Shearer's ebar

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Just like you, I wonder what Mrs Obi will think when she finds out?

And she will unless .............................

[video=youtube;8BOR5jHnYzs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BOR5jHnYzs[/video]
 
Agent Bruce said:
Just like you, I wonder what Mrs Obi will think when she finds out?

And she will unless .............................

[video=youtube;8BOR5jHnYzs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BOR5jHnYzs[/video]
Click to expand...


I didn't know you played the drums AB.
 
Obi Wan said:
<laugh> Smart Fanny Watch <laugh>

I hear you're rather picky and your scoring out of ten is a bit harsh though - every time any gorgeous lasses walk past you only say "I'd give her one... and I'd give her one... and I'd give her one"
Click to expand...

You make me sound like some sort of perverted amateur.

The scoring system is very technical. Aside from the obvious like big hooters, slutty, lovely bubble butt etc I also consider whether they have natural beauty or it is created by man (i.e. is the make up hiding sins). Then you have to consider whether they have potential for greater beauty with guidance or are they at their limits. Its a science Obi. Once all the scoring is done, and a conclusion drawn from it, only then I can decide if I would give them one. Fair enough its usually a yes or "After a few pints....." but still.

I consider myself a PP (Perverted Professional)

I tell you the worst thing though for any PP, a Golden Deceiver. Nothing worse than thinking "Hello look at the chasis on that blonde bombshell", only for a 50 yr old smoke ridden face to turn round and fill your soul with hurt.
 
Hacky Sack said:
You make me sound like some sort of perverted amateur.

The scoring system is very technical. Aside from the obvious like big hooters, slutty, lovely bubble butt etc I also consider whether they have natural beauty or it is created by man (i.e. is the make up hiding sins). Then you have to consider whether they have potential for greater beauty with guidance or are they at their limits. Its a science Obi. Once all the scoring is done, and a conclusion drawn from it, only then I can decide if I would give them one. Fair enough its usually a yes or "After a few pints....." but still.

I consider myself a PP (Perverted Professional)

I tell you the worst thing though for any PP, a Golden Deceiver. Nothing worse than thinking "Hello look at the chasis on that blonde bombshell", only for a 50 yr old smoke ridden face to turn round and fill your soul with hurt.
Click to expand...

Especially when you realise it's actually AB in his 'Friday gear'.
 
Interesting scoring technique HS. I have to admit, I consider myself quite the shop-window connoisseur...

I have an incredibly stringent and robust scale of female attractiveness. For practicality, there are naturally three scales.

The first method of judgement is against the "Universal Appeal Scale", this is where the vast majority of women find their numeric home. The integrity of the system relies on sufficient decimals and aggressive ratings, because upon the rare instances of a perfect 10 on the Universal Appeal Scale being achieved, we then open up the "GODDESS" toolbar, where the rating is refreshed and these beauties re-tested against more heavenly critique, so as to distinguish between all the commoners and the women I know I can't possibly date without adding a few billion zeros to the end of my paycheck... or the girth of my...

Alas, this also works conversely, with the "Mackem Scale" (what? we are talking the bottom echelons here... and not to mention most of their women make it in this category). When a 0 is given, unfortunately a more common occurrence than the award of a 10, they must be re-evaluated according to the parameters of a separate, completely hideous species.

For instance, we could probably all agree that Halle Berry is worthy of a 10 on the Universal scale, but unfortunately my racist penis and the biologically driven necessity to copulate with a woman closely resembling female presences in early life (important here I point out that like the vast majority of the earth's male population bordering Sunderland, my natural propensity is to seek only a resemblance and not the close genetic alignment garnered by physically eloping with a relative), means that her exotic looks are rewarded with a miserly 3 on my GODDESS scale, whereas Rachel McAdams' caucasian silky white skin and facial shape sharing similarity with the smiley hot brunette I used to piss myself in-front of in the sandbox aged five renders her a 10 in both...

Of course, this system is purely scientific and cannot be adjudged as sexist in any way.

For anyone wishing for me to rate their spouse or loved one on this thoroughly principled and objective barometer, you are welcome to send me pictures via PM... <whistle>
 
TheJudeanPeoplesFront said:
Interesting scoring technique HS. I have to admit, I consider myself quite the shop-window connoisseur...

I have an incredibly stringent and robust scale of female attractiveness. For practicality, there are naturally three scales.

The first method of judgement is against the "Universal Appeal Scale", this is where the vast majority of women find their numeric home. The integrity of the system relies on sufficient decimals and aggressive ratings, because upon the rare instances of a perfect 10 on the Universal Appeal Scale being achieved, we then open up the "GODDESS" toolbar, where the rating is refreshed and these beauties re-tested against more heavenly critique, so as to distinguish between all the commoners and the women I know I can't possibly date without adding a few billion zeros to the end of my paycheck... or the girth of my...

Alas, this also works conversely, with the "Mackem Scale" (what? we are talking the bottom echelons here... and not to mention most of their women make it in this category). When a 0 is given, unfortunately a more common occurrence than the award of a 10, they must be re-evaluated according to the parameters of a separate, completely hideous species.

For instance, we could probably all agree that Halle Berry is worthy of a 10 on the Universal scale, but unfortunately my racist penis and the biologically driven necessity to copulate with a woman closely resembling female presences in early life (important here I point out that like the vast majority of the earth's male population bordering Sunderland, my natural propensity is to seek only a resemblance and not the close genetic alignment garnered by physically eloping with a relative), means that her exotic looks are rewarded with a miserly 3 on my GODDESS scale, whereas Rachel McAdams' caucasian silky white skin and facial shape sharing similarity with the smiley hot brunette I used to piss myself in-front of in the sandbox aged five renders her a 10 in both...

Of course, this system is purely scientific and cannot be adjudged as sexist in any way.

For anyone wishing for me to rate their spouse or loved one on this thoroughly principled and objective barometer, you are welcome to send me pictures via PM... <whistle>
Click to expand...

<laugh> Love it! But i do seriously worry about you sometimes JPF. <ok>
 
In anticipation of the seemingly logical indictment of the casual intellectual that my system should simply be expanded across a greater numeric range in promotion of simplicity of study, I feel compelled to exonerate myself of the charge of over-complication. Put simply, I experimented with a range of 0-39, but found it much less consoling to a greater number of my more ugly-tree bashing female acquaintances to respond with my scientific observation deduced from this method, rather than simply expressing their physical attractiveness as a 7. They don't know I'm talking the "Mackem Scale"...



Although some of the more astute ones probably gather I'm with-holding some integral information, given my flaccid member and unwillingness to help them pick out lingerie...
 
Where is ACS? We'll hit 26,000 posts tonight, so we need an appropriate celebratory pic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back