Post: #76

(12-18-2014 06:48 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  Clare has that "girl-next-door" look I like. Reminds me of a lot of the girls back in the day I would totally go for, catch one-itis, and then either fail to approach or somehow ruin my chances with bad game.

There's some resemblance with Jennifer Garner.

Post: #77

(12-18-2014 05:28 PM)kosko Wrote:  Maybe its just my tastes but a girl just has to have something striking about her or overtly feminine. Her eyes, hair, smile, breasts, booty.. something. I don't like middle of the road women as they just look boring as fuck.

Let's be realistic. No-one is going to launch 1000 ships in Adrienne's name.

Would Adrienne inspire your muse? A girl I banged in my 20's was so beautiful I wrote 26 songs about her in the space of two weeks. I banged another girl when I was 21 was so effortlessly-feminine I wrote a 300 page novel in four days hoping to impress her. You might think this is being beta, but there's a classical tradition of beauty inspiring men to great creative heights for thousands of years. The muse is real. C'mon guys, I can't be the only one.

It's hard to explain. Once you've experienced it, you'll understand just how much beauty can inspire the creative process, and I think part of masculinity as you age is about not succumbing to the siren's call of a truly beautiful woman and losing your dominant power over her. Put it into art.

I suspect we have a deep instinctual drive to sacrifice our lives for beauty. Unfortunately, Beta's seem willing to do it for low value, self-mutilating hags. I can't believe all the White Knighting going on for a 5 like Zoe Quinn.

I look at Adrienne, and all I think is:

Post: #78

Clare and no one else. I'd rather fuck Skip than some of these broads :/

Post: #79

(12-18-2014 07:08 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  I'd happily bang them out, but they wouldn't stand out at UW Madison in the least.

The average and median weight of all girls at Harvard will be 30-50 lbs less than at UW Madison. You couldn't have picked a worse school when it comes to land whales man.

USC, ASU, UMiami, FSU, FL, U.AZ sure - but not Madison.

Post: #80

(12-17-2014 04:39 PM)Travesty444 Wrote:  I've gotten the idea now I am a tougher rate. I only give a girl above 7.5 if she has near gorgeous face and great body.

Mary: 7.5
Lucy: 7.3

The only 2 I'd be proud of banging.

All the rest are strong 6's and low 7's in my world.

Extremely poor showing. Girls that work hard in school by and large usually aren't hot.

ehh, you are using santa barbara standards and applying them to nerd girls in boston at an ivy league.

celena, adrienne, and clare could all be 8s or higher, but we cant really see their bodies much in these photos. same for mary really, but i don't like her head tilt.

Post: #81

(12-18-2014 04:51 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  There's an obvious difference: 'Svetlana' is trying to look classicaly-feminine, innocent, submissive and sexually-enticing, whilst Adrienne is dressed in a pantsuit like a middle-aged post-divorce realtor and has awkward, uncomfortable body language in her pose.
...
6.5 seems about right.

I don't care whether a girl is wearing pantsuits from JCPenney or traditional Russian garb. I imagine them naked. I wasn't aware attire played a role in the 1-to-10, what I understood was a physical ranking. In addition...

(12-18-2014 08:05 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  I can't believe all the White Knighting going on for a 5 like Zoe Quinn.

AB, you're one of the best posters on this forum, but when you place this girl:



just 1.5 points above this girl:



your scale needs some calibrating.

Post: #82

(12-18-2014 08:52 PM)floor7 Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 07:08 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  I'd happily bang them out, but they wouldn't stand out at UW Madison in the least.

The average and median weight of all girls at Harvard will be 30-50 lbs less than at UW Madison. You couldn't have picked a worse school when it comes to land whales man.

USC, ASU, UMiami, FSU, FL, U.AZ sure - but not Madison.

I'd add UCSB and maybe FIU to the list, but other than that, I think you listed all the top colleges in terms of girls.

Post: #83

(12-18-2014 08:52 PM)floor7 Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 07:08 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  I'd happily bang them out, but they wouldn't stand out at UW Madison in the least.

The average and median weight of all girls at Harvard will be 30-50 lbs less than at UW Madison. You couldn't have picked a worse school when it comes to land whales man.

USC, ASU, UMiami, FSU, FL, U.AZ sure - but not Madison.

There are plenty of hot chicks at UW.

Are they ALL hot? Of course not. They're not all hot at ASU either, just a higher percentage.

Post: #84

(12-18-2014 08:59 PM)Kamikaze Wrote:  AB, you're one of the best posters on this forum, but when you place this girl:



just 1.5 points above this girl:



your scale needs some calibrating.

Nah, I see Adrienne as an average girl. I'll explain my logic.

I'm thinking of beauty as a classic bell curve distribution in percentage of the population. There aren't equal amounts of each number on the scale. I'll use this IQ graph as explanation:



68% of the female population will strike me as 'average'. This is the 5 to 7 range. You could argue where they fit into the +1 or -1 Standard Deviation from the norm, but the point is, they're the majority of women that I meet and I won't particularly note their beauty or ugliness. They're just there. Sure, some of the 6's and 7's might be worth a bang, but I'm not going to be in awe of their beauty, and I wouldn't regret not banging them.

An extra 28% falls into the +2 to -2 beauty range. This would probably be the 3-4 and 8 ranges. You'd meet these women and be taken aback by their ugliness, or you'd get fired up and kick yourself for not closing.

That's 95% of the population.

The +3 and -3 means an extra 4% of the population would then be exceptionally beautiful or exceptionally ugly. 2's and 9's. 2's are when you'd start feeling pity and empathy. 9's are when I start wanting to conquer nations and sing of their beauty, and have to fight to regain control of my senses, whilst giving off the aura that I'm not in the slightest bit phased or put out by their beauty to girlfriend them up. They're rare enough that 2% of the women I meet I'd put in to that category.

The remaining distribution is the 1's and 10's. Almost mythical.

This is just how my mind works.

Quinn's just on the lower end of average, but her ugliness is largely-self-inflicted. 4.5-5. She could raise herself into average with weight loss and normal hair. Unfortunately, there's plenty of girls around like her.

Post: #85

(12-18-2014 09:52 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 08:52 PM)floor7 Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 07:08 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  I'd happily bang them out, but they wouldn't stand out at UW Madison in the least.

The average and median weight of all girls at Harvard will be 30-50 lbs less than at UW Madison. You couldn't have picked a worse school when it comes to land whales man.

USC, ASU, UMiami, FSU, FL, U.AZ sure - but not Madison.

There are plenty of hot chicks at UW.

Are they ALL hot? Of course not. They're not all hot at ASU either, just a higher percentage.

I went to a Big 10 school for UG - yes there are hot girls, but I'm sorry the median and average weight is atrocious and that's where ivies destroy big 10 schools. Ivies just do not have the same percentage of zaftig women. Not even close. Even many sorority girls at UW and the Big 10 school I went to are fucking plump.

UW-Madison is a good school for a public school education wise though, so I don't have beef with it per se.

And you can't just casually say it is a higher percentage @ ASU. It is magnitudes larger of a number.

And if anything I think the divergence has gotten worse on campuses where elite private schools have become fitter whereas weights have risen in the big 10. Cognitive stratification has been reflected in the weight classes.

Post: #86

Upper class men generally marry attractive women resulting in superior genetics in the offspring that then go off to the Ivy's.

While the melding of genes may not always result in a beautiful face, couples that are in shape generally do not produce kids with a propensity towards being fat. Fat is not all that accepted in the higher social strata.

Classism for the win.

Edit- And yes, I have noticed some sororities are now admitting some overweight girls. Very surprised by this, however it is likely due to outside pressures from the SJW crowd .

Post: #87

(12-18-2014 10:06 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 08:59 PM)Kamikaze Wrote:  AB, you're one of the best posters on this forum, but when you place this girl:



just 1.5 points above this girl:



your scale needs some calibrating.

Nah, I see Adrienne as an average girl. I'll explain my logic.

I'm thinking of beauty as a classic bell curve distribution in percentage of the population. There aren't equal amounts of each number on the scale. I'll use this IQ graph as explanation:



68% of the female population will strike me as 'average'. This is the 5 to 7 range. You could argue where they fit into the +1 or -1 Standard Deviation from the norm, but the point is, they're the majority of women that I meet and I won't particularly note their beauty or ugliness. They're just there. Sure, some of the 6's and 7's might be worth a bang, but I'm not going to be in awe of their beauty, and I wouldn't regret not banging them.

An extra 28% falls into the +2 to -2 beauty range. This would probably be the 3-4 and 8 ranges. You'd meet these women and be taken aback by their ugliness, or you'd get fired up and kick yourself for not closing.

That's 95% of the population.

The +3 and -3 means an extra 4% of the population would then be exceptionally beautiful or exceptionally ugly. 2's and 9's. 2's are when you'd start feeling pity and empathy. 9's are when I start wanting to conquer nations and sing of their beauty, and have to fight to regain control of my senses, whilst giving off the aura that I'm not in the slightest bit phased or put out by their beauty to girlfriend them up. They're rare enough that 2% of the women I meet I'd put in to that category.

The remaining distribution is the 1's and 10's. Almost mythical.

This is just how my mind works.

Quinn's just on the lower end of average, but her ugliness is largely-self-inflicted. 4.5-5. She could raise herself into average with weight loss and normal hair. Unfortunately, there's plenty of girls around like her.

Greatly put. This is how I view it also. Only hot girls move me. There is nothing wrong with a average girl but she is what she is, average. Average women do not light a fire in me.

Most women do self-imposed damage by being fat with bad hair and terrible attitudes which lock them in the basements as 3s and 4s. I am also in the camp that the mass majority of women if thin, healthy, and young with a good attitude are almost all 6s and in the middle as you described. It gets murky when the pool gets tainted and then "average" women are put on a pedastool. You approach one of these average women in a bar and she will give a snarky bitchy vibe because way to many men go after her as a safer bet versus testing it with a way hotter women.

Ugly women are very much the minority. The two quickest ways for a population of women to ruin their looks is rampant obesity and poverty. Those two will plunge women into the basement very quickly. A poor woman will have a small window of being hot from 16-19 to quickly get impregnated then its all downhill for there. You go to the most poor and backwards communities in any country, rich or poor and you will see first hand what I am talking about. The hottest girls in town are in the high school with their environment putting them ahead early to attempt to try and mate and breed with a limited early fading male population around her.

Post: #88

Kosko, with income/wealth pressures and destruction of the middle class in the US, more and more women will get ground down into 3's and 4's.

I also disagree with AB's hypothesis that beauty is normally distributed. I believe currently on the ground (and I think this will become exacerbated) the distribution in the north-eastern US is right-skewed with quasi bi-modality.

So the vast majority are 3's are below, not many 4's-6's, then a spike at 7's/8's with a very sharp tailing off into 9's/10's.

That picture Kamikaze linked up makes me want to add a point to Adrienne's original 7 I assessed.

Post: #89

these girls are all bankable but would not date.

Post: #90

What you look for in a girl/guy: Height & determination.

Damn bitches always wanting height

Post: #91

(12-18-2014 11:33 PM)floor7 Wrote:  So the vast majority are 3's are below, not many 4's-6's, then a spike at 7's/8's with a very sharp tailing off into 9's/10's.

I thought the 1-3 range was facial deformity / disability ugliness.

Post: #92

(12-18-2014 11:59 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 11:33 PM)floor7 Wrote:  So the vast majority are 3's are below, not many 4's-6's, then a spike at 7's/8's with a very sharp tailing off into 9's/10's.

I thought the 1-3 range was facial deformity / disability ugliness.

I'm new to the forum so I'm not sure if there is a general Roosh-scale that acts as basic guidelines.

In the northeast of the US though I do think you are seeing the skew and semi-bimodality play out and I think it'll get worse for the factors mentioned above regarding poverty being a killer on a woman's looks, especially as she ages.

So even if my scale rating numbers are slightly off, I am comfortable in my hypothesis and it's how I view the available pool personally

Post: #93

(12-19-2014 12:12 AM)floor7 Wrote:  I'm new to the forum so I'm not sure if there is a general Roosh-scale that acts as basic guidelines.

There have been many efforts to get guys on the same 1-to-10 page, but all efforts to date have been futile, as evidenced by:
the epic WYB thread;
the confusion that reigned in the thread attempting to define the mythical American 7;
this thread ultimately discrediting the 1-to-10 altogether;
and this thread right now.

The most impressive graphical efforts are the following:





But I prefer Tuthmosis' 1-to-10 ROK article

Tuth Wrote:(skip 0-4)

5: Merely Bangable. Barely passes the boner test. You’d be pretty embarrassed to be seen with her.

6: Almost Cute. She might be cute if one or two things were different, but they’re not. You may not be super-embarrassed to be seen with her, but you certainly wouldn’t be proud, and you definitely wouldn’t willingly bring her around to anything.

7: Solidly Cute. Zero embarrassment, even some nascent pride in being seen with her. You could bring her to things without looking bad, or losing any of the luster on your game.

8: Hot-Cute. Would be straight-up proud to be seen with her and/or bring her to things. This is often the sweet spot for long-term relationship material.

9: Smoking Hot. This is a girl who can easily monetize her beauty. You’re going out of your way to be seen with her.

10: Perfection. A theoretical abstraction that only exists in the laboratory.

All you dudes calling these chicks 6s, by this metric, are saying you wouldn't be proud to be seen with the bitch, and would actively try not to be seen.



By the embarrassment metric, I would go way out of my way to be seen with a few of those chicks, especially the one I've stated my case about.

Of course, we'll never agree on the 1-to-10. But it would be helpful to describe, aside from a number, if you would be proud to be seen with her.

Post: #94

(12-19-2014 12:57 AM)Kamikaze Wrote:  Of course, we'll never agree on the 1-to-10. But it would be helpful to describe, aside from a number, if you would be proud to be seen with her.

OK.

Quote: 6: Almost Cute. She might be cute if one or two things were different, but they’re not. You may not be super-embarrassed to be seen with her, but you certainly wouldn’t be proud, and you definitely wouldn’t willingly bring her around to anything.

6.5 still sounds about right for Adrienne. No mate would ask me if she's a model or a stripper. There's hotter slim blondes with small breasts and long hair out there.

Post: #95

There's some massive big-ballerism and internet goggles in this thread. I believe most of what repped members say, but not when it comes to rating bitches. It's my theory that this is becoming a new form of drug-resistant male hamster. This is why I want to eradicate the numerical rating system altogether. Way too many guys just can't handle it. Dudes literally can't tell the difference between a professional shoot with pro-level makeup, lighting, retouching and raw talent--or an unpolished stone photographed by a sophomore English major with an entry-level SLR and a kit lens. Dudes really can't translate from the 2-D "retina" display on their overpriced hipster MacBook into a 3-D flesh-and-blood woman.

These aren't Victoria Secret models, but what's coming out of some of your mouths just makes you sound ridiculous. You know who you are.

Post: #96

(12-19-2014 12:57 AM)Kamikaze Wrote:  

(12-19-2014 12:12 AM)floor7 Wrote:  I'm new to the forum so I'm not sure if there is a general Roosh-scale that acts as basic guidelines.

There have been many efforts to get guys on the same 1-to-10 page, but all efforts to date have been futile, as evidenced by:
the epic WYB thread;
the confusion that reigned in the thread attempting to define the mythical American 7;
this thread ultimately discrediting the 1-to-10 altogether;
and this thread right now.

The most impressive graphical efforts are the following:





But I prefer Tuthmosis' 1-to-10 ROK article

Tuth Wrote:(skip 0-4)

5: Merely Bangable. Barely passes the boner test. You’d be pretty embarrassed to be seen with her.

6: Almost Cute. She might be cute if one or two things were different, but they’re not. You may not be super-embarrassed to be seen with her, but you certainly wouldn’t be proud, and you definitely wouldn’t willingly bring her around to anything.

7: Solidly Cute. Zero embarrassment, even some nascent pride in being seen with her. You could bring her to things without looking bad, or losing any of the luster on your game.

8: Hot-Cute. Would be straight-up proud to be seen with her and/or bring her to things. This is often the sweet spot for long-term relationship material.

9: Smoking Hot. This is a girl who can easily monetize her beauty. You’re going out of your way to be seen with her.

10: Perfection. A theoretical abstraction that only exists in the laboratory.

All you dudes calling these chicks 6s, by this metric, are saying you wouldn't be proud to be seen with the bitch, and would actively try not to be seen.



By the embarrassment metric, I would go way out of my way to be seen with a few of those chicks, especially the one I've stated my case about.

Of course, we'll never agree on the 1-to-10. But it would be helpful to describe, aside from a number, if you would be proud to be seen with her.

Thanks - yes based on Tuth's scale I am quite comfortable in my assessment. Mary and Adrienne are 8's based on the scale above and Clare 7.5, Celina and Emily 7's, Swetha 6.

I think that's the scale I'm going to use going forward on my time on this forum.

AB - I agree with your point that no mate would ask if Adrienne modeled or stripped. The ones you linked up are 9's - girls that can monetize beauty, something Adrienne could not do unless it was the pages of a fencing magazine.

Post: #97

(12-21-2011 10:59 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  I'm familiar with this part of the US. I drove through and stayed over on recruiting trips in high school.

I was in awe of the area. Never in my life have I seen so many luxury sedans in one place. I swear I may have counted 60-70 E-Class/5-Series sedans in just a day of driving. I might have spotted another 50 Range Rovers. The houses were pristine and the neighborhoods well kept and beautiful. I'd never seen so much wealth in one place.

Later on, I came to realize that I'd in fact driven through some of the wealthiest counties in the United States. Mercer (where Princeton is), Hunterdon, Somerset and Morris counties all cluster together in northern NJ and rank within the top 25 highest income counties in the USA. When you figure in the sheer number of finance/legal professionals who commute from here to NYC and the mass of Fortune 500 and other major firms with a presence in the area, this isn't all that surprising.

Schools in this area are some of the best in the country when it comes to placing their students into the Ivy League, which is another reason why I'm so familiar with it-many of my classmates call this region home.

Why did I bother to tell you all of this? Because it explains why you're seeing so many attractive women there. This class of people (basically the 1% everyone makes so much noise about-household income $250k+, high net worth, etc. Many are WASPs, but not all) has several traits, and fitness is one of them. They don't have an obesity problem, and I suspect their obesity rate approaches the low levels seen in parts of Northern Europe. Women in this class are active, dress well, and stay thin well beyond their prime years. This is simply how its done.

This is why you are not seeing many fat people-were you to venture to Fairfield County, CT or to many of the more elite suburbs around Boston, you'd see the same thing. If you manage to snag a woman from this class (which would take a small miracle if you're not one of them, as I'll explain later), you can reasonably expect her not to balloon later on.

These people live in a very small world-everyone literally knows everybody. Their networks cover the entire country, with hubs in every elite community throughout the US. They go from Fairfield County, Connecticut to Princeton to Chicago's North Shore to La Jolla, CA.

Citizens of this world almost all go to just a few elite schools (Ivy League + NESCAC + Bucknell, Duke, Stanford and a couple of other expensive, well regarded institutions), which only makes it easier for them all to consolidate and network down the line. They tend to socialize with one another mainly (few outsiders make more than superficial contact-they really don't usually want to talk to them) and they also tend to date/procreate with one another exclusively. Networking is very important to this class of people-its all about who you know (and they know everyone worth knowing).

This all keeps the class and looks you're witnessing now at a consistent level generation to generation. They almost never "marry down"-it all stays within a small, elite clique of people nationally, with a little new money occasionally breaking in from generation to generation and providing some new blood.

And that's another thing-these people marry. That whole marriage crisis we talk about (50% divorce rate, declining marriage rates, etc) has only brushed this strata of society. Divorce rates here are much lower than what you'll find in Anytown, USA, perhaps only half the national rate or less.
I have never known my father, or seen him in person. As a student at an Ivy, I can honestly say that I can't think of any one of my thousands of peers with similar stories to tell, whereas I knew dozens back in my hometown. A couple (relatively few compared to others) have dealt with divorces over time, but that's about it. Almost everyone in this world has two-parents in their lives, usually together.

What this means for you: The vast majority of the girls you run into will come from very stable, affluent two-parent homes, with decent (often good-looking, successful and wealthy) father figures to look up to. This means fewer outright easy sluts (they'll exist, but be much rarer) and more relatively conservative, LTR minded chicks than average. They'll sleep around/hook-up sometimes (especially in college, obviously), but only with other men of their strata who are "vetted"(read: one of them), men who often more closely resemble the men in their families (particularly their fathers) who they've grown up around. These guys will also be potential marriage candidates later.

That brings me to my last, general point: These chicks are tougher nuts to crack, especially if you aren't one of them. They may slut around with other men from their strata of society with status, but they'll play much harder to get with others on average, going from enthusiastic to cold turkey instantly. In their small world, reputation is very important. Discretion is extremely important. They have little interest in mixing it up with outsiders, and will often restrain themselves from doing so even if they actually want you deep down. Don't try to fake belonging either-they will know when you're not one of them.

The hottest girls within this world don't frequent any of the Ivies in numbers. Most of those will head to Duke, BC, BU, UVA, Vandy and some of the NESCAC schools, so you won't often run into the cream of their crop at Princeton. Princeton has one of the less favorable gender ratios in the league (47-53 Male-Female, last I checked), which will make them even tougher to crack (lots of competition for you-even the merely cute 7s or 8s there will likely have entire male athletic teams making passes at them, and I am not exaggerating).
And, as I said before, these people do not like outsiders (read: men who lack the wealth/breeding/pedigree often inherent to the 1%).

And, as Skyhigh added before me, these girls are smart-they study a lot. That will further limit your opportunities to get to them.

Exceptions to these rules exist. I know of a girl from this part of the country at my school who married a working class guy while still in college(she's currently a senior) and had his child. She's pretty too.
These girls who just don't give a fuck and disregard the norms of their class for the sake of their own desires exist, but you'll need to do lots of digging for them.

That being said, if you're there, give it a shot. I'll wish you lots of luck-you will absolutely need it. Make sure your game is entirely on point if you want a good chance-the bar will be set very high for you.

From the princeton, nj thread in travel section from a few years ago. - bang on with these type of hamsters I started the thread on.

Post: #98

(12-19-2014 03:35 AM)floor7 Wrote:  From the princeton, nj thread in travel section from a few years ago. - bang on with these type of hamsters I started the thread on.

You seems to know a lot about the forum for a guy with only 31 posts.

   

Post: #99

(12-19-2014 02:17 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Dudes literally can't tell the difference between a professional shoot with pro-level makeup, lighting, retouching and raw talent--or an unpolished stone photographed by a sophomore English major with an entry-level SLR and a kit lens. Dudes really can't translate from the 2-D "retina" display on their overpriced hipster MacBook into a 3-D flesh-and-blood woman.

These aren't Victoria Secret models, but what's coming out of some of your mouths just makes you sound ridiculous. You know who you are.

My time has come.

Given that I'm always pointing out SIF tactics and obvious Photoshop enhancements in threads - note the lighter portions of the second girl's lower abdomen that I posted - I'm well-aware of the camera's capacity to lie, but can still extrapolate a fairly-accurate guess of what I'm seeing from a studio photo, particularly as my father was a professional photographer in the 60's and 70's, favouring the female form. I'm guessing Dad understood the muse.

A large part of my childhood involved sneaking into his studio, finding his drawer keys, then sneaking peeks at arty B&W photos of 70's bush. I was pre-sexual, but I knew what I liked. This meant I then had to fake seeing them for the first time a few years later, when he figured I was 'old enough' to see them.

All of this resulted in me understanding lighting and composition enough to be a damn good photographer myself, and knowing the classic in-camera tricks to enhance female looks.

So, with 43 years of observing beauty, I can testify that girls as beautiful as my examples do exist in reality - usually younger ones with superior hair and makeup knowledge, though more in the 70's and 80's than now, when healthier diets and exercise were more common. This is the potential that exists in women, if they could be bothered raising themselves, rather than the debasement of beauty that is in fashion.

If a disagreement in subjective taste of Beauty makes me a big baller troll, then it is what it is, so I'll accept my exile. I honestly don't think Adrienne is noteworthy enough to be worth falling on my sword for, so it's ironic that I just did.

I'll take my statement to my grave: Average looks. Far, far from a Homeric Ideal of Beauty. Ugly Robin Williams smile. 6.5.

Thanks, guys. Keep fighting the good fight.

Post: #100

(12-19-2014 04:06 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(12-19-2014 03:35 AM)floor7 Wrote:  From the princeton, nj thread in travel section from a few years ago. - bang on with these type of hamsters I started the thread on.

You seems to know a lot about the forum for a guy with only 31 posts.

I came across the Princeton thread as I was exploring the site considering I posted recently in one of the SD threads in that section. Found it relevant.