Date: 2003-10-17 02:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] verybadlady.livejournal.com


I'm staying strong at zero percent AND I LIKE IT!

Date: 2003-10-17 02:49 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] netropy.livejournal.com
How is it that I'm not in the results? Huh, oh well.

Date: 2003-10-17 03:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] seanrestless.livejournal.com
Wow, I jumped a whopping 2%!

I tried to retake the quiz too, but for some reason it wouldn't let me... Oh well.

TEH WINNAR

Date: 2003-10-17 03:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] counterfeitfake.livejournal.com
Seventy-five?! That's like, three quarters. I am more dumbfounded than before.

Re: TEH WINNAR

Date: 2003-10-17 03:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] herbaliser.livejournal.com
wow, a computer-generated quiz with a faulty algorithm and an obsession with coming all over the place thinks we'll have good sex.

Re: TEH WINNAR

Date: 2003-10-17 04:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shalifi.livejournal.com
I know the guy that runs ljmatch, and I was thinking the same thing. I was going to ask him why he was so obsessed with spraying semen over the opposite sex.

Re: TEH WINNAR

Date: 2003-10-17 04:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] counterfeitfake.livejournal.com
True. But, I do think it was good to ask some questions that people might differ on. Questions like "do you like playing with nipples?" are likely to rank everyone at 100% with everyone else.

I mean, "DEFINITELY", am I right?

Re: TEH WINNAR

Date: 2003-10-17 04:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] herbaliser.livejournal.com
see a lot of the stuff is "somewhat" for me b/c it depends on the partner. In this case, for example, some guys really really like it, and others don't at all. So for the first set I'm gonna be a lot more into it, not so much for the others.

Re: TEH WINNAR

Date: 2003-10-17 04:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shalifi.livejournal.com
Yeah, but he could have just gone and stolen the purity test and gotten much more interesting questions than ten semen questions in a row.

Re: TEH WINNAR

Date: 2003-10-17 04:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] herbaliser.livejournal.com
can you also ask him why the algorithm sucks so badly that I get 0% compatibility with a bunch of people?

Re: TEH WINNAR

Date: 2003-10-17 05:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shalifi.livejournal.com
I assume you mean besides straight girls.

Because he's got it set to give 0% if the person doesn't share your sexual preference.

Re: TEH WINNAR

Date: 2003-10-17 05:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] herbaliser.livejournal.com
er, then why did i get 15%-4% with some of them?

Re: TEH WINNAR

Date: 2003-10-17 05:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shalifi.livejournal.com
I obviously don't know anything about the matching algorithm, but I would say it's probably because some of those girls (or you) answered some of the questions in a bisexual manner.

Date: 2003-10-17 06:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] herbaliser.livejournal.com
well, craigb, who said he "definitely did not" have sex with women, and I got 29%...

Re: TEH WINNAR

Date: 2003-10-17 06:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] q.livejournal.com
You expect a semen-obsessed algorithm to make sense???

Date: 2003-10-18 01:20 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] apotheon.livejournal.com
How the hell did I end up tied for 3 (along with two other guys)?!

Profile

lauralh: (Default)
Laural Hill

July 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
23456 78
91011121314 15
1617 1819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Mar. 2nd, 2026 12:44 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios