But sometimes they do... (Note: this is not for people who don't like cursing.)
From the Arnolds...
McFly,
I'm decorating my house for Christmas for the first time and my wife is demanding lights...any suggestions?
Clark W. Griswald Jr.
Chicago, IL
Lights are a lost art. In the era of moving reindeer and inflatable snowmen, people have forgotten what it means to actually adorn your home with Edison's glowing invention...
Really easy though:
Step One:
Don't "hang" lights. Attach them. A staple gun and some sort of straight-edge are necessary to have a classy-looking layout. Loosely strewn lights hanging in different directions are like mowing your lawn without parallel-lines.
Step Two:
White lights. Do I need to repeat that?
WHITE. LIGHTS.
The multi-colored blinkers died out with disco, and the new trend to go monochromatic in green or red is ridiculous. All green and it looks like St. Patrick's Day...all red and you look like you're living at the Lucifer Residence.
(Sidebar--don't you love the Jewish families with senses of humor who go blue and white for December? Always kills me...)
So keep it simple--you'll do fine.
McFly,
Is it okay that I think I'm cooler than everyone else because I live in Washington but have a California Driver's License?
Sydney
La Center, WA
No--but if you lived in California and had a Washington license, you'd be one of the cooler people on Earth.
Why do we spend hours watching movies like "The Ringer" but won't take an hour to go get a new license?
That makes about as much sense as someone paying Marc Anthony to record "Auld lang Syne".
Oh wait...they did that...
McFly,
What city has the hottest chicks? My friends and I are always debating...
Hugh H.
Beverly Hills, CA
This is such a ridiculous debate. I've had a year-long argument with my friends in San Francisco as to who has better looking girls, SF or Orange County...
Just a wasted argument. How can you possibly quantify what city has better-looking women...or people for that matter? SF or Orange County? Iceland or Spain? Pittsburgh or Milwaukee?
And for that matter--do you remember college? "Dude--the chicks at our school are WAY hotter at our school than yours..." Really? How are you going to quantify that?
The fact is--you can't.
You can however create a system for giving a round-understanding as to how attractive the people in a particular area are. But you can't really base it all on looks.
So...I give to you...
The McFly Dateability Corollary
We start with the "Seinfeld factor". Jerry Seinfeld claimed in an episode I can't place right now that exactly ten percent of the population is dateable.
Therefore: S=10
(Important to note however--that in my experience, no city has a higher percentage than 17 or lower than 3. If other factors stretch a particular place's range beyond that, we'll assume that that city is a 3 or 17. Therefore...)
S=10 (With a range of 3 : 17).
Other factors are as follows:
Climate: Potential range: (-2 : 2)
Obviously--a little sunshine never hurt anyone. But it isn't nearly as big a spread as some people think. Example: Yuma does not have more-dateable people than Portland.
Education: Potential range: (-2 : 2)
Brains are sexy. Just ask the chick who has been trying to have sex with Steven Hawking for the past twenty years. Example: Washington DC has more-dateable people than Charleston
Fitness: Potential range: (-3 : 3)
Ugly people with great bodies are the reason that bars close at two instead of midnight. Example: Denver has more-dateable people than Milwaukee.
Young Population: Potential Range: (-1 : 1)
Younger people are more appealing than old--unless you're Anna Nicole Smith. Example: Boston has more-attractive people than Buffalo.
Metropolitanism: Potential Range: (-3 : 3)
Country girls aren't nearly as hot as people pretend they are--in fact, most of them look a lot like the horses they ride.
Often competing with...
Snobbery: Potential Range: (-1 : 1)
No--snobs are not dateable--even if they seem that way on The Hills.
Outdoorsyness: Potential Range: (-1 : 1)
Decidedly different from fitness. But for some reason, we all have a strange obsession with good-looking-hippies...
And finally...
Drunkenness: Potential Range: (-1 : 1)
What can I say? Beer-gogs never hurt anybody...
Here's the key: You can't have a number in your head before you start...you have to give an honest grade.
So let's have some fun and grade a city or two:
San Francisco
Climate: -1
Education: 2
Fitness: 0
Young Population: 1
Metropolitanism: 3
Snobbery: -1
Outdoorsyness: -1
Drunkenness: 1
Therefore:
SF= S10 + C-1 + E2 + F0 +YP1 + M3 + S-1 + O-1 + D1
San Francisco = 14
Seattle
Climate: -2
Education: 2
Fitness: -1
Young Population: 0
Metropolitanism: 1
Snobbery: 0
Outdoorsyness: 1
Drunkenness: 0
Sea= S10 + C-2 + E2 + F-1 + YP0 + M1 + S0 + O1 + D0
Seattle = 11
Milwaukee
Climate: -2
Education: -2
Fitness: -3
Young Population: -1
Metropolitanism: 0
Snobbery: 1
Outdoorsyness: -1
Drunkenness: 2
Mil= S10 + C-2 + E-2 + F-3 + YP-1 + M0 + S1 + O-1 + D2
Milwaukee = 4
The system can be used for colleges as well, with "Size of School" replacing "Education", but with a range of (-1 : 1). (Many would say that the age factor should be eliminated, but there needs to be a dropoff for commuter schools---people just aren't as attractive.)
SO...of course UPS has to be judged here--I mean--it's nickname is "Ugly People School"...I've always argued conversely, just saying that it was a tiny college in a crappy climate.
But here goes...
The University of Puget Sound
Climate: -2
Size of School: -1
Fitness: -2
Young Population: 1
Metropolitanism: 0
Snobbery: 1 (Seriously--the most self-efacing group I've ever been around.)
Outdoorsyness: 1
Drunkenness: 2 (Pretty much every college gets that...except for BYU...)
Therefore:
UPS = S10 + C-2 + Sch-1 + F-2 + YP1 + M0 + S1 + O1 + D2
University of Puget Sound = 10
So--despite what everyone says, UPS has a representative portion of the population that is dateable. Don't believe me? Do the math.
(Naturally, I'll do it for girls...)
2300 Undergrads
1300 Girls
X .10 (Dateability Factor)
=
130 Dateable Girls
/4 (Classes)
=
32.5 Dateable Girls per class. Honest to goodness--you're telling me that you can't come up with 32.5 girls in each class that you'd date (not including their reputation)?
Be realistic.
So in conclusion--I don't think I answered the question, but I absolutely hope that this becomes the macro version of the binary code system for rating individual people based on their looks...
More questions? mcflyblogs@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment