Jack-ass Dean Tyler

The BBQ Pit
221

JDT, what do you think of the arguments in Alfred Kinsey’s Sexual Response in the Human Male? Have you uncovered any new evidence which backs up your claims?

What are your credentials in the field of human sexual response? Have you conducted any surveys in this field? Which books and databases have you studied before you made your conclusions? If you studied any material after you made any conclusions, how did this affect your beliefs?

Frankly, I believe your posts are a serious affront to research and academic thought. You post in a “scientic” manner, yet thus far you have neither formulated a scientific basis for your theories nor explained any new evidence (and, no, articles on dodgy internet magazines are not “new evidence”).

Let me give you an example of academic research. I am currently completing a D.Phil (Ph.D) from the University of Oxford in 16th-century British History. During the course of my research I have read and collated 2,500 church documents, almost 4,000 tax returns, 31 church records each spanning 30 years, and 200 wills and diocesan records, not to mention over 200 books and articles by modern-day historians. I’ve also spoken and debated some of the leading experts in my field. Then, and only then, have I been able to formulate a conclusion which might disagree with the opinions of experts in my field.

On the other hand, your opinions fundamentally contradict accepted research in your field, yet you seem to have formulated them first, then scraped together a few “articles” which back you up.

If you’re going to disagree with the experts in your field (not to mention insult and harass a great number of intelligent and honest people here on the SDMB), you’d better have some research behind you.

Your move, JDT.

222

JDT, what do you think of the arguments in Alfred Kinsey’s Sexual Response in the Human Male? Have you uncovered any new evidence which backs up your claims?

What are your credentials in the field of human sexual response? Have you conducted any surveys in this field? Which books and databases have you studied before you made your conclusions? If you studied any material after you made any conclusions, how did this affect your beliefs?

Frankly, I believe your posts are a serious affront to research and academic thought. You post in a “scientific” manner, yet thus far you have neither formulated a scientific basis for your theories nor explained any new evidence (and, no, articles on dodgy internet magazines are not “new evidence”).

Let me give you an example of academic research. I am currently completing a D.Phil (Ph.D) from the University of Oxford in 16th-century British History. During the course of my research I have read and collated 2,500 church documents, almost 4,000 tax returns, 31 church records each spanning 30 years, and 200 wills and diocesan records, not to mention over 200 books and articles by modern-day historians. I’ve also spoken and debated some of the leading experts in my field. Then, and only then, have I been able to formulate a conclusion which might disagree with the opinions of experts in my field.

On the other hand, your opinions fundamentally contradict accepted research in your field, yet you seem to have formulated them first, then scraped together a few “articles” which back you up.

If you’re going to disagree with the experts in your field (not to mention insult and harass a great number of intelligent and honest people here on the SDMB), you’d better have some research behind you.

Your move, JDT.

223

Mods, mea maxime culpa on the double-post–saw a spelling mistake .0001 second after I hit “submit” and thought I got away with it.

224

Duke… totally off-topic, but I’d LOVE to talk to you about something. I’m currently finishing a book called An Instance of the Fingerpost that takes place in England in the 1660s and there are a lot of things that I wonder about, authenticity wise. Would it be ok to email you?

225

Hey, Duke, I don’t know how much you’ve read of all Jack’s tripe, but your request/demand has been raised before (your request for Jack to actually provide some back-up).
However, The Man (The Establishment, the Jewish Conspiracy, the Trilateral Commission and whatever other paranoid meanderings Jack has come up with) is suppressing that very information so Jack has to be very obtuse on his references. If he gave any real information other than the “cirps” site, the men in black helicopters would hunt him down and we’d have another X-Files episode on our hands.

226

All I can say is thank God for my circumcision!!!

BTW, Opalcat, I think I love you!!!

227

Giving or receiving? Hetero or homo?

I am willing to bet that you have never gone down on a woman. That you have never put your tongue down “there.” Or in “there.” I’ll bet you’re scared shitless to try. “EWWW! It’s nasty and wet in there! I don’t wanna! I don’t really wanna put my wee-wee in there either. I’ll just move it around on the outside a little…”

I also bet you are cut, that you suffer from premature ejaculation and you blame your circumcision for it. I also bet that you have never completely satisfied a woman in your life.

I also bet that one time, at least, you did manage to sucker some poor woman into bed, did manage to make her cum (she probably told you how and that offended you, but you were so desperate to get off, you went along with it that once; she probably threatened to throw you out of the room if you didn’t do it HER way) and her moans and cries of delight SCARED YOU and you quit before you were finished. Which is why you say a woman that is being “put down” properly doesn’t make any noise.

Did your parents ever explain sex to you?

One more news-flash, Jack-boy: Pornography is not realistic sex! It’s a fantasy intended to satisfy the viewers’ fantasies. (And encourage the viewer to buy more tapes.)

228

Couple things:

  1. These two need to go into the “Jack’s sig” thread:

And:

Classics, both.

  1. I’ll respond here:

I’ve had both (and quite a few of both, actually). I prefer cut men (which is odd, since I have a special affinity of late for Asian men, and most of the ones I meet are either not American-born or are raised in traditional Asian-country households, which means the majority of them are uncut; regardless, I prefer circumcised men).

  1. Hi, Opal.

  2. matt, you are only allowed to discuss your sex life with me. :wink:

  3. And to respond to this:

It means that some rabid Fundamentalist Christians, such as the infamous Rev. Fred Phelps, rail, deride and malign gays and lesbians not because they hate them, but rather that they seem themselves as saving them from the eternal damnation they know lays in store - regardless of the fact that their “compassion” is cloaked in vile bigotry, hatred, slander and discrimination. You, Jack, seem to be on a similar mission, only for you it’s to save the word from circumcision.

In other words, you’re a loon.

  1. I’m still waiting for a real apology for calling me a child molester. (Was that this thread or the “sig” thread? I forget.)

  2. I’m still waiting for your excuse as to why you had me pegged all wrong - old, fat, balding, sexless and undesirable. (That also might have been the other thread.)

Esprix

229

Oh, one last thing:

It is the best explanation for the evidence and yet you DON’T believe it.

That makes no FUCKING sense at all!!!

(jab1 runs screaming from the SDMB to the relative sanity of The Pizza Parlor.)

230

Somebody call my boyfriend and tell him to quit asking - Jack has spoken! And think of the jaw time I’m gonna save! Whoo-eee! :rolleyes:

Oh goodness, do we really wanna go there? :smiley:

231

Why not? He’s already opined that breast augmentation is a form of “sexual mutilation”. I wonder if his addled little brain can wrap itself around the idea of someone having everything except the skin of the penis removed. :slight_smile:

232

Sure, Opal!

[/slight hijack]

One thing though, JDT. If you think “The Man” is stopping you from revealing your sources, is this meant to mean that “The Man” is circumcised?

233

Jack, if you think Freud really knew what was going on- he considered the clitoral orgasm to be “immature”. Only the vaginal orgasm could bring true fufillment. In other words, he was another jerk you thought he could tell women what they want, but he didn’t think the same thing you do.

234

KELLY says re: Occam’s Razor:

Well, then allow me. JACK says:

It’s effect, you nimrod, not “affect.” Effect is a noun; affect is a verb. When you’re calling people riff-raff, it would behoove* you to avoid mistakes in simple grammar that make you look like even more of a idiot than you are (if that’s possible).

  • look it up
235

Actually, effect is both a noun and a verb: “The plumber began to effect repairs.” Affect is also both a noun and a verb: “His affect was flat.”

236

Sigh. Yes, yes, yes, but “effect” is most generally a noun, and “affect” most generally a verb – most people do not use v. “effect” when less pretentious words will do, and n. “affect” is a term of art unique to psychology/psychiatry. In any event, in the sentence quoted the proper word is “effect,” not “affect.”

237

betenoir

> Jack, if you think Freud really knew what was going on- he considered the clitoral orgasm to be “immature”. Only the vaginal orgasm could bring true fufillment. <

It's just the opposite, actually. But, Freud picked up on the idea that one is more important than the other. I'll bet Freud still is cutting edge.

> In other words, he was another jerk you thought he could tell women what they want, but he didn’t think the same thing you do. <

Freud wasn't a "jerk." Freud was trying to understand what was going on. Some researchers of today try to tell women that the clitoral orgasm is just an illusion. Those are the "jerks."
238

What is that incessant buzzing noise?

Esprix

239

Duke,

> JDT, what do you think of the arguments in Alfred Kinsey’s Sexual Response in the Human Male? <

I think that they decided in advance that circumcision would be deemed to have no affect upon sexuality. In some of the testing that they did, they didn't even record the protocol so we don't even know how they got their information.
     When they were testing for light-touch sensation on the penis, the subjects were allowed to watch the their penises being touched (it's like a skit from Saturday Night Live).

> Have you uncovered any new evidence which backs up your claims? <

I've uncovered a lot of new evidence. Which "claims" do you want backed up?

> What are your credentials in the field of human sexual response? <

It is my position that no one can hold any credible credential in the area of MALE human sexual response.

> Have you conducted any surveys in this field? <

Yes.

> Which books and databases have you studied before you made your conclusions? <

I've read the couple of books that are available. The internet is the best source for the latest information on the erotic nature of the penis. It's an entirely unexplored field.

> If you studied any material after you made any conclusions, how did this affect your beliefs? <

Well, which beliefs? I make a major distinction between the results of my research and my conjecture based upon those results. Anyway, my understanding is constantly evolving with regard to what is taking place with regard to circumcision and it's affects in the aggregate.

> Frankly, I believe your posts are a serious affront to research and academic thought. <

My posts are an affront to the "research an academic thought" of the establishment? That's good. I, personally, believe that research and academic thought should be unaffected by the prevailing political environment.

>You post in a “scientific” manner, yet thus far you have neither formulated a scientific basis for your theories <

Which "theories"?

> nor explained any new evidence (and, no, articles on dodgy internet magazines are not “new evidence”). <

Why, because these "dodgy internet magazines" are not part of the establishment? These articles have theses and they have cites to published research that you can refer if you wish.

> Let me give you an example of academic research. I am currently completing a D.Phil (Ph.D) from the University of Oxford in16th-century British History. During the course of my research I have read and collated 2,500 church documents, almost 4,000 tax returns, <snip> <

Yeah, so? Do you have some really ground breaking thesis? I do. I unfortunately cannot refer to previous objective research because there is none.

> On the other hand, your opinions fundamentally contradict accepted research in your field, yet you seem to have formulated them first, then scraped together a few “articles” which back you up. <

My opinions are consistent with all credible research that has been done.

> If you’re going to disagree with the experts in your field <

There are no experts in my field.

> (not to mention insult and harass a great number of intelligent and honest people here on the SDMB), <

That easy for you to say since your research is politically correct.

> you’d better have some research behind you. <

If I am consistent with all of the credible research, then it backs me up. That's what you are doing. You have a thesis and you are gathering data to show that it is consistent with your thesis. Then, of course, you use Ockham's razor to show that your thesis is superior to other theses that may be competing with your thesis.
240

Per JDT:

Exactly! That would include you.

How 'bout setting out your research for us in some type of scientific manner (i.e present your theory, the manner in which you’ll prove or disprove your theory etc.)? I’m sure you remember what the scientific method involves, don’t you?

Remember Jack, it’s a theory, to be accepted if your evidence can be replicated or discarded if it cannot.