Random community poll #2

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3938

Report this Oct. 12 2012, 4:49 pm

It has to be one or the other, and it isn't due to any genetic or medical disorder


Vicsage

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 439

Report this Oct. 12 2012, 8:52 pm

Is everything "proportional", if you know what I mean?

Jim Kirk

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 861

Report this Oct. 13 2012, 5:03 am

Either way you would have major problems in life but I would have to go with 3 feet tall.  It would probably be easier to go through life being small then be huge.


Kang - "Only a fool fights in a burning house"

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3938

Report this Oct. 13 2012, 7:45 am

Quote: Vicsage @ Oct. 12 2012, 8:52 pm

>

>Is everything "proportional", if you know what I mean?

>


 


lets just take that out of the equation and say they are normal size for both


guillermo.mejía

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2843

Report this Oct. 13 2012, 8:09 am

I think being smaller might indded be easier. Society is already prepared for that size with kids. However 8 feet tall is a rarity.


"Aye. And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon." - Scotty, The Miracle Worker since 2265.

DS9_FOREVER!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 129

Report this Oct. 13 2012, 11:58 am

I voted for 8' tall. I'm vertically challenged so I would love to see what is like to be tall.


I just found this great Star Trek MB!!  photo ac1685424929087bf1b7e7e0d734f861.jpg

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3938

Report this Oct. 14 2012, 11:54 am

I'm torn.  At 3 feet tall I think it would be a whole lot easier to hide during the zombie apocalypse,  but at 8 feet tall you would get to eat a lot more.


Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: darmokattanagra

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum