pacino wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax96cghOnY4[/youtube]

jesus christ pacino

/dsp

1 wrote:

pacino wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax96cghOnY4[/youtube]

jesus christ pacino

/dsp

When are people going to learn? Pictures get hung, people get hanged. IT'S BASIC ENGLISH PEOPLE!

asians love honda pilots

Honestly I would bang about 90% of these art school show choir bitches in the sara barellies line

that doesn't read like a 1 post but i like it

Yeah I'm really shocked that I'm at this concert too.

I love that Floppy has hundreds of followers on Twitter watching him take in the loss in his own unique fashion

jerseyhoya wrote:I love that Floppy has hundreds of followers on Twitter watching him take in the loss in his own unique fashion

blows my mind that 900 people follow me.

seriously blows my mind.

and i normally contain myself.

but this wine is so smooth. i cant help myself tonight.

1 wrote:Honestly I would bang about 90% of these art school show choir bitches in the sara barellies line

intended on attending the opening of the doors for this show til i realized the Phils played tonight. down the friggin street from work

ive been listening to the same song for 2 hours.

im going to bed now.

http://soundcloud.com/videogum/del-preston-j-o-r-t-s

friend of mine did that and won Videogum's song contest. probably deservedly.

I get off work at 8 central. I don't think it's worth it to wake up at noon to watch the Eagles.

Barry Jive wrote:

1 wrote:Honestly I would bang about 90% of these art school show choir bitches in the sara barellies line

intended on attending the opening of the doors for this show til i realized the Phils played tonight. down the friggin street from work

i would have taken stealth pictures, but i was with the wife (obviously).

now someone find hot pictures of sara (if they exist)

a: no

This is going to make everyone here really happy.

And by "everyone," I mostly mean jerseyhoya.

edit: the irony of this for me, and I gather for others, is that I've (more than) occasionally turned to booze/weed for a reason related to this--to shut off my spinning brain--yet particularly when I get all Wertz, I really do feel dumber long after I sober up.

It makes so much sense now

dajafi wrote:This is going to make everyone here really happy.

And by "everyone," I mostly mean jerseyhoya.

edit: the irony of this for me, and I gather for others, is that I've (more than) occasionally turned to booze/weed for a reason related to this--to shut off my spinning brain--yet particularly when I get all Wertz, I really do feel dumber long after I sober up.

I already knew I was a smart kid

This board is pretty good confirmation of that, as most here are a standard deviation above the general populace in both IQ and the drinking.

Although that might just be Phillies driven.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:This is going to make everyone here really happy.

And by "everyone," I mostly mean jerseyhoya.

edit: the irony of this for me, and I gather for others, is that I've (more than) occasionally turned to booze/weed for a reason related to this--to shut off my spinning brain--yet particularly when I get all Wertz, I really do feel dumber long after I sober up.

I already knew I was a smart kid

This board is pretty good confirmation of that, as most here are a standard deviation above the general populace in both IQ and the drinking.

Although that might just be Phillies driven.

I'd be interested to find out how large their sample is, as it's not stated. I can't imagine that they'd have very large samples after controlling for "a large number of demographic variables, such as sex, race, ethnicity, religion, marital status, number of children, education, earnings, depression, satisfaction with life, frequency of socialization with friends, number of recent sex partners, childhood social class, mother’s education, and father’s education".

Why does controlling for those things mean they have a smaller sample? It just means they're figuring in those as control variables in their regression.

Some of the qualities are binary, like sex and marital status (yes or no), but others have a lot of responses, like religion. Depending on their samples, the responses to those are much less reliable. Let's say you poll 200 people about their gender, and 101 say male and 99 say female. Then you poll 200 people about their religion. 50 say Catholic, 45 say Protestant, 5 say Scientologist, 10 say atheist, 20 say agnostic, 30 say Jewish, etc. Are you really sure a person's specific religion is a factor? I'm not.

Perhaps they used broad buckets but that still makes the correlation blurry barring a large sample size.