This is the most intelligible thing I've read in the thread so far. That said, I LOVE this thread! Like Hayesfan, I somehow missed most of it.
Interesting. I will now give my feedback. It's not all about looks......Read a book. Reading rainbow.
YES!! You, my good friend are getting repped! I thought about trying to show a graph but was pressed for time since I was at work, but I knew a graph would make this easier to understand.
On the subjects of girls looking for attention. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TraEp8AQBq8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TraEp8AQBq8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/21699842@N05/4101849472/" title="MR Integrated Hotness by weslinder, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2692/4101849472_d2c6a5b60c_o.jpg" width="1146" height="270" alt="MR Integrated Hotness" /></a> It is like me and weslinder are the Newton and Leibniz of developing mathematics to describe the beauty of women. At any rate, this graph is excellent because it hammers the point of how an average looking girl but dressed sexily has a higher level of "integrated hotness" (love that term) compared to a more beautiful girl but dressed sloppily. And being a math major, I had a feeling that the area under the curve would do the trick. So, if our average girl is wearing a short skirt (5 on x and 8 on y), then as weslinder has pointed out, the integrated hotness is 20 or 1/2 of 40 which is what 5 times 8 is. Compare and contrast that to Scarlett Johansen wearing a sweat suit (10 on x and 3 on y), the integrated hotness is one half of 10 times 3 which is 15. Therefore, our average girl in a short skirt is "hotter" than Scarlett in a sweatsuit but not by much. Now if Scarlett had a business suit, then her integrated hotness doubles to 30 and it is quite obvious that she would be hotter dressed like that then the average girl who is wearing the short skirt. What the average girl must do to compensate for this is increase her looks by losing weight, wearing more makeup, dying her hair, changing her hairstyle, etc. Yet to even get close to where Scarlett is in her business suit, the average girl must go from a "5" in looks to being essentially a power dancer. Therefore, this is not possible to attain which makes sense with the theory if you think about it. Now weslinder you need to find the average rate of change that a woman is increasing or decreasing her hotness by what she is wearing - in other words, find the antiderivative or reversed integrated hotness, LOL. Sounds like something to keep B-Bob busy for the next couple of hours, rofl.
I don't know, ever since bigtexxx banned me a while back for expressing my affection for chicken noodles, I haven't felt comfortable trusting him. Please don't ban me bigtexxx I still love you!
Forgot to add this - as you can see by the graph, the highest that Rosie O'Donnell (better example than Sandra Bernhard - thanks again, weslinder) could attain in integrated hotness is a 5 which is her in lingerie (1 x 10 then divided by 2). This would only equal Scarlett if she was wearing the burlap sack (10 x 1 then divided by 2). Thus it is safe to say that Rosie O'Donnell will NEVER be hotter than Scarlett Johansen even if Rosie was wearing lingerie and Scarlett was wearing a burlap sack, instead they would be equals. Oh and actually have proof of this (well at least on the Rosie O'Donnell side). Behold - Rosie at her maximum integrated level of hotness:
I suggest you wear something like this. Old pictures I took but I still like it. Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler
