I presume it only outputs a pair of names if both parties list each other? But then it seems like it might be a really small dance.
Yeah, it only lists the mutual matches. It sounds like everyone goes to the dance but, given the nature of the algorithm, not everyone comes away with matches.
the names of people? Multiple matches would make for a pretty awkward situation.
Clearly this is a project for the Unfogged community.
"It sounds like everyone goes to the dance but, given the nature of the algorithm, not everyone comes away with matches."
Sounds too much like the whole college experience already.
Anyway, my next question, since Becks seems to be Sausagely's stand-in this morning: why (pray tell) do we think that his classmates would do this right before graduation? Wouldn't the appropriate time for this be (oh, I don't know) sometime in the third year? Long enough to have an unrequited crush, not so long that you're both about to move to different cities. Or something.
I'd think that the Last Chance aspect was pretty important to the concept of this dance, namely that there's no embarrassment in letting that person know you want to bang them since you are about to graduate and probably never see them again. After graduation, I'm not sure how many people would be willing to let that information out into the open, even if it was done in good faith.
If you'd wanted my number, Becks, you could've just asked me.
"Multiple matches would make for a pretty awkward situation"
I don't see the problem here.
Was there a maximum number of names you could enter?
Presumably a number no larger than the size of the graduating class -1.
I'm thinking you'd want some kind of ranking system...
12: Yes, otherwise you get into all sort of self-strategy games that take away the fun: "I really want A, but I think B is more likely, and that would be better than nothing."
But then, what to do when A wants X, then Y, while X wants B, then A, etc., etc.?
Clearly, the only fair solution is to lock the doors until everyone gets laid by someone.
"the only fair solution is to lock the doors until everyone gets laid by someone."
This strategy might have its own problems, too.
I don't think this improves on social networking sites for strangers (nerve, salon, match, eharmony, etc.). Listing someone on such a list wouldn't say anything different from contacting them in the first place. As for social networking sites that overlay real-life social groups (eg facebook), reputation and word of mouth would probably take care of the bad faith problem--I think I'd end up listing my first choice, waiting a month or two to see if that person listed me, then deleting that name and moving on to the next person.
namely that there's no embarrassment in letting that person know you want to bang them since you are about to graduate and probably never see them again.
But the only way they would find that out is if they wanted to bang you, too; hence, no embarrassment in the first place.
ah, the 'getlaid' problem (as we used to call it in college, in reference to the 'getdate' program we had, itself a parody of standard online dating matchup systems). In the sort of late-night discussions where this came up, the focus was usually on whether there had to be a trusted third-party operating the system, or whether sneaky crypto tricks would let only interested parties in on the information.
It sounds altogether too mortifying.
Given the large number of computer programmers who are Libertarians
But who wants to have sex with them?
And anyway, I just assume that anyone who comments on my blog wants to sleep with me.
20: That's what has kept me around.
Wait... I want to take a step back here: are colleges these days in the business of helping their students get laid? Has this become part of their educational mission?
Isn't the twentyfirst century wonderful?
Also, doesn't this post make the assumption that libertarian==utilitarian? That's not completely valid, is it?
Not for the one I chatted with on Saturday.
I generally assume that libertarian==objectivist, which is the exact opposite of utilitarian.
Fine, whatever. Let's not let squabbling over utilitarian/objectivist/rationality/etc. make us overlook that this is a great idea.
I bet w-lfs-n could whip up something like this for Unfogged. I can't see any possible problems with that plan.
The problem is that everyone at Unfogged who has met in person has already had sex with each other.
I agree that this is a great way to solve a collective action problem.
Didn't we already have a blogcrush declaration thread? Can't we all just be more forthright and bold?
But Ned, that could lead to shameful, contemptuous sex, exactly the kind of rapture you had wanted!
30->26, although given Ogged's cruel mastery, it works for 28.
27: If w-lfs-n were to whip this up, I think we can expect the results to be somewhat skewed. And littered with c0ck photos. You need an unbiased and unavailable programmer.
Also, I don't trust Ben to properly implement the w-lfs-n Cockblock module.
I think I'd end up listing my first choice, waiting a month or two to see if that person listed me, then deleting that name and moving on to the next person.
I want you to pine away for at least 6 mo, Ogged. Don't expect me to be moved by a mere month or two.
32: since, presumably, there would be a moment of truth in which people actually found out which of their submitted names got matches, and they would know whom they had submitted, I'm not sure it's actually possible for the programmer to skew results in h/h favor.
You'd better believe that, say, SCMT would find himself even less loved than he suspects, though.
Here's a start... Define relevant group of people. Each person in group makes a list of all the people in the group they would like to sleep with. Ranks them according to preference ordinally, and then gives each a score on a scale of intensity of desire consistent with ordinal rank. Submits. The system finds all pairs of listmakers who list each other. Then, according to some complex rule on which the entire thing depends (total cardinal desire divided by distance between ordinal positions on respective lists plus some tie-breaking rule?), determines the level of mutual attraction of all pairs. Each person receive name of person in their highest scoring mutual attraction pair who is not in a higher scoring pair with someone else.
Option: if you are not paired, and someone who has listed you, but you have not listed, is also unpaired, submit yourself as a candidate match for that person if the following conditions obtain: (a) I will will fuck anybody who wants to fuck me, so go ahead (b) they are listed on n other lists and/or (c) they are listed on lists of n "taste friends" (where a "taste friend" is someone in group with same-object-preference whose taste you trust) and/or (d) you are top quarter/half/third top-ranked/whatever, on their list.
In general, such a procedure should: assign each person to only one pair; maximize number of pairs.
Really, we could all just cut out the middleman by naming the people we've always wanted to hook up with in this here thread.
I would have guessed that you neurotics would have preferred a slightly different arrangement, where people list who they don't want to sleep with, the list is made public, and then you can start lusting after all the people who don't like you. We could call it Shopping At Kotsko.
That's a very cruel suggestion, Ogged.
Also, thank god Wilkinson is a libertarian, because I don't want him running my nanny state.
It looks as if you're suggesting, Will, an algorithm that would maximize matched desires among individual candidate pairs but potentially fail to maximize matched desires across all possible pairs, or maximize the number of possible pairs. It's possible that, by trying to give each person his or her highest choice (or tried to make each pair have the highest aggregate desire), someone ends up getting matched with no one at all, while if you gave some people their second (or nth) choices, more people would get matches which, while not their top choices, and which resulted in less total hottness than possible, would at least be, say, worthwhile, and more total people would get matched up in the end.
I have a philosophical problem with this whole idea of ranking one's objects of desire.
43: But his end line about maxing pairs takes care of your main concern. Under those conditions, the program keeps testing until it finds a match for everyone. More likely, start by matching everyone, then start improving matches.
The risk is that the picky loser throws the whole system into disarray. If you won't list at least 10% of the pool, then you don't necessarily get any.
I might add that bi-curious matches could really complicate the algorithm: Really into Boy X but otherwise into Girls A, B, & C? Needing to balance g-g and b-b pairings?
No wonder CS types earn so much $$.
45: Really? How do you choose among cars? Or shoes?
Is this a Boyfriend joke?
I told you the Libertarians would be the ones to handle this problem.
I think the solution to this problem already exists. I'm thinking of the algorithms used for medical residency placement or sorority rush.
I don't care about cars, as long as they run. Shoes are often a difficult choice, and depend, of course, on one's wardrobe, what they'll go with, the cost, and so on. Just as with men.
I'm thinking of the algorithms used for medical residency placement or sorority rush.
29: "Didn't we already have a blogcrush declaration thread? Can't we all just be more forthright and bold?"
bphd:
"29 gets it exactly right"
ooh--she's going for forthright boldness!
bphd:
39:
"Really, we could all just cut out the middleman by naming the people we've always wanted to hook up with in this here thread."
ooh--she's about to name names!
45:
"I have a philosophical problem with this whole idea of ranking one's objects of desire."
awwww....the crowd lets out a sigh of disappointment. she got up to the edge... and balked.
c'mon, forthright, bold one--cut out the middleman! name names!
Oh shit, now Ben is going to be Gary, too?
Whoo hoo! Finally a use for my Graph Theory class in college!
This is just an Assignment Problem if we consider a big bunch of straight people (so no bisexuals mucking up the bipartite nature of the graph. If people assign a number to their lust, you can multiply the two lust-numbers together for each pair to get the lust-weighting for that pairing (not listed = zero lust = no chance of pairing being chosen). Then there are a few different algorithms (including a couple easy ones based on Gaussian Elimination) that will maximize the total lust for the whole group. This will probably not result in the maximal number of "acceptable" pairings, but that would also be an easy problem to solve.
I'm trying to figure out a good matching algorithm for a "mostly bipartite" graph that would solve this problem for the case of gay and bisexual pairings, but I sense that any such solution would be tough enough to qualify as a thesis.
51: You don't want me to do that. There will be hearts broken all over teh internets.
JAC - Can I get an acknowledgement in your dissertation?
54: why would the breaking of other people's hearts be a disincentive to me? our withers are unwrung.
It's not like I'm subtle about it. Anyway, if I thought anyone would follow suit, I'd totally do it, but if I do it and no one else does then I just look like a self-promoting ass.
57:
fear of appearing "self-promoting"?
interesting way of describing the fear of rejection.
Rejection? My ass. I don't care if people reject me. It's not like I'm not getting plenty already.
but looking 'self-promoting'--that's something to care about.
i'll keep that in mind.
Eh, I wouldn't mind, except Ogged makes fun of me for it.
That said, I'd still sleep with him. I like men who give me shit. Why do you think I hang out here?
I'll name names by saying that if I liked chicks, I'd *totally* be making plays for LeBlanc and Alameida.
55 - Sure, but you're not getting equity in my booty-call-optimization start-up
okay, you get points for forthright boldness, then.
or at least, conditional boldness.
or at least, *if* I gave points for conditional boldness, I'd *totally* give you some.
Sorority rush involves algorithms? Who knew!
Forthright boldness *and* no fear of rejection. Ogged wouldn't sleep with me if I were the last woman on earth.
Judging by the folks at the party, the women of Unfogged really are an exceptionally attractive bunch. I'd be really, really hard-pressed to pare a list down much, if any.
nah, apo just didn't want to appear self-promoting, that's all.
and he was drunk.
You sure know how to take a compliment, b.
66: Why do I feel like one of the objects of derision from the St. Crispin's day speech for not having been there?
(and god, there's such an easy joke just sitting there...)
That's one of my father's favorites.
I mean the original, not your charming revision.
You sure know how to take a compliment, b.
I'm a bad influence.
69: You know perfectly well that I suck at taking compliments well.
72: You wish.
(I actually think it's probably against the rules to flirt with SB.)
strange, i would have said that when one little girl has been singing very prettily, and someone in the audience remarks that, to his mind, really all the little girls in the class have very pleasant voices, this is not the same thing as a compliment to the soloist.
75: Bad analogy. I'm not, nor ever was, a soloist. Saying that one particular member of an ensemble cast is remarkable is really a backhanded insult to everyone else, and Apo is enough of a gentleman to know that.
As am I, which is why I won't name names.
True, but if B didn't realize that, I don't see why you had to go and point it out, bitzer.
You wish.
You say, "It's all about me". I say, it's all about me. Let's settle all about which me it is, shall we?
I'm not trying to preserve anybody's feelings. It honestly was a flophouse full of beautiful young women and slightly tubby, bearded guys.
81: Hardly. There were a number of guys there I would have slept with if anyone had tried. Pout.
B, when you asked for my suggestion on whom to sleep with, you pooh-pooh'd my response as unserious. Or were you just trying to preserve my feelings?
81 demonstrates my contention that ranking is stupid, btw.
83: I didn't want Roberta to kick my ass.
The results are in. B won on accuracy, but she could stand to pick up some touch.
I've been drooling over the photos for the last two days.
86: Yeah, I'm often bad at the subtleties.
the photos--i have made no attempt to look.
the last thing i want to see are pictures of attractive young people enjoying a good time.
part of why i've never gone in for porn.
89: Suit yourself, kid, but you're missing a shot of BitchPhD and me making out.
That is to say, not everybody there was young.
no, nor enjoying a good time, by that account.
Further considerations:
Cardinal honesty: you can increase your chances of matching by misrepresenting the difference in intensity of desire for those you list (i.e., if the desire-intensity scale is 1-10, then just start from 10 and count down by one). This could result in suboptimal matching relative to true preferences. Bad.
Infidelity exceptions: How about people who are already part of a monogamous pair? They should be able to play, too. Rank everyone you would cheat on your s/o with, given certain conditions (e.g., you are at the top of their list). There are also cases where one's partner will allow extra-partner couplings with certain people (e.g., "If you ever get the chance to sleep with Angelina Jolie, go for it!") So members of prior pairs can list people their partner is free to sleep with, if matched (though it is, I'm sure, impossible to credibly commit to no reprisals, so take care.)
For my own part, there was no one at the flophouse party other than the gf I would have been willing to sleep with (a sentiment I hope she shared), which may or may not be one reason we left early.
Dimensions of maximization: w-lfs-n raises this problem. (a) Total desire maximization? (b) Desire maximization per pair? Or (c) maximization of total pairs? As a strident anti-utilitarian, I reject (a), and demand we think of it as a contractarian bargaining situation. Your self-perceived degree of desirability will determine whether you like (b) or (c) best. And in such a situation, a veil of ignorance seems retarded. If you think you will be on lots of lists or people you would list, you will prefer (b), unless you are bizarrely altruistic about hook ups. If you're worried about your chances, you'll like (c). So, obviously, (b). But the algorithm could be conditional, and the group could just vote on the dimension of maximization.
I am way too interested in this.
i don't think i hurt apo's feelings that much.
oh; you mean you? you, who said
"I like men who give me shit. Why do you think I hang out here?"
so long as they're not ungentlemanly, that is.
there was no one at the flophouse party other than the gf I would have been willing to sleep with
Okay, but you're a libertarian.
96: Not to mention a liar, if Will's the guy who complimented me rather pointedly on my top.
the last thing i want to see are pictures of attractive young people enjoying a good time
I've got some photos of miserable, homely older folks that you might be interested in.
95: I was originally referring to Apo's comment, but since you bring it up, points are taken away for petulance.
OK B, I'll bite. I'm dying to fuck OPINONATED GRANDMA.
Now you.
"Okay, but you're a libertarian."
Huh? Libertarians don't sex non-libertarians? Or non-libertarians don't sex libertarians? False and false!
Not to mention a liar, if Will's the guy who complimented me rather pointedly on my top.
Not all compliments are coded sexual advances. Or if they are, then damn, I've been going about this all wrong.
102: Compliments on women whose tits are being shoved out of tight-laced corsets pretty much are, though.
100: Opinionated Grandma is eminently fuckable simply by virtue of her name alone, it's true.
b, I can't tell you your top was very hot (I also liked your glasses!) and still be committed to an exclusive pair-bond?
"On" s/b "too." Also, *willingness* to sleep with someone /= sexual advance.
Compliments on women whose tits are being shoved out of tight-laced corsets pretty much are, though.
Oh, you meant, if Will's the guy who complimented me on my rather pointed top.
105: Committed monogomy also /= (theoretical) willingness to sleep with someone.
"Compliments on women whose tits are being shoved out of tight-laced corsets pretty much are, though."
When free-riding on uninternalized positive externalities, the very least I can do is offer a verbal subsidy.
107: It'll surprise you to know, SB, that I do occasionally pay attention to my word choice, yes.
108: Well, yes. There is a possible world in which I am willing to sleep with you.
Also, for what it's worth, there is also a possible world in which I am (my counterpart) is a blueberry.
109: See, this is why libertarians are so annoying. Lots of jargon simply to say "I don't believe in anything but rational intent."
111: But is there a possible world in which I'm willing to sleep with a libertarian? I somehow doubt it.
112: I though I was saying that I want to encourage women to show off their lovely bosoms.
113: There is a possible world in which you ARE a libertarian!
It's a world without color or laughter, though.
115: Don't worry, Will, I picked up on it.
Yes. In some possible worlds.
115: Meaningless, given that one mustn't enjoy it, what with monogamous pair-bonding and all.
119: Ah, but you *would* sleep with me. Theoretically.
There is a possible world where w-lfs-n is made out of baloney and all libertarians have lovely bosoms.
I do occasionally pay attention to my word choice, yes.
Then, by way of complimenting 104, let me express my willingness to have sex with you in the nearest possible world.
116: In such a world, I would no longer be me. QED.
124: I'll make an exception to my brains-on-sticks rule, then, and express reciprocity.
There is a possible world where B is theoretically sleeping with w-lfs-n.
125: I had no idea ideological inflexibility could be metaphysically necessary!
You're better at sex when you've been doing it for decades...but at that point, you're sick of it and whoever you've been doing it with. The logical next step is to start hiring out your lovemaking talents for money. But in one of life's sick ironies, almost everyone who wants a prostitute or wants to see norpography wants it to involve young and inexperienced people.
Market inefficiencies abound in this demesne. When oh when will courtesan be once again a respected profession in which one can train one's daughters?
Granny
"bitchphd" is, like "Air Force One", non-rigid; it never denotes a libertarian.
128: Not at the moment, since I'm in Minneapolis sleeping with my boyfriend.
129: There's inflexibility, and then there are bottom-line principles.
However, if I weren't in Minneapolis sleeping with my boyfriend, I would totally jump 130 and 131.
brains-on-sticks
You don't know that for certain.
132: But I thought you believed in non-rational intent!
I want to see some old-person norpography.
134: Indeed, I feel certain that it's not true. Nonetheless, given the mystery that is you, it's all I have to base my desire on, yes?
Compliments on women whose tits are being shoved out of tight-laced corsets pretty much are, though.
That was a great corset.
135: I also believe that intent is irrelevant, rational or no. And even in unintended actions, individual and collective.
Indeed, I feel certain that it's not true.
Really, you think I'm the other kind of brain? That's not what you said before.
139: If only you'd been there, Joe.
140: So you would sleep with me!
THANK YOU 138 I do not enjoy the mechanical types of googleproofing when we know that words are easily comprehensible in context after their spellings have been altered, so why not just alter the spelling.
I'm pretty sure, Standpipe, that you have a lovely stick.
Can a brain be both in a vat and on a stick? If so, why? (aside from fondue-related purposes)
143: Initially I thought so; but I'm too well bred, and too well read, to have either conscious or unconscious interest in those who aren't interested in me.
My apologies, 141 is terribly dimorphist.
145
"I'm pretty sure, Standpipe, that you have a lovely stick."
watch out, sb. upthread, she offered to pet my lance.
146: The vat is on the stick, and the brain is in the vat.
I love fondue. I love OPINIONATED GRANDMA. Is it getting warm in here?
If only you'd been there, Joe.
Tell me about it.
Getting? Now I'm beginning to entertain the possibility that Standpipe is actually a frog.
I for one would like to see some Standpipe-on-GRANDMA norpography.
152: Well, if you'd been there, I might have gotten laid. Dammit.
Standpipe-on-GRANDMA-on-a-stick norpography.
Standpipe is actually a frog
Surely not this one.
147: I often find those who aren't interested in me really, really interesting, consciously and probably unconsciously (though in principle I guess couldn't know that).
146: The vat is on the stick, and the brain is in the vat.
And the green grass grows all around, all around?
I didn't get laid at the party either, B, so I went home and took care of that. All for the best, really; don't want to break any hearts.
Brain on a fondue fork? Would that even work, or is brain too mushy?
Surely not this one.
I note without comment that Crazy Frog is described as having "a set of ambiguous but controversial genitalia."
I can agree with 158. I mean, what's more worthy of investigation than the bizarre possibility that someone could be blind to one's charms?
don't want to break any hearts.
I doubt you weigh enough to really inflict much damage, JM. But if you were really worried about that, you could have just borrowed Ackerman's flak jacket and haunched with abandon.
160: Yes, but I had to wait *almost 36 hours* before I could rectify the omission. The horror!
Well, if you'd been there, I might have gotten laid. Dammit.
Might have, if you'd played your cards right.
159: And on that grass there grew a tree, and on that tree there was a limb, and on that limb there was a branch, and on that branch there was a nest, and in that nest there was an egg, and in that egg there was a bird, and from that bird a feather came, and of that feather was...a bed!
In a possible world, everybody got laid at the party. And in another possible world, nobody. In a possible world, there was a 3 AM pillowfight and then we all braided each other's hair and made waffles.
167: Alas, I'm just terrible at bluffing. Though I'll call a bluff every single time.
Our old favorite Lucy Mangan has the definitive take on Crazy Frog's naughty bits.
We should probably not cross the possible world where we made waffles with the one where Will is a blueberry.
In a possible world, there was a 3 AM pillowfight and then we all braided each other's hair and made waffles.
w-lfs-n's hair is unbraidable, as is Labs's.
At any future such party I am able to attend, I'm absolutely up for waffles.
My hair has in the past been braidable, albeit not very much so.
Waffles Will Willkinson sine theta.
You can't cross waffles with a blueberry; a blueberry is a scalar.
Speaking of waffles, my mom gave me a Mickey Mouse waffler for Xmas; a pity, since I'd bought myself a Hello Kitty waffler not a week before. I hereby donate Mickey to the next Unfogged party.
On the subject of this thread, 179 and 180 make me want to have sex with their respective authors.
Preferably simultaneously.
182: But I thought we were all supposed to block w-lfs-n getting laid.
183: Dude, I found it at Target for $15. They may still have them.
182: If I'd only known you back when I was at MIT, I could have introduced you to many, many people you would have found desirable.
Willkinson displays admirable altruism in devising a hookup maximization strategy despite the fact that he's already hooked up.
And to think all I had to do was recognize the joke to which SB was referring and continue it uncreatively.
Back when you were at MIT, LB, I think leblanc was a little young.
I thought libertarians didn't believe in altruism.
184 - Sadly, I already have a waffle maker. I want some waffles now, man.
Ben had never heard of Chicken And Waffles.
OT (except that it's to try to cheer up a friend about not getting laid): any of you DC types know a decent florist in Alexandria?
Fuck waffles. Chili Half Smokes all around!
Is it really the case that B was the only person who didn't macked on, as the kids say? Sweet, sweet party gods.
192: SPEAKING OF. WHERE IS MY BACON? THE BOYFRIEND AND I DEMAND IT.
193: I got macked on, but only in the pathetic "I don't really mean it" sense, as Will at least has the dubious character to freely admit.
In other news, I hate you, Ogged.
Next party I am definitely arranging to not be taking a plane at 9 the next morning.
B, you are such a liar! I was totally macking on you.
Also, everyone who comments here is a big old slut.
194: IT'S IN MY FREEZER. I AM BUSY TONIGHT. MAYBE LUNCH TOMORROW? DO YOU WANT BROWN SUGAR, BLACK PEPPER, OR HUNGARIAN?
196: You and I really need to just get a room, LeBlanc. The guys don't appreciate the slutty girls *nearly* enough.
Also, let it be known that I received no macking. I may have been too busy drinking and hiding behind my camera.
198: DO I HAVE TO CHOOSE? LUNCH TOMORROW SOUNDS GREAT. UPTOWN? MY HAIR APPOINTMENT IS AT 3.
You two shared a couch, but slept with your heads on opposite ends? That's genuinely sweet. Or really dirty. I don't know, and I don't want to know.
SCREW UPTOWN. LETS MEET AT SAWATDEE (NOT THE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT, THE ONE ON WASHINGTON) AT NOON AND HAVE PAD THAI. OR DOES WHATSAMAPLACE ON LAKE SERVE LUNCH?
201: You brought home-cured bacon and no one macked on you in response? Kids these days, just don't know how to appreciate pork products.
Nobody got any of the kielbasa I brought, no.
206 - To be fair, we did have sex with the home-cured bacon.
204 - It was pretty adorable.
I think I kinda passed out on what was supposed to be Jackmormon's couch, and she was kind enough to not dump me out on the floor.
I wanted to mack on Chopper, but I was too busy trying to stop B from macking on my girlfriend.
Well, actually, you passed out on what was supposed to be my couch, Ficke passed out on what was supposed to be Jackmormon's couch, and I ended up sleeping in a chair.
But yes, it was quite adorable.
Speaking of half-smokes, any DC kids or others know where I can order any online? I ate 4 last weekend and I still want more.
182 - I dunno, 180 really loses its oomph without the epidemiology pun for that dual-joke pleasure. It probably just deserves a minor make-out session.
The waffles are just a vector for the blueberries.
205: YOU MEAN THE BF'S PLACE? IT DOES, BUT I ATE THERE YESTERDAY AND I DON'T WANT TO STALK THE MAN. I'M WILLING, THOUGH. I DON'T KNOW WHERE SAWATDEE IS, AND I DON'T HAVE A CAR.
"I thought libertarians didn't believe in altruism."
I give and I give and I give and this is what I get.
WHAT THE FUCK? HAVE YOU PEOPLE HEARD OF E-MAIL? DON'T BE BRINGING BACON HERE UNLESS YOU HAVE ENOUGH TO SHARE.
The guys don't appreciate the slutty girls *nearly* enough.
You are mistaken.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS WHY YOU WANTED TO EAT IN UPTOWN. Anyway, doesn't he live right off Washington? It's here.
I'd do every motherfucking last one of you.
I'm thinking Will would fit right in with my friends when we play Monopoly: "I'll sell you this property, but you can only charge me 20% rent the first two times I land on it, 50% the next two, and full rent only if I land on it five times. But if anyone else lands on it, I get 10% of the rent you charge them." Or does everyone play that way?
Chopper I'm not sure you can order half-smokes online (google doesn't reveal anything right away), but I'd be happy to box up a care package for you personally.
It has to happen TONIGHT, though.
Sommer, I'm so taking you up on that.
It has to happen TONIGHT, though.
Hott. Everyone converge on Minneapolis. B, I'll be sure to invite eekbeat, lest you feel like you got the short end of the stick.
No problem, JM; I'll buy all your properties for $100.
Stop remembering my religion, you fuckheaded browser!
Weren't you supposed to call the browser 'son of a thousand syphilitic camels,' or similar?
219: True. As I remarked to LeBlanc, the older guys have got it going on, partly because they've learned a few things. Not dissing the slutty chicks is one of 'em.
220: THE HAIRCUT IS UPTOWN. But Sawatdee is fine. Do you have my cell#?
I can't believe you posted your number online, B, even if it's coded.
So soon you forget what a slut I am.
Don't diss the slutty chicks, Joe, or you'll end up like me, beloved of God.
Exactly. Though there's a remote chance you'll gain wisdom with age, Ogged.
Of course, if I was really smart, I would have arranged a lunch after your hair appointment, so I could mack on a redhead. I love me some redheads.
As I remarked to LeBlanc, the older guys have got it going on, partly because they've learned a few things.
OWNED BY 130
I totally credited 130. But that was about girls, not boys.
Apo, I already knelt at your feet and showed you my tits, what more signal could you want?
This thread is making me rethink my position on monogamy.