# Jack-ass Dean Tyler

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [October 29, 2000, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856 "2000-10-29T23:51:38Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 16

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856/301 "2000-11-21T04:28:07Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler \*  
> \*\*\> NO!!! The burden of proof IS on you, you dork! \<
> 
> Nope it’s on you.\*\*

If you’re saying circumcision is bad, it’s up to you to prove it’s bad.

X thing is said for hundreds of years. A person comes and says “no, you’re wrong”. That person has to prove it.

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler_  
> **Why don’t you take a class in logic at your local community college, Mr. Ph.D. candidate?**

Why don’t you stop insulting the education of dopers who are more able to form cogent arguments?

Speaking of which, Jack . . . you’ve mentioned that you were at one point studying astrophysics at UCLA. Did you:

A. Graduate from UCLA with a degree in astrophysics  
B. Graduate from UCLA  
C. Go to UCLA?  
D. Take correspondence courses.  
E. Conduct research on the number of males who had foreskins and what effect, if any, this had on their sex lives and enjoyment of copulation?  
F. None of the above.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856/302 "2000-11-21T04:36:01Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> You have serious civil strife with your central government.

Less that 50% of the population of Quebec is seperatist. And it is, by no stretch of the imagination, a war. We had a referendum a few years ago, and another one a few years before that. For something to be called a war I expect at least minimal bloodshed.

Whether or not this is a nitpicky point, you’re not doing much for your credibility.

> [@](#):
>
> Quebec has never been circumcised. Canada has all but abandoned circumcision but you still have a lot of victims walking around.

Can I have a cite for this, please?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jack\_Dean\_Tyler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/46a35a/32.png) [@Jack\_Dean\_Tyler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Dean_Tyler)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856/303 "2000-11-21T05:59:04Z")

</div>

LaurAnge,

\> Can I have a cite for this, please?\<

Go to this site:  
[http://www.cirp.org/library/](http://www.cirp.org/library/)  
Click on the search engine.  
Type in the word “Quebec” and you will be able to read several articles complete with tables and verifiable data.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![zenith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e19b73/32.png) [@zenith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zenith)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856/304 "2000-11-21T07:46:48Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler \*  
> \*\*zenith,
> 
> \> Every circumcised man I have ever known intimately had erotic sensitivity on all parts of their penis. You have give NO proof that ther is a loss. If the sensitivity is still there, how can you say ther is significant damage?\<
> 
> ```
> Well, men who have their foreskins restored, say that what is left after a circumcision is a lot of erotic sensitivity in the frenulum and some (very little usually) in the glans.
> 
> ```
> 
> \*\*

If circumcised men have sensitivity on all parts of their penis (something you failed to refute) and by your admission, men with their foreskins restored have very little sensitivity in their glans the obvious conclusion is that restoring the foreskin desensitizes the glans and one should therefore avoid restoration.

Jack knows so little about penises I’m begining to believe that he is one of those horrible casualties that are mentioned on his favorite site, you know, the babies whose doctor slips when doing the circumcision. :eek: I believe Jack’s anti-circumcision obsession comes from the fact that he has no dick! :eek:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![OpalCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8edcca/32.png) [@OpalCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OpalCat)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856/305 "2000-11-21T10:32:38Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler \*  
> \*\*LaurAnge,
> 
> \> Can I have a cite for this, please?\<
> 
> Go to this site:  
> [http://www.cirp.org/library/](http://www.cirp.org/library/)  
> Click on the search engine.  
> Type in the word “Quebec” and you will be able to read several articles complete with tables and verifiable data.  
> \*\*

Sorry, but that isn’t the way it works. If you bring up sometihng like that, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE THE CITE. That means YOU go to the site and do the search and post the url to the relevant data here yourself. Second, it’s already been proven that the [cirp.org](http://cirp.org) site is a bunch of biased hooey. You need a legitimate cite.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856/306 "2000-11-21T15:06:54Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler \*  
> \*\*LaurAnge,
> 
> \> Can I have a cite for this, please?\<
> 
> Go to this site:  
> [http://www.cirp.org/library/](http://www.cirp.org/library/)  
> Click on the search engine.  
> Type in the word “Quebec” and you will be able to read several articles complete with tables and verifiable data.  
> \*\*

STOP THE PRESSES!!! Congratulations, Jackass. This is the first time I’ve seen you give a relevant (though inaccurate) site upon request! What’s the matter, are you trying to impress that toy-boy looking over your shoulder?

Give it up, dickless. So far you’ve not impressed anybody with your “logic” that states nobody has ever done any research, yaddah yaddah yahhah…or, well, ANY of your claims. If anything, you’ve turned anti-circ individuals against your position because you’re such a flaming fucking retard.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856/307 "2000-11-21T15:49:00Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler \*  
> **Theoretically, there is no such a thing as right or wrong**

When we say someone is right, we mean “within human limitations.” It’s implied. No reasonable, rational person has EVER knowingly claimed that ANY human being knew EVERYTHING about ANYTHING. (Any reasonable, rational person who did so was in error.) But, in the interests of practicality, we forge ahead with what we DO know. If we waited until we had perfect knowledge before acting, we’d never do anything at all. This means there is some risk (perhaps tiny, perhaps great), in whatever we do, but that’s the way it is and no one can do anything about it. We can minimize risk, but we will never eliminate it entirely.

Now, even though we do not yet know everything there is to know about penises, what we DO know indicates that Freud did not know dick about dicks. And neither do you.

> [@](#):
>
> **South Korea is not only circumcised, South Korea has the very dubious distinction of being the circumcision capital of the world with a Circ rate of 95% of all men.**

Your evidence, please? And just why do they do it there? Are all the South Koreans (snicker, giggle) JEWISH?!?! BUH-WHAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856/308 "2000-11-21T15:53:07Z")

</div>

[QUOTE]  
\*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler \*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > **South Korea is not only circumcised, South Korea has the very dubious distinction of being the circumcision capital of the world with a Circ rate of 95% of all men.**
> 
> Your evidence, please? And just why do they do it there? Are all the South Koreans (snicker, giggle) JEWISH?!?! BUH-WHAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH! \*\*

As a matter of fact, I was in S. Korea last year during the High Holidays. I went into a synagogue on Rosh Hashana.  
After about 10 minutes talking to the rabbi, he finally asked me if I was Jewish.

“Yes I am,” I said.

“Funny,” he replied, "You don’t _look_ Jewish.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856/309 "2000-11-21T18:36:31Z")

</div>

wolf-

LMAO! Thanks for the laugh!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![astraeus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecb155/32.png) [@astraeus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astraeus)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856/310 "2000-11-21T19:11:56Z")

</div>

Amazing as it seems, Jack may actually not have his head quite so far up his ass as it seems.

Check out my latest post in this thread:

[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=45330](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=45330)

…in which I provide some (slight) evidence that Jack’s claim about South Korea may have been accurate, or close to it, even while I provide a huge piece of evidence that circumcision does have a potentially enormous health benefit.

-Matt

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856/311 "2000-11-21T19:39:43Z")

</div>

Congratulations **Jack** , you entirely missed the point I was making. I will try to make it clearer. **Even if** the quote you gave about women controlling 86% of personal wealth was correct, it **does not mean** that women **on average** have more wealth than men.

Do you understand why this is so? Do you see how it’s possible for a few women to control a great deal of wealth, just as one man named Bill controls a great deal of wealth, without necessarily implying that most women (or most men named Bill) have more wealth than most men (or than most men not named Bill)?

That is why even if your statistic is true, it does not imply a “contradiction” or a “dispute” of the article I linked to about US women on the whole earning less money and owning less wealth than US men. Because if you’re only looking at **total** personal wealth, a few extremely rich people can skew the data without providing any meaningful information about trends for the majority of the population.

**Jack** , if you still don’t understand this, for heaven’s sake just come out and admit it frankly, and I will do my best to explain it more clearly. Your tendency, on the other hand, seems to be simply to back off from complicated arguments (or ones that contradict your position) with a few contemptuous or disparaging remarks to hide your incomprehension or insecurity at being disagreed with. **Jack** , that’s the way to reveal yourself as an absolute poster child for incurable closedmindedness. Won’t you please try to be a little more honest with yourself and your opponents? You’ve seen several people here admit (however grudgingly) that you were right about something that they initially disbelieved you on. Can’t you be capable of doing the same?

[bart simpson]I will not be naive and optimistic. I will not be naive and optimistic. I will not be naive and optimistic…[/bart simpson]

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856/312 "2000-11-21T20:23:30Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> [bart simpson]I will not be naive and optimistic. I will not be naive and optimistic. I will not be naive and optimistic…[/bart simpson]

[edna krabappel] HA! [/edna]

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856/313 "2000-11-21T20:29:08Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by andros \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > [bart simpson]I will not be naive and optimistic. I will not be naive and optimistic. I will not be naive and optimistic…[/bart simpson]
> 
> [edna krabappel] HA! [/edna] \*\*

[Nelson Muntz] HA-ha![/Nelson Muntz]

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jack\_Dean\_Tyler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/46a35a/32.png) [@Jack\_Dean\_Tyler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Dean_Tyler)\
**Post date:** [November 22, 2000, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856/314 "2000-11-22T04:49:37Z")

</div>

Kimstu,

\> Congratulations Jack, you entirely missed the point I was making. I will try to make it clearer. Even if the quote you gave about women controlling 86% of personal wealth was correct, it does not mean that women on average have more wealth than men. \<

```
It depends what you mean by average. If women control 86% of all of the personal wealth in America, then that indicates that the MEAN wealth for men is much less than the mean wealth for women. The MEAN would be fine with you if it supported your dogma. However, now you wish to look at the MEDIAN or the MODE. You might have some luck here, but with a disparaging MEAN like that, odds are against you I would say.

```

\> Do you understand why this is so? Do you see how it’s possible for a few women to control a great deal of wealth, just as one man named Bill controls a great deal of wealth, without necessarily implying that most women (or most men named Bill) have more wealth than most men (or than most men not named Bill)? \<

```
As an aside, I would suggest that you not bring up incredibly rich MEN, because that only means that the average guy is poorer. See if you can find a rich woman to use as an example.

```

\> That is why even if your statistic is true, it does not imply a “contradiction” or a “dispute” of the article I linked to about US women on the whole earning less money and owning less wealth than US men. Because if you’re only looking at total personal wealth, a few extremely rich people can skew the data without providing any meaningful information about trends for the majority of the population. \<

```
Well, there's a whole lot of rich men and a whole lot of rich, beautiful widows (all thanks to circumcision, I might add). So?

```

\> Jack, if you still don’t understand this, for heaven’s sake just come out and admit it frankly, and I will do my best to explain it more clearly. \<

```
Oh, no, I do understand. I've been observing people and society for years. What I see is that society does make a different place for men and women. What I see is that an office-presentable woman can get up to a pretty good salary very quickly after high school. Any man out of high school is not worth all that much, though. I think that as men get into their thirties, they generally can start to approach how much a woman can make. I think that women get a lot of the money back, though, through death, divorce, and child-support. I think that women are far better able to be considered as office-presentable than men, so men go into more specialized skills that after years of experience allow them to become very valuable.

```

\>Your tendency, on the other hand, seems to be simply to back off from complicated arguments (or ones that contradict your position) with a few contemptuous or disparaging remarks to hide your incomprehension or insecurity at being disagreed with. \<

```
You know what this statement reminds me of: A column by the now deceased, Mike Royco (Sp?). He was talking about some math teacher who was a stripper. He was quoting some woman who said that men who go to strip bars to see someone like a math teacher naked are just insecure with strong women who might test them. Mike Royco said that the men just want to see "hooters."

```

\> that’s the way to reveal yourself as an absolute poster child for incurable close-mindedness. \<

```
I don't have to prove everything that I say. In this forum, that would be like feeding Fillet Mignon to a hound dog. It would be a waste. If I perceive that someone genuinely needs information, I'll help them.

```

\>Won’t you please try to be a little more honest with yourself and your opponents? \<

```
I'm being totally honest.

```

\>You’ve seen several people here admit (however grudgingly) that you were right about something that they initially disbelieved you on. Can’t you be capable of doing the same?\<

```
Of course, I'm capable of doing the same.
```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![zenith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e19b73/32.png) [@zenith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zenith)\
**Post date:** [November 22, 2000, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856/315 "2000-11-22T05:44:37Z")

</div>

[QUOTE]  
\*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler \*

```
Oh, no, I do understand. I've been observing people and society for years. What I see is that society does make a different place for men and women. What I see is that an office-presentable woman can get up to a pretty good salary very quickly after high school. Any man out of high school is not worth all that much, though. I think that as men get into their thirties, they generally can start to approach how much a woman can make. I think that women get a lot of the money back, though, through death, divorce, and child-support. I think that women are far better able to be considered as office-presentable than men, so men go into more specialized skills that after years of experience allow them to become very valuable. 

```

[QUOTE]

What a twisted, bitter little man you are, Jack. Statistics just don’t bear you out on this. Women just out of high school generally make either the same or less than their male counterparts. Getting a lot of money back through divorce only happens to women married to rich men. The average divorcee with children lives close to or below the poverty level. As far as getting rich off child support you are dreaming. Court ordered child support pays only part of what it costs to raise a child.The mother has to come up with the rest and all that money goes to the cost of raising the child NOT to making the mother rich.

[QUOTE]  
I don’t have to prove everything that I say. In this forum, that would be like feeding Fillet Mignon to a hound dog. It would be a waste. If I perceive that someone genuinely needs information, I’ll help them.

[QUOTE]

If you’re not trying to prove anything why do you keep arguing.

> [@](#):
>
> \>You’ve seen several people here admit (however grudgingly) that you were right about something that they initially disbelieved you on. Can’t you be capable of doing the same?\<
> 
> ```
> Of course, I'm capable of doing the same.
> 
> ```
> 
> \*\*

And yet you haven’t.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ENugent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/4af34b/32.png) [@ENugent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ENugent)\
**Post date:** [November 22, 2000, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856/316 "2000-11-22T05:47:29Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler \*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \*  
> > Congratulations Jack, you entirely missed the point I was making. I will try to make it clearer. Even if the quote you gave about women controlling 86% of personal wealth was correct, it does not mean that women on average have more wealth than men.
> 
> ```
> It depends what you mean by average. If women control 86% of all of the personal wealth in America, then that indicates that the MEAN wealth for men is much less than the mean wealth for women. The MEAN would be fine with you if it supported your dogma. However, now you wish to look at the MEDIAN or the MODE. You might have some luck here, but with a disparaging MEAN like that, odds are against you I would say. 
> 
> ```

Let me introduce one more quibble with both of you - the phrase was “control of” wealth, not “ownership of” wealth. One of the major reasons that women have more “control” over wealth is that women handle the finances in many married couples (I don’t recall the cite for this, but I will search for it if anyone cares). But that doesn’t mean that their control is unfettered; in all likelihood, any exercise of that control that their husbands seriously disliked would result in a change in how finances were handled for the couple.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\
**Post date:** [November 22, 2000, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856/317 "2000-11-22T13:21:06Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler \*  
> **Well, there’s a whole lot of rich men and a whole lot of rich, beautiful widows (all thanks to circumcision, I might add). So?**

Jacky-boy . . . for crying in the mud, haven’t you realized that we can and will call you on everything you say? Prove this. And no, none of us is going to accept anything from the cirp site.

Here’s why, Jacky-boy. If I were to say the Braves were the greatest baseball team ever, and I tried to use [http://atlantabraves.com](http://atlantabraves.com) as a site, that wouldn’t fly because it’s (obviously) a biased site. At the same time, if you’re trying to say circumcision is a bad thing, you’re not going to be able to use, as an unbiased site, an anti-circumcision site. Make sense?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler \*  
> **What I see is that an office-presentable woman can get up to a pretty good salary very quickly after high school. Any man out of high school is not worth all that much, though. I think that as men get into their thirties, they generally can start to approach how much a woman can make. I think that women get a lot of the money back, though, through death, divorce, and child-support. I think that women are far better able to be considered as office-presentable than men, so men go into more specialized skills that after years of experience allow them to become very valuable.**

All due respect (which is precious little), Jack, bullshit. And please show whence you derive this analysis. Is this more of your personal (and thus bullshit) research? Did you study a whole 22 people this time?

Maybe you also have a theory about how being circumcised results in a lower salary and you have crap - er, cirp sites to back you up on this one?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler \*  
> **I don’t have to prove everything that I say. In this forum, that would be like feeding Fillet Mignon to a hound dog. It would be a waste. If I perceive that someone genuinely needs information, I’ll help them.**

If I’m going to believe anyone in a debate on here about something they say, and I want to make sure they’re credible, hell yes I’m going to demand evidence. If you’re going to say something be damn well prepared to back it up, jack. Otherwise you’re no more than an re-incarnation of **phaedrus** , and that will win you less than no friends.

I’ve resigned myself to the fact that you don’t have enough time in the day to stick your head up your ass long enough to come up with responses to everything that’s posted for your consideration. However, please try to get a bigger asshole . . . the toll asphyxiation has taken on the crusty semen you call a brain is really quite evident, as are the scars from the squicking session with Bullet.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\
**Post date:** [November 22, 2000, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856/318 "2000-11-22T14:24:20Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by astraeus \*\*\*  
> …in which I provide some (slight) evidence that Jack’s claim about South Korea may have been accurate, or close to it_\*

Well, since I’m the one who disputed his claim, I’m also going to admit that he may be right about circumcision being a widespread practice in South Korea.

HOWEVER: It does not necessarily follow that this is the reason for the North-South Korean conflict. I **may** (giggle) be going out on a limb here, but I’m willing to bet it has **much** (snicker) more to do with the fact that North Korea is Communist and South Korea isn’t. It **also** may have something to do with the fact that North Korea invaded South Korea (with the help of the Chinese) about 50 years ago. (In case you can’t tell, **JDT** , I was being sarcastic.)

Which means the uncut guys started war on the cut ones, which blows **JDT** ’s theory that cut men are more aggressive right out of the fucking sky.

Your move, **JDT**.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\
**Post date:** [November 22, 2000, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856/319 "2000-11-22T15:21:40Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by **Jack Dean Tyler** _
> 
> I’ve been observing people and society for years.

And penises. Lots and lots of penises. Hoo, boy - _countless_ penises! Observed, measured, examined, studied, and, um… well, let’s just say it’s amazing the lengths you’ll go for your “research.”

All in the name of science of course.

:rolleyes:

Esprix

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Palandine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/958977/32.png) [@Palandine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Palandine)\
**Post date:** [November 22, 2000, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856/320 "2000-11-22T15:55:33Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler \*  
> **Well, there’s a whole lot of rich men and a whole lot of rich, beautiful widows (all thanks to circumcision, I might add).**

Thanks to circumcision we have a whole lot of rich men and a whole lot of rich, beautiful widows? This snipping thing is starting to sound better and better. If we could have a tie-in with the “every new lesbian gets a toaster oven” joke from the Ellen show, we’d really have something.

But don’t worry, Jack. I’m still a devout follower of the Church of Circumscientology.

I know this isn’t the thread for it, but I nominate the sentence above for JDT’s sig.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856.md?page=15)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jack-ass-dean-tyler/38856.md?page=17)