Oh I have a firm grip on reality and you obviously don't. If you look at the answer you are referring I clearly asked if they funded the study not that they did. But it is clear you are one of those fools who is incapable of discerning good science from science just for the hell of it.. The study I was referring clearly has no merit had no merit to begin with and the findings provide no useful information to society, doesn't provide any insight on the transmission of sexual disease and it is clearly a study just for the hell of it.
You probable think the study to dispell the 5 second rule was worthy when those who live in the real world know that it was simply something people said to justify eating food they dropped on the ground but knew the reality is once it hits the ground if germs are present they are on the food, I guess these type of ignorant studies help fools like you getthrough life but unfortunately they also dilute our gene pool by helping your kind survive .
i have no information on an NSF study.
But at some point in time, probably when NASA was doing general anthropometry studies for the range of human beings ( about 1978 or so), they would have done at least minimal studies of penis size in America, because they had to develop catheters and other methods for astronauts to easily and comfortable urinate, when in space suits for many hours. so sizing information would have been needed.
Yes, there was a study done funded by US taxpayers to study penis size in gay men and whether they prefer tops or bottoms as a result (this has a slightly different meaning in gay sex). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19139...
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health which is not a part of NSF but is the US equivalent for health sciences.
So while whatever that poster actually said, it appears he apparently only got one or two details mixed up which is not as extreme a mistake as you make it out to be. Perhaps you'd be better off deleting this question and saving some face.
Even the low level dupe deniers here mostly have a grade school education. But there are no doubt low-level outliers who never quite got the alphabet down in 1st grade.
If you wobble when writing an I you can get an S instead.
If you really miss in drawing the righthand line of an H, you could get an F instead.
An N still looks like an N even if the diagonal is backwards.
NIH, NSF, KKK...Alphabet soup is fun.
Why? Are you worried about the size, study or position?
Shut up. You've got Al Gore.
Enough said.
A climate skeptic here recently claimed that the U.S. National Science Foundation funded a study investigating the correlation between human male penis size and preference in sexual position. If you google "penis size national science foundation" you can find references to a study investigating penis size in ducks, but nothing about humans.
Is this another example of climate skeptics not having a firm grasp of objective reality? If it is, what does it say about climate skeptics and their constant reinforcing of each others' ideas? In other words, if your supporters are all bonkers, does that imply you should be cautious in thinking your ideas are intellectually sound?
