T1B

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Python wrote:

2, 6, 3, 4, 5, 1

racist bastard

Whaddya mean, racist? Dude gave LeQueesha there his number two ranking. That ain't bad at all.

I think I would go, hmmm...

...5, 1, 2, 3, 6, 4.

1 and 2 are pretty much a Belushi-esque toss-up for me: angel or devil? Tough call.

not the way I see it? La queesha is bringing up the rear.

I kinda like the slope. Grab her by those handlebar pig tails and take her for a spin.

smackaholic wrote:not the way I see it? La queesha is bringing up the rear.

Okay, so if she's bringing up the rear then why is Mgo a racist bastard for slapping a number two ranking on her? I thought he was being rather generous there.

Python wrote: I've got cable and a remote. I'm good.

And a high tolerance for dicks in your ass.

reading this thread, I feel like I just watched a 4 episode marathon of The Big Bang Theory re-runs on TBS for the last 2 hours.

actually, I did. And laughed my ass off.

up until a few months ago, the only TV I've watched the last 10 years is news or sports, maybe the occasional documentary... until my daughter came home for Christmas break and basically made me watch that show. Freaking hilarious.

Well that came out of left field. Much like a dick in the ass I assume.

Lemme guess, Whitey's also a fan of How I Met Your Mother?

haven't watched an episode, should I be?

War Wagon wrote:haven't watched an episode, should I be?

Only if you like flaming engorged cock in your mouth.

Van does not understand the rules of Rank 'Em.

Kindest regards,

-M.A.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Lemme guess, Whitey's also a fan of How I Met Your Mother?

He'll get to that once he gets caught up on season one of Joey.

3,6,2,5,4,1

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Van does not understand the rules of Rank 'Em.

Kindest regards,

-M.A.

No shit. How the fukk can you be a member of this sordid clambake and not understand proper rank'em protocol? I blame the chemo.

You take (in this case) six girls. You assign a rank to each of them in the order in which they're standing, working from left to right. If you think the girl on the far left is the worst, the first number you list is a six. If the third girl is the hottest, she gets the one.

That's how Rank 'Ems have always worked, and that's what I did here, so 'splain the error of my ways.

Van wrote:That's how Rank 'Ems have always worked, and that's what I did here, so 'splain the error of my ways.

No, it hasn't. You rank in order of which you'd bang, idiot, and it's always been like that.

Anything else you need to be corrected on? You're on a bit of a skid, here.

Kick their asses, Screwey.

Van wrote:You take (in this case) six girls. You assign a rank to each of them in the order in which they're standing, working from left to right. If you think the girl on the far left is the worst, the first number you list is a six. If the third girl is the hottest, she gets the one.

That's how Rank 'Ems have always worked

No, it isn't.

'splain the error of my ways.

Mmmkay.

1. Each item to be ranked is assigned a number, starting from the left. (Far left would be #1, next to her would be #2, etc.)
b. Rank according to the assigned numbers.

Using my rankings of 362541, I'm saying the the third girl from the left would be my first preference, followed by the tramp on the far right, followed by the second from the left, etc. THAT is how rank 'ems have always worked.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Van wrote:That's how Rank 'Ems have always worked, and that's what I did here, so 'splain the error of my ways.

No, it hasn't. You rank in order of which you'd bang, idiot, and it's always been like that.

That's exactly what I did. Black chick on the far left? I'd bang her fifth, so I gave her '5.' The redhead next to her? She was my top preference so I gave her '1.' And so on....

Again, how is that any different from the way it's always been done?

Smackie Chan wrote:1. Each item to be ranked is assigned a number, starting from the left. (Far left would be #1, next to her would be #2, etc.)
b. Rank according to the assigned numbers.

Using my rankings of 362541, I'm saying the the third girl from the left would be my first preference, followed by the tramp on the far right, followed by the second from the left, etc. THAT is how rank 'ems have always worked.

Thank you.

This shouldn't be that complicated, but if .net can master it, then I have high hopes for Van.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Van wrote:You take (in this case) six girls. You assign a rank to each of them in the order in which they're standing, working from left to right. If you think the girl on the far left is the worst, the first number you list is a six. If the third girl is the hottest, she gets the one.

That's how Rank 'Ems have always worked

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.



Let's say that in this picture you most prefer the girl in the red, followed by the girl in green, followed by the blonde. It would go 3, 1, 2.

That's how it's always been done. That's how I've always done it, and no one has ever said it was wrong, nor has anyone ever told others they were wrong when they did it the same way.

If that's not how it's supposed to be done, show me how it ought to be listed using that same example.

'splain the error of my ways.

Mmmkay.

1. Each item to be ranked is assigned a number, starting from the left. (Far left would be #1, next to her would be #2, etc.)
b. Rank according to the assigned numbers.

That's what I did.

Using my rankings of 362541, I'm saying the the third girl from the left would be my first preference, followed by the tramp on the far right, followed by the second from the left, etc. THAT is how rank 'ems have always worked.

That makes absolutely no sense. If the third girl from the left is your first preference, she should receive the number one. In your example, why does the girl on the far right receive the one when she's neither the first girl in the pic nor the girl you most prefer?

Van is right.

Van wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Van wrote:That's how Rank 'Ems have always worked, and that's what I did here, so 'splain the error of my ways.

No, it hasn't. You rank in order of which you'd bang, idiot, and it's always been like that.

That's exactly what I did. Black chick on the far left? I'd bang her fifth, so I gave her '5.' The redhead next to her? She was my top preference so I gave her '1.' And so on....

Again, how is that any different from the way it's always been done?

The difference is how the numbers presented are interpreted by the readers. Doing it your way, my rankings would be 631542, rather than 362541. Ranking according to the way it's always been done makes it clear to most readers what my choices are in order of preference. Doing it your way makes it clear only to you unless you explain that the method you used is different from how it's always been done.

Smackie, take that pic I provided and rank them the way you're describing, using red as your first preference, green as your second, and blue as your third. The way I did it (3, 1, 2) is how it's always been done here.

Van wrote:If that's not how it's supposed to be done, show me how it ought to be listed using that same example.

2, 3, 1.

Going from left to right, the first girl represents girl #1 since she is pictured first. The second girl represents girl #2 since she is pictured second, etc. If you think girl #2 is the hottest, then you would list her assigned number first in your ranking order. If you think girl #3 is the second hottest, you would list her number second. So on and so on. This has always been the standard system, and that doesn't change just because a few other dickslaps have their own method.

I wrote:Using my rankings of 362541, I'm saying the the third girl from the left would be my first preference, followed by the tramp on the far right, followed by the second from the left, etc. THAT is how rank 'ems have always worked.

Van wrote:That makes absolutely no sense. If the third girl from the left is your first preference, she should receive the number one.

She did receive that number by virtue of the fact that I listed #3 first.

In your example, why does the girl on the far right receive the one when she's neither the first girl in the pic nor the girl you most prefer?

The girl on the far right did NOT receive the one. The girl on the far right is #6 when counting from the left, and she is ranked #2 by virtue of #6 being listed second in my order of preference.

There's nothing wrong with doing it your way - it works just as well. It's just not the way it's always been done, and therefore is foreign to long-time rankers.

Smackie, your Rank 'Em method is "long division". You're adding an unnecessary process for the ranker to qualify his subject matter.

The method Van uses (and the accepted method of the International Rank 'Em Governing Board...or IREGB) is the indusrty standard.
Reviewing the subject matter from left to right (or right to left in the Islamic world) each "specimen" is given a grading amongst the total number of "participants".


The only spanner in the works is when some ass-hat decides to toss in a pic of hot chicks with some dude mixed in.

Martyred wrote:Smackie, your Rank 'Em method is "long division".

Thanks for giving me credit, but it's not my method. It's simply the way it's always been done. I didn't make it up.

This is nowhere near over...you're dealing with Van. Given enough time he could convince Francis I that he was really Francis the talking mule.

Don't disappoint me, boy!

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Van wrote:If that's not how it's supposed to be done, show me how it ought to be listed using that same example.

2, 3, 1.

Going from left to right, the first girl represents girl #1 since she is pictured first. The second girl represents girl #2 since she is pictured second, etc. If you think girl #2 is the hottest, then you would list her assigned number first in your ranking order. If you think girl #3 is the second hottest, you would list her number second. So on and so on. This has always been the standard system, and that doesn't change just because a few other dickslaps have their own method.

Okay, I see what you're doing there but no, that isn't how it's usually done here. Funny, that no one has ever tried to correct me or anyone else here who has always done it the right way. In fact, smackaholic has long done it the way I did it, or else this debate would have come up before.

Only at T1B can a thread about bad TV quickly morph into ranking teenage cartoon charachters by fuckability and a lively debate on the mechanics of left to right.

Van wrote:I see what you're doing there but no, that isn't how it's usually done here.

Yes, it is, and always has been, despite Marty's contention.

The fact that Marty & Van are aligned on this against everyone else is the REAL headline here.

Van wrote:Okay, I see what you're doing there but no, that isn't how it's usually done here. Funny, that no one has ever tried to correct me or anyone else here who has always done it the right way. In fact, smackaholic has long done it the way I did it, or else this debate would have come up before.

I don't know what to tell you other than you're flat out wrong. For the record, I actually prefer your method, but I just used the standard I've always seen before. Maybe nobody corrected you because that didn't crack their top 100 things to give a shit about that day.

We need a seasoned, expert ranker from .net to get in here and set the record straight.

Quick, someone shoot off a PM to Go Squat On A Dick.

It saddens me to say that what we are witnessing here is the dawn of a "great Rank 'Em schism".

Brother pitted against brother...roll of Bounty pitted against bottle of Jergens...

:(

Like Martin Luther, Van has nailed his Rank 'Em proclamation up in full view of the heretics. Let history be the judge...

...and may God have mercy on us all.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Van wrote:I see what you're doing there but no, that isn't how it's usually done here.

Yes, it is, and always has been, despite Marty's contention.

uhhh...I'm on your side, dude...

:?

Smackie wrote:

I see what you're doing there but no, that isn't how it's usually done here.

Yes, it is, and always has been, despite Marty's contention.

Nope. Not even close. If that's how it's always been done, then why has no one ever corrected me or any of the multitudes of others who have always done it the right way? This is literally the first time you, smackie or Mgo have ever raised a stink about it, and I and most others have been doing it the same way since Day One.