And the first one we have is from ...

... A Mr. Dennis Wallace from Northumbria (the Sunshine State), who writes in to tell us that, and I quote, 'Longarod' has managed to increase his staying power and diminish his dysfunction.

Well done, Dennis. Congratulations. Not only is it pleasing to see any crew member of the good ship Limey overcome (no pun intended) their own personal leviathans, but it's good to see that you have developed the airy confidence and openness -- conventionally so lacking in us Brits -- to be comfortable proclaiming your own inadequacies, and their disappearance, in public; to anyone who'll listen, in fact.

Moving swiftly on we have ...

... ermmm, let' see ... Lol-ee-ta. Lolita Qadir, no less, from Oregon; the Beaver State. Quite.

Lolita writes in to ask a most taxing, enigmatic and, quite frankly, personal question. We'll try to answer as best we can, Lolita, but, to be frank, your question is of the sort which has baffled quantum physicists, and may well be beyond the capabilities of your humble correspondent. We shall try, however: we persevere. She asks:

Dear Yicky,

Would you like to cum five times more?!!

Firstly, Lolita, you should probably take some time to think of your father, and how he might respond to his daughter asking such questions. Granted: he may have spent the bulk of his career perplexing and bamboozling an entire generation of English public school toffs with the waft and sway of his arcing googly, but it's by no means certain that he'd wish for you continue in the same vein.

Secondly: precisely what it is that you're driving at here is a little bit vague.

If we're talking about matters of mass, I'm afraid I'd have to risk disappointing by answering broadly in the negative. The systems in question seem to me to be most adequately designed for the task in ... ermm ... hand, or otherwise. One imagines that a yield increase of four hundred percent may involve an envelope transgression of sorts; a parabola beyond the safe limits of engineering, so to speak. While, certainly, it would be possible to smear the volume across a greater span of the time domain in order to ensure a sufficiently acceptable rate of displacement, the negative impacts of the associated acceleration and jerk derivatives on the pump and ejector mechanisms might in no way exist within safe limits.

Furthermore; it is not clear that this would, indeed, be the case. Perhaps the time window would remain fixed, hence risking a catastrophically explosive internal failure in the instance where the mechanisms could not cope, or a severe risk of ballistic damage to any lifeforms or inanimate objects in the immediate vicinity in the case where they met the specification.

The effects upon load and balance are not to be sniffed-at, either -- if, indeed, one should sniff at all. The possibility of non-linear effects owing to Newtonian principles might make circumnavigating even the most gently curving obstacles perilous at anything but the lowest velocities. The so-called centrifugal forces involved in, for example, sprinting around a bend in the archetypal corporate stairwell, may be so high as to risk a most graceless defenestration. Perhaps some sort of supporting structure or wheeled contrivance could be employed to mitigate against the standard gravitational effects, but again, it's far from elegant.

Perchance, however, you refer instead to matters of frequency. Depressingly, yet again, one would be compelled to respond with refusal. While the appeal of a greater number is, doubtless, superficially attractive, it raises unsettling questions with regard to timing and volition. While such a rate increase may be somewhat appealing when contemplating an equivalent increase in the number of circumstances in which such activity may be practised safely, dinner parties, business meetings, the swimming pool and the subcontinental food aisle in Tesco are not among them -- not least in the potential absence of a consenting partner of sorts -- and, even if one were present, one risks being prohibited from returning to environs either pleasant or necessary for basic, daily function.

An interpretation which originally escaped me was that of the 'implied tryst'. Perhaps you hint that we have performed the aforesaid act together at some time in the past, and are generously offering the opportunity to repeat the activity -- albeit limiting any such entanglement to an eerily-precise five more occasions. I doubt this to be true, as it's probable that I would have remembered, although, having lived on the north bank of the estuary for a short period, perhaps ... not.

There is, apparently, also the possibility of an implied threat. Like a Delphic oracle, or genies most lamp-dwelling, perhaps you offer nothing but simply proclaim that I will depart this earth following the fourth essence-scattering hence. Or perhaps, perversely reminiscent of Faust, you insinuate that no more seed distribution exists in my future, but you have the power to offer five more climaxes.

This discussion has taken an uncanny turn towards the disturbing, so this may be the point at which to conclude. I wish you luck with your propositional activities, but must humbly and reluctantly decline your how's-your-father-ish offer.

How is your father, by the way? Please give him my regards.

From the 'When will I be famous' department ...

... A Mr. Cameron, of North London, writes by email to ask:

As the leader of an organisation somewhat similar to a union, it is crucial that I am respected not only by the organisation's members, but also by the members of the public with whom my organisation interacts.

How can I convince the common prole that I am, in fact, one of them; a true 'man of the people', comfortable with Ossetra, Taramosalata and Ketchup? I feel my shortcomings in this department are having a negative effect upon my organisation.

Well, Mr. Cameron, as the greatest of the late-twentieth-century philosophers, Det. John McClane, so wisely intoned: "That's pretty tricky with that accent. You oughta be on fuckin' TV with that accent.".

It's not what we are which tends to put people off; it's what we pretend to be, but aren't. Unless doing so would diminish your core support to frankly geriatric and ineffectively small levels by alienating an overwhelmingly large part of your potential market, I would suggest that you stop pretending to be all things to all men, and instead concentrate on your strengths, whatever they may be.

'I wants' never gets

Lastly, a Mr. Terry, from East London, drops us a line to let us know that he wants to be remembered. While the sentiment is a sweet one, Mr. Terry, and the thought is frequently the father of the deed, one must pause to wonder who, in your position, hasn't?

I appreciate the unbearable pressure you and your colleagues work under, but again one must consider whether that pressure is lessened or increased by espousing openly such aspirational, indeed self-absorbed, sentiments as you express. In fact, there is more than a small argument that such pronouncements and will-to-glory have done absolutely nothing either to further your outfit's aims, or to endear yourselves to the wider public at large.

As with Mr. Cameron, the problem of telling people what they want to hear is only a short-term solution. A failure to deliver upon implicit promises simply fosters unreasonable expectation and thereby amplifies any potential disillusion and resentment which may manifest itself at a later date; especially considering that many of your supporters and cheer-leaders aren't necessarily as well-informed as those who participate in your chosen field at a lower and more specialised level. Conversely, a pragmatically humble and low-key approach may engender a better working environment and, in fact, deliver a greater sense of achievement or glory when (or, rather, if) the seemingly impossible is accomplished. I appreciate that your immediate superior may not be particularly helpful when it comes to behaving in such a manner, but one should strive to succeed 'in spite of', and not 'because'.

It's worth at least one thought, possibly more.