|
Post by Schwarzwald Magnus on Aug 10, 2018 3:48:02 GMT
I'm 5'11" or about 181 cm.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Aug 10, 2018 3:49:06 GMT
4'9" or about 144 cm.
|
|
Harmless elf
Junior Member
I'm a slick shyster the pest Meister
@amiable
Posts: 2,924
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by Harmless elf on Aug 10, 2018 4:03:00 GMT
5'7
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Aug 10, 2018 4:05:39 GMT
182 centimetres.
|
|
|
Post by Schwarzwald Magnus on Aug 10, 2018 4:14:23 GMT
6'2" and I'm American and refuse to measure my height in cm's. I can convert between the two in my head lickity split.
|
|
|
Post by Schwarzwald Magnus on Aug 10, 2018 4:14:50 GMT
Is that you, Fox in a Box / Hanukkah Harriet?
|
|
|
Post by Schwarzwald Magnus on Aug 10, 2018 4:17:27 GMT
I can convert between the two in my head lickity split. As a form of protest against internationalism I refuse. Then what's with the love for those languages?
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Aug 10, 2018 4:17:28 GMT
Is that you, Fox in a Box / Hanukkah Harriet? Guessing those are posters from the old IMDb. I'm neither sorry.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Aug 10, 2018 4:21:41 GMT
6'2" and I'm American and refuse to measure my height in cm's. A bit tricky, is it?
|
|
|
Post by Schwarzwald Magnus on Aug 10, 2018 4:28:52 GMT
Then what's with the love for those languages? That's different. A nationalist can admire other cultures without changing their own. I dunno, in America we use feet for height. Different measurement systems can have different uses. I like to be objective and analyze which are better on their own merit without tribalism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2018 4:32:11 GMT
156 cm.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Aug 10, 2018 4:35:30 GMT
No. It's just the terms "6 foot" or "5 foot" in terms of describing someone are so ingrained in our culture. Saying some guy is a "182.88 cm tall drink of water" seems a little silly. It's a pointless change. Does it?
I've never noticed.
But then Aussies seem to be able to jump back and forth between Metric and Imperial.
|
|
|
Post by Sulla on Aug 10, 2018 4:38:45 GMT
6' (182cm)
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Aug 10, 2018 4:43:11 GMT
All together, pretty tall, I would imagine.
|
|
|
Post by Schwarzwald Magnus on Aug 10, 2018 4:49:47 GMT
Is that you, Fox in a Box / Hanukkah Harriet? Guessing those are posters from the old IMDb. I'm neither sorry. It's one person, thanks though.
|
|
|
Post by Schwarzwald Magnus on Aug 10, 2018 5:00:08 GMT
I like to be objective and analyze which are better on their own merit without tribalism. For measuring chemicals in a lab: metric. For measuring height: feet and inches. I can also walk and chew bubblegum. I see no reason to conflate the two systems. Well, most people don't know that there are way more Imperial units than most people realize (uh, yeah). Anyway, there's a thou or 1/1000 of an inch.
But really, you use whatever makes sense. Is something about 10 feet for 3 meters? Same thing in my mind.
I don't make such things political.
One is really as easy as the next. If it makes no sense, like the Europeans say, then how have we used it for hundreds of years? We're so stupid, we're successfully using a system they cannot understand.
|
|
|
Post by Schwarzwald Magnus on Aug 10, 2018 5:25:00 GMT
Well, most people don't know that there are way more Imperial units than most people realize (uh, yeah). Anyway, there's a thou or 1/1000 of an inch.
But really, you use whatever makes sense. Is something about 10 feet for 3 meters? Same thing in my mind.
I don't make such things political.
One is really as easy as the next. If it makes no sense, like the Europeans say, then how have we used it for hundreds of years? We're so stupid, we're successfully using a system they cannot understand.
Well distance in miles is another system I see pointless to convert. Every road miles sign in the U.S. would have to be changed. Well that's the thing. It's not about the system. It's about people. There were some lukewarm efforts here to convert like how soda is usually metric. I think we stopped when the USSR fell. A new wave of patriotism, I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2018 5:48:40 GMT
177 cm
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Aug 10, 2018 5:49:50 GMT
6'2".
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Aug 10, 2018 7:45:49 GMT
5'7" @ 142-143lbs (or damn close to that). ill be 39 years old in October. so I am clearly smaller than most adult males as I heard the average height for a male here in the USA is about 5'10" and for females it's about 5'4". which is honest as some people inflate their height well over what it actually is by like 2-3 inches (sometimes more) which seems almost impossible to do if one measures oneself honestly as just standing straight up and looking out straight and then set a hardcover book as flat as one can on top of ones head and use the tape measure to that point and you should be pretty damn close to your actual height and would be highly unlikely anyone would be off by more than a inch either way of their real height. doing that, with socks on, I was 5'7" flat. I think at the doctors they said I was 5'6-1/2" but given that paired with my own measurement I just claim 5'7" since that's very close. NOTE: although I was into the 15x lbs range for years (or at least 150-ish) though. but I think a while ago I just over ate a bit. like for example... when getting a footlong sub at Subway, I used to eat it in one sitting which that paired with my drink (Coke or Mountain Dew) is probably about half of your daily calorie intake right then and there. so now when I order a footlong sub, I eat half now and then save the other half for later (say 4-6hours later) and then I might have some side snacks here and there outside of a couple of decent meals (maybe 3 meals occasionally). so while I don't exactly measure my calorie intake I would guess I am somewhere around the 2000-2500 range which is about normal for the average person. but with that said, someone who's quite active can probably get away with loading up on food (or might actually need it) because they burn more calories etc. basically it seems from what I heard it's better to eat smaller quantities a bit more often than to load up on big meals but less often as I think they said it has something to do with ones metabolism generally staying more elevated when you eat smaller quantities but more often etc which helps regulate weight. but it's a wonder how some people eat WELLL over what they actually need and the sad thing is, ill bet they think what they do is normal or close to normal when it's simply WELL OVER what one actually needs to get by in a day as a little overeating is one thing but to eat a boatload of calories well over what's about normal, it's not surprising their weight is sky high. I don't feel sorry for those types of people because they buried themselves. sure, I realize there can be legitimate weight problems here and there (like thyroid problems etc) but I am confident that the vast majority who are obese or anywhere near that level did it to themselves by overeating. on our scales I am usually around 138lbs (give or take a little) but our scales seem to be a little low in comparison to the doctors and other peoples scales I have used so I am confident my scales are a little lower than my actual weight. in my prime, when I had energy to burn(i.e. 16 years old and thereabouts), I was same height but weighed only 125-130lbs. but I could run fast and jump pretty high back in those days. even today I can still probably hit somewhere around 14-15mph where as in my prime, while I don't know for sure, I would guess something in the ball park of 18-20mph. either way, I had to be at least 16mph+ given what I measured not all that long ago (roughly a few years ago) and I also weighed a bit more back then (around 150lbs) than I do for a while now which is around 142-143lbs. so I might be able to squeeze a little more speed with the reduced weight. but then again I am not getting any younger p.s. hell, I remember some show I seen on TV years ago where this guy thought he was taller than they measured him (and not by a small margin either) and was all serious about it questioning their measurements etc which was laughable to me for someone to deny reality like that as it's just not possible for someone to be off in their measurements as much as they guy seemed to think (like pretty much anyone cannot be as far off in their measurements as he seemed to think). like the guy was tall but not as tall as he claimed he was. klsDamn, 4'9"? ; that's pretty damn short (no offense) especially considering I have heard the average female here in the USA (assuming your in USA?) is about 5'4". so that puts you roughly 7" under the average female which surely stands out in a short way because while I am shorter than most guys I would still guesstimate that there are plenty of guys within a few inches either way of the average (for guys I heard about 5'10") but much beyond that and one starts to stand out in a short or tall way. my aunt is like 4'11" (she's the shortest person I personally know I think) and she's one of the few people I actually feel kind of big next to and I am smaller than most adult males.
|
|