34am

Howedar wrote:Its not wrong. I'm just saying that it would bother me as that 5'7" guy. It would feel wrong to me. Thats what I said.
And I don't look at you as a freak. Did you even read what I posted?

I am also 5'7" tall. I wish I was a bit taller. Experience taught me being short makes people less attractive. Hopefully being 16 I would still be growing up.