FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Geek or Hunk
Geek or Hunk
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I prefer a hunk because geeks usually have a chip on their shoulder."
What? Us geeks have a chip on our shoulders? How dare you... 
Actually I am very balanced (a chip on both shoulders).
But I am partial to geeky women - how would you classify a hunky female? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I prefer a hunk because geeks usually have a chip on their shoulder.
What? Us geeks have a chip on our shoulders? How dare you...
Actually I am very balanced (a chip on both shoulders).
But I am partial to geeky women - how would you classify a hunky female? "
Now that is a good question - suppose it would be more a model like equivalent |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I am sure this has been done so i apologise.
Just a thread to show your appreciation for geeks or hunks
I love geeky women  "
Can't we have both in the same package? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And geeky hunks  "
You are starting to sound like Donald Rumsfeld - we will be onto hunky hunks and geeky geeks next
So what is the Geek / Hunk measuring spectrum, and how is geekiness and hunkiness quantified (I know, I know, just proved I am a geek...) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And geeky hunks
You are starting to sound like Donald Rumsfeld - we will be onto hunky hunks and geeky geeks next
So what is the Geek / Hunk measuring spectrum, and how is geekiness and hunkiness quantified (I know, I know, just proved I am a geek...) "
Lol do you have spreadsheet analysis |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And geeky hunks
You are starting to sound like Donald Rumsfeld - we will be onto hunky hunks and geeky geeks next
So what is the Geek / Hunk measuring spectrum, and how is geekiness and hunkiness quantified (I know, I know, just proved I am a geek...) "
You made a valid point. There should be a measure of geek and hunkness. A sliding scale would work but there would have to be two,one for geek and one for hunk. They could then be used to calculate a man's geekhunkiness |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And geeky hunks
You are starting to sound like Donald Rumsfeld - we will be onto hunky hunks and geeky geeks next
So what is the Geek / Hunk measuring spectrum, and how is geekiness and hunkiness quantified (I know, I know, just proved I am a geek...)
You made a valid point. There should be a measure of geek and hunkness. A sliding scale would work but there would have to be two,one for geek and one for hunk. They could then be used to calculate a man's geekhunkiness "
I like the way you are thinking - if we put, say geekiness on the x-axis and hunkiness on the y-axis we could turn the sliding scales into a 2 dimensional representation, with the optimal position being in the top right quadrant highlighting both extreme hunkiness and extreme geekiness....
Anyone (else) getting turned on yet? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And geeky hunks
You are starting to sound like Donald Rumsfeld - we will be onto hunky hunks and geeky geeks next
So what is the Geek / Hunk measuring spectrum, and how is geekiness and hunkiness quantified (I know, I know, just proved I am a geek...)
You made a valid point. There should be a measure of geek and hunkness. A sliding scale would work but there would have to be two,one for geek and one for hunk. They could then be used to calculate a man's geekhunkiness
I like the way you are thinking - if we put, say geekiness on the x-axis and hunkiness on the y-axis we could turn the sliding scales into a 2 dimensional representation, with the optimal position being in the top right quadrant highlighting both extreme hunkiness and extreme geekiness....
Anyone (else) getting turned on yet? "
They probably are but don't want to admit it. Now,if we could turn the 2-dimensional representation into a 3-dimensional solid,given that our input data is of varying degrees of geek/hunkiness,we could end up with a rather interesting object  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And geeky hunks
You are starting to sound like Donald Rumsfeld - we will be onto hunky hunks and geeky geeks next
So what is the Geek / Hunk measuring spectrum, and how is geekiness and hunkiness quantified (I know, I know, just proved I am a geek...)
You made a valid point. There should be a measure of geek and hunkness. A sliding scale would work but there would have to be two,one for geek and one for hunk. They could then be used to calculate a man's geekhunkiness
I like the way you are thinking - if we put, say geekiness on the x-axis and hunkiness on the y-axis we could turn the sliding scales into a 2 dimensional representation, with the optimal position being in the top right quadrant highlighting both extreme hunkiness and extreme geekiness....
Anyone (else) getting turned on yet?
They probably are but don't want to admit it. Now,if we could turn the 2-dimensional representation into a 3-dimensional solid,given that our input data is of varying degrees of geek/hunkiness,we could end up with a rather interesting object "
I think if we take the distribution of the occurrence of hunks and geeks on Fabs and put that in Z-space on top of the X-Y spatial graph of hunkiness and geekinees, I would posit an an inverse normal distribution with few in the true hunk or true geek extremes. As a 3-dimensional shape it would appear to be a bell shape  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And geeky hunks
You are starting to sound like Donald Rumsfeld - we will be onto hunky hunks and geeky geeks next
So what is the Geek / Hunk measuring spectrum, and how is geekiness and hunkiness quantified (I know, I know, just proved I am a geek...)
You made a valid point. There should be a measure of geek and hunkness. A sliding scale would work but there would have to be two,one for geek and one for hunk. They could then be used to calculate a man's geekhunkiness
I like the way you are thinking - if we put, say geekiness on the x-axis and hunkiness on the y-axis we could turn the sliding scales into a 2 dimensional representation, with the optimal position being in the top right quadrant highlighting both extreme hunkiness and extreme geekiness....
Anyone (else) getting turned on yet?
They probably are but don't want to admit it. Now,if we could turn the 2-dimensional representation into a 3-dimensional solid,given that our input data is of varying degrees of geek/hunkiness,we could end up with a rather interesting object
I think if we take the distribution of the occurrence of hunks and geeks on Fabs and put that in Z-space on top of the X-Y spatial graph of hunkiness and geekinees, I would posit an an inverse normal distribution with few in the true hunk or true geek extremes. As a 3-dimensional shape it would appear to be a bell shape "
I think that's what I had in mind. We could then use a 3D laser printer to produce a finished article of our findings. Just for posterity of course |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And geeky hunks
You are starting to sound like Donald Rumsfeld - we will be onto hunky hunks and geeky geeks next
So what is the Geek / Hunk measuring spectrum, and how is geekiness and hunkiness quantified (I know, I know, just proved I am a geek...)
You made a valid point. There should be a measure of geek and hunkness. A sliding scale would work but there would have to be two,one for geek and one for hunk. They could then be used to calculate a man's geekhunkiness
I like the way you are thinking - if we put, say geekiness on the x-axis and hunkiness on the y-axis we could turn the sliding scales into a 2 dimensional representation, with the optimal position being in the top right quadrant highlighting both extreme hunkiness and extreme geekiness....
Anyone (else) getting turned on yet?
They probably are but don't want to admit it. Now,if we could turn the 2-dimensional representation into a 3-dimensional solid,given that our input data is of varying degrees of geek/hunkiness,we could end up with a rather interesting object
I think if we take the distribution of the occurrence of hunks and geeks on Fabs and put that in Z-space on top of the X-Y spatial graph of hunkiness and geekinees, I would posit an an inverse normal distribution with few in the true hunk or true geek extremes. As a 3-dimensional shape it would appear to be a bell shape
I think that's what I had in mind. We could then use a 3D laser printer to produce a finished article of our findings. Just for posterity of course "
Perfect - and I would of course be very happy to present it to you for safe keeping - I am sure you have somewhere in mind to put it
Been a pleasure collaborating with you, I hope we get to work together again in the future (after I have spent a few months in the gym  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And geeky hunks
You are starting to sound like Donald Rumsfeld - we will be onto hunky hunks and geeky geeks next
So what is the Geek / Hunk measuring spectrum, and how is geekiness and hunkiness quantified (I know, I know, just proved I am a geek...)
You made a valid point. There should be a measure of geek and hunkness. A sliding scale would work but there would have to be two,one for geek and one for hunk. They could then be used to calculate a man's geekhunkiness
I like the way you are thinking - if we put, say geekiness on the x-axis and hunkiness on the y-axis we could turn the sliding scales into a 2 dimensional representation, with the optimal position being in the top right quadrant highlighting both extreme hunkiness and extreme geekiness....
Anyone (else) getting turned on yet?
They probably are but don't want to admit it. Now,if we could turn the 2-dimensional representation into a 3-dimensional solid,given that our input data is of varying degrees of geek/hunkiness,we could end up with a rather interesting object
I think if we take the distribution of the occurrence of hunks and geeks on Fabs and put that in Z-space on top of the X-Y spatial graph of hunkiness and geekinees, I would posit an an inverse normal distribution with few in the true hunk or true geek extremes. As a 3-dimensional shape it would appear to be a bell shape
I think that's what I had in mind. We could then use a 3D laser printer to produce a finished article of our findings. Just for posterity of course
Perfect - and I would of course be very happy to present it to you for safe keeping - I am sure you have somewhere in mind to put it
Been a pleasure collaborating with you, I hope we get to work together again in the future (after I have spent a few months in the gym "
I will keep it in a very safe place. Gyms are over rated,I wouldn't bother. It's been a pleasure |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm sure everyone here knows that geeks do it beta
... Torn between a laugh and a facepalm  "
So out of my geeky league...even your retort was a binary choice |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And geeky hunks
You are starting to sound like Donald Rumsfeld - we will be onto hunky hunks and geeky geeks next
So what is the Geek / Hunk measuring spectrum, and how is geekiness and hunkiness quantified (I know, I know, just proved I am a geek...)
You made a valid point. There should be a measure of geek and hunkness. A sliding scale would work but there would have to be two,one for geek and one for hunk. They could then be used to calculate a man's geekhunkiness
I like the way you are thinking - if we put, say geekiness on the x-axis and hunkiness on the y-axis we could turn the sliding scales into a 2 dimensional representation, with the optimal position being in the top right quadrant highlighting both extreme hunkiness and extreme geekiness....
Anyone (else) getting turned on yet?
They probably are but don't want to admit it. Now,if we could turn the 2-dimensional representation into a 3-dimensional solid,given that our input data is of varying degrees of geek/hunkiness,we could end up with a rather interesting object
I think if we take the distribution of the occurrence of hunks and geeks on Fabs and put that in Z-space on top of the X-Y spatial graph of hunkiness and geekinees, I would posit an an inverse normal distribution with few in the true hunk or true geek extremes. As a 3-dimensional shape it would appear to be a bell shape
I think that's what I had in mind. We could then use a 3D laser printer to produce a finished article of our findings. Just for posterity of course
Perfect - and I would of course be very happy to present it to you for safe keeping - I am sure you have somewhere in mind to put it
Been a pleasure collaborating with you, I hope we get to work together again in the future (after I have spent a few months in the gym
I will keep it in a very safe place. Gyms are over rated,I wouldn't bother. It's been a pleasure "
The pleasure has been all mine I will find an alternative to gyms to increase my hunkiness quotient - perhaps the F-plan.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How about being a geeky hunk with bed restraints and a magic wand vibrator?  "
...the geek knows how to tie you; the hunk knows what to do with you afterwards  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
