OK folks, here's real research material on this thread! Thanks,
Robert! (If anyone wants to challenge any of the data presented, could
they do so direct to Robert...):
On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 17:26:40 -0500 (EST), Robert Kelly
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>for what it's worth -- in 1963 I stood (according to my medical records) 6
>ft 3 inches tall; standing belt to belt with Olson (as sometimes, such
>was his way of talking, touching, being present) I had to look up at his
>face as I had not to do before; my guess would be that he stood, wearing
>shoes (sneakers, as one said in the pre-Nike days), about six foot seven,
>and was, most of the time I knew him, not very bulky, so that he seemed
>tall indeed. The one definitive measurement I can give I reveal to you, a
>precious academic secret: his inseam (trouser measurement from cuff to
>crotch along the inner seam of the trouser leg) was 40 inches. So most of
>his special height was in the legs. When he and I sat side by side on a
>bench, there was no difference in height.
>
>Now if you think the British public can bear this information without
>irreverence or a further explosion of innuendo, I authorize you to forward
>this note to our brothers and sisters.
>
>Otherwise, might be enough to sum up, as you do, he was very tall.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|