Page 22 of 37

Re: Hacksaw's 9:1 Media Thread

Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:18 pm
by GBJs
Good to see ya Smee! Where ya been?

Re: Hacksaw's 9:1 Media Thread

Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:25 pm
by smeee
hello gb....
:)

i bin here...and there...

i see this is one of the few theads that has some potential for life....i'll have to pop in more often with stupid pictures..

lol

; P

Re: Hacksaw's 9:1 Media Thread

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:11 pm
by GBJs
nude [attractive] females !

Re: Hacksaw's 9:1 Media Thread

Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:16 am
by smeee
Image

Re: Hacksaw's 9:1 Media Thread

Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:24 am
by smeee
Image

Re: Hacksaw's 9:1 Media Thread

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:23 pm
by GBJs
See, those made an improvement. And that's sayin' somethin...

Re: Hacksaw's 9:1 Media Thread

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:46 pm
by smeee
yes......yesss...ithink you're right...

*huffs nails*

Re: Hacksaw's 9:1 Media Thread

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:52 pm
by smeee
this is so beautiful...the art of filming an art...

http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeye/episode ... ircus.html#

Re: Hacksaw's 9:1 Media Thread

Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:31 pm
by billy bob bocephus
a clear illustration of perspective

http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white

Re: Hacksaw's 9:1 Media Thread

Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:10 am
by smeee
wow...i LUVED that...and a good lol@minecraft area...I didn't think it was that huge!

Re: Hacksaw's 9:1 Media Thread

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:39 pm
by smeee
[youtube]y7iEh7TBGiE[/youtube]

Re: Hacksaw's 9:1 Media Thread

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:10 am
by 10ac
[youtube]UW0UhYfs1es[/youtube]

Re: Hacksaw's 9:1 Media Thread

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:19 am
by smeee
heh! i wonder if that was for real?? that boy had some moves! lol

Re: Hacksaw's 9:1 Media Thread

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:18 am
by Jungle Rat
Reno 911

Re: Hacksaw's 9:1 Media Thread

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:22 am
by It's me Karen
lmao @ both videos, but I don't think the dance one is real.

Re: Hacksaw's 9:1 Media Thread

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:25 pm
by smeee
i'm crushed karen..that drunk stole my heart...

Re: Hacksaw's 9:1 Media Thread

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:53 am
by It's me Karen
lol smeee. He did have a way about him. Even sober, I can't do the alphabet that fast.

Re: Hacksaw's 9:1 Media Thread

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:51 am
by smeee
heh...

once i get it downpat frontways i'm gonna practice it the other..

;P

Re: Hacksaw's 9:1 Media Thread

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:18 pm
by innocentbystander
I guess National Review is "media." Hey smeee, karen, check this out! Fascinating shit.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... williamson
Mr Williamson wrote:The most frequently cited (and probably the most controversial) research on the “Chicks Dig Jerks” thesis is the “Dark Triad” work of Professor Peter Jonason of the University of South Alabama. The Dark Triad is a combination of psychological traits — subclinical psychopathology, subclinical narcissism, and what Professor Jonason calls “Machiavellianism” — that are, he believes, in fact a unitary phenomenon associated with a higher level of sexual success, defined in the literature as a larger number of total lifetime sexual partners. The correlation of the Dark Triad with larger numbers of sexual partners holds true for both men and women, but the effect is much more pronounced in men. This is unsurprising, inasmuch as men’s relative preference for larger numbers of short-term sexual relationships and women’s relative preference for long-term relationships is, as Professor Jonason notes, “one of the most consistent and strongest sex differences in the field.”

So: Machiavellianism, subclinical psychopathology, subclinical narcissism: not exactly the stuff of a Jane Austen romance, but apparently the stuff of sexual success......
Go figure.
Mr Williamson wrote:.....There is in evolutionary science something called the Trivers-Willard hypothesis, which holds that parents with abundant resources will invest more of them in their sons relative to their daughters, and that parents with fewer resources will invest relatively more heavily in their daughters. Consequently, there are localized variations in sex ratios. Evidence has supported this thesis in many different animals: Deer in good health have more male offspring, while deer in poor health have more female offspring. Dominant female macaques have more sons, while low-ranking macaques have more daughters. The effect holds true among homo sap., too: Rich families have more sons than daughters.
Our next President (rich, conservative, alpha-male) has 5 sons, no daughters. Our current President (sensitive, liberal, beta-male) has two daughters, no sons.
Mr Williamson wrote:Women suffering domestic violence also have more sons than daughters, which has led some evolutionary psychologists to posit that they stay in abusive relationships because in the ancestral environment — which, as I noted on NPR, was not very much like the campus of Bryn Mawr College —
This is some gooooood shit. Chicks do dig jerks and now we know why. And it's about procreation of sons! In China and India, they have fixed this problem by doing something even more sinsiter (just abort all the girl babies in utero.)

Re: Hacksaw's 9:1 Media Thread

Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:12 am
by smeee
innocentbystander wrote:I guess National Review is "media." Hey smeee, karen, check this out! Fascinating shit.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... williamson
Mr Williamson wrote:The most frequently cited (and probably the most controversial) research on the “Chicks Dig Jerks” thesis is the “Dark Triad” work of Professor Peter Jonason of the University of South Alabama. The Dark Triad is a combination of psychological traits — subclinical psychopathology, subclinical narcissism, and what Professor Jonason calls “Machiavellianism” — that are, he believes, in fact a unitary phenomenon associated with a higher level of sexual success, defined in the literature as a larger number of total lifetime sexual partners. The correlation of the Dark Triad with larger numbers of sexual partners holds true for both men and women, but the effect is much more pronounced in men. This is unsurprising, inasmuch as men’s relative preference for larger numbers of short-term sexual relationships and women’s relative preference for long-term relationships is, as Professor Jonason notes, “one of the most consistent and strongest sex differences in the field.”

So: Machiavellianism, subclinical psychopathology, subclinical narcissism: not exactly the stuff of a Jane Austen romance, but apparently the stuff of sexual success......
Go figure.
Mr Williamson wrote:.....There is in evolutionary science something called the Trivers-Willard hypothesis, which holds that parents with abundant resources will invest more of them in their sons relative to their daughters, and that parents with fewer resources will invest relatively more heavily in their daughters. Consequently, there are localized variations in sex ratios. Evidence has supported this thesis in many different animals: Deer in good health have more male offspring, while deer in poor health have more female offspring. Dominant female macaques have more sons, while low-ranking macaques have more daughters. The effect holds true among homo sap., too: Rich families have more sons than daughters.
Our next President (rich, conservative, alpha-male) has 5 sons, no daughters. Our current President (sensitive, liberal, beta-male) has two daughters, no sons.
Mr Williamson wrote:Women suffering domestic violence also have more sons than daughters, which has led some evolutionary psychologists to posit that they stay in abusive relationships because in the ancestral environment — which, as I noted on NPR, was not very much like the campus of Bryn Mawr College —
This is some gooooood shit. Chicks do dig jerks and now we know why. And it's about procreation of sons! In China and India, they have fixed this problem by doing something even more sinsiter (just abort all the girl babies in utero.)

hey that's interesting...i did some research myself and found an article that corroborates what you say....see here...

Menstrual Cycle
People Science 15/05/2011; New Scientific Study

A recent scientific study found that women find different male faces attractive depending on where they are in their menstrual cycle.

For example, when a woman is ovulating she will prefer a man with rugged, masculine features.

However when she is menstruating, she prefers a man doused in petrol and set on fire, with scissors stuck in his eye and a baseball bat shoved up his backside.